|
|
Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:}} | | {{#Wiki_filter:Page 1 of 2 RULES AND {DIRECTNES BRANCH (I " N-1 DrAs of: May 14, 2013 Received: |
| | May 11, 2013 Status: PendingPost PUBLIC SUBM ISSION 0MAY 4 PM X: 37 Tracking No. ljx-859x-bosg Comments Due: May 16, 201.Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2013-0070 RFCFI\/FD Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving P-foposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Comment On: NRC-2013-0070-0001 Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Document: |
| | NRC-2013-0070-DRAFT-0045 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-08888 3 Submitter Information Name: Grace van Thillo Address: 120 Avenida San Pablo San Clemente, CA, 92672 General Comment For the SAFETY of 8.4 + million southern Californians and the California ECONOMY, a public hearing MUST TAKE PLACE re: San Onofre nuclear plant's known replacement steam generator DESIGN FLAWS and FABRICATION CHANGES before any restart consideration. |
| | Mitsubishi (MHI) disclosures about the defective RSGs that Congressional, GAO and state entities are scrutinizing; plus, the global nuclear industry's admission during your NRC meetings of San Onofre RSG's unprecedented tube wear and integrity issues, ALL reveal the sane and safe course of actions which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission MUST TAKE.The NRC must reject Edison's unacceptable license amendment and no significant hazard consideration requests.The NRC must ensure that Edison undergoes the appropriate, thorough license amendment process for the multiple areas of noncompliance with their operating license, that all relevant investigations are completed, and that public hearings on these requests are held before any decision on a license amendment or restart proposal is made.Senator Boxer asked the NRC to complete comprehensive investigations and provide full opportunity for public participation with independent expert testimony. |
| | The NRC ignored the requests of Senator Boxer and we the public, by announcing the "preliminary finding" that a San Onofre restart at 70 percent power posed no significant safety risk. .6L ,.-- , h t p : / w w f m6/gert5/https ://www.fdms. |
| | gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?obj ectld=090000648 12de522&for... |
| | 05/14/2013 Page 2 of 2 The NRC MUST REJECT Edison's EXPERIMENTAL restart plans of defective San Onofre Unit 2 nuclear reactor. DO NOT approve a REDUCTION in safety standards!! |
| | That's moving in the opposite direction from transparency and lessons learned!NRC investigations are continuing to uncover on-going San Onofre plant issues, added to Unit 3's continued shut-down and imminent decommissioning that all heighten stress to Edison International's management and SCE plant operations, which in turn ALL further compromise San Onofre nuclear plant's SAFETY. Public hearings are essential! |
| | https://www. |
| | fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?obj ectld=09000064812de522&for... |
| | 05/14/2013}} |
Latest revision as of 14:15, 1 August 2018
|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML20161A0122020-06-0808 June 2020 Comment (48) of Martin Kral on Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project ML20115E5482020-04-24024 April 2020 Comment (23) of Pam and Greg Nelson on Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project ML18155A3262018-06-0404 June 2018 Comment (49) of Eva M. O'Keefe on Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste Scoping Study ML18158A1872018-06-0101 June 2018 Comment (51) of Gayle Smith Concerning Nuclear Waste in San Onofre Research and Action Is Needed to Protect the Public ML18158A1862018-05-29029 May 2018 Comment (50) of Joanna Mathews Concerning San Onofre Nuclear Station to Find a Permanent Solution for the Nuclear Waste ML18155A3252018-05-29029 May 2018 Comment (48) of Quentin De Bruyn Opposing to San Onofre Waste Situation ML18066A5612018-03-0707 March 2018 Comment (161) of Matt Collins Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5552018-03-0707 March 2018 Comment (157) of Kathleen Morris Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5582018-03-0707 March 2018 Comment (159) of Anonymous on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5292018-01-22022 January 2018 Comment (140) of Patricia Martz Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5262018-01-22022 January 2018 Comment (139) of Abell Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5252018-01-22022 January 2018 Comment (138) of Michelle Schumacher Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5532018-01-22022 January 2018 Comment (155) of Jan Boudart on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5302018-01-16016 January 2018 Comment (141) of Erin Koch on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5322018-01-10010 January 2018 Comment 142 of Dave Rice on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5372018-01-0808 January 2018 Comment (146) of Carey Strombotne on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5392018-01-0404 January 2018 Comment 147 of Phoebe Sorgen on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5512018-01-0303 January 2018 Comment (153) of Alexander Bay Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5562018-01-0303 January 2018 Comment (158) of Lee Mclendon Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5492018-01-0303 January 2018 Comment (152) of Shari Horne Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5242018-01-0303 January 2018 Comment (137) of Joseph Gildner Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5962018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (60) of Matthew Stein Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1932018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (44) of Mha Atma S. Khalsa Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5952018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (59) of Chelsea Anonymous Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1952018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (45) of T. Strohmeier on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5932018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (57) of Patrick Bosold Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5702018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (56) of Katya Gaynor on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5692018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (55) of Robert Hensley on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5672018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (54) of Angela Sarich Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1972018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (46) of Cheryl Harding Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5632018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (52) of Viraja Prema on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5622018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (51) of Larisa Stow-Norman Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A4982018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (66) of Nancy Alexander Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A4962018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (65) of Lorna Farnun Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A2002018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (49) of Starr Cornwall Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1992018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (48) of Daryl Gale on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6822018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (94) of Jennifer Quest on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1922018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (43) of Frances Howard Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6992018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (108) from Anonymous Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities; Request for Comment on Draft NUREG ML18037A6972018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (107) of Diana Dehm on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6922018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (104) of Ari Marsh on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6912018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (103) Christina Koppisch Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities; Request for Comment on Draft NUREG ML18037A6902018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (102) of Helen Hanna on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6892018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (100) of Cindy Koch Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6882018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (101) Angela Ravenwood Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities; Request for Comment on Draft NUREG ML18037A6872018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (99) of Melissa Brizzie Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18036A1912018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (72) of J. C. Chernicky Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6812018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (93) of Ricardo Toro Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6802018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (92) of Stan Weber Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18036A2082018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (89) of B. Grace on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities 2020-06-08
[Table view] |
Text
Page 1 of 2 RULES AND {DIRECTNES BRANCH (I " N-1 DrAs of: May 14, 2013 Received:
May 11, 2013 Status: PendingPost PUBLIC SUBM ISSION 0MAY 4 PM X: 37 Tracking No. ljx-859x-bosg Comments Due: May 16, 201.Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2013-0070 RFCFI\/FD Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving P-foposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Comment On: NRC-2013-0070-0001 Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Document:
NRC-2013-0070-DRAFT-0045 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-08888 3 Submitter Information Name: Grace van Thillo Address: 120 Avenida San Pablo San Clemente, CA, 92672 General Comment For the SAFETY of 8.4 + million southern Californians and the California ECONOMY, a public hearing MUST TAKE PLACE re: San Onofre nuclear plant's known replacement steam generator DESIGN FLAWS and FABRICATION CHANGES before any restart consideration.
Mitsubishi (MHI) disclosures about the defective RSGs that Congressional, GAO and state entities are scrutinizing; plus, the global nuclear industry's admission during your NRC meetings of San Onofre RSG's unprecedented tube wear and integrity issues, ALL reveal the sane and safe course of actions which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission MUST TAKE.The NRC must reject Edison's unacceptable license amendment and no significant hazard consideration requests.The NRC must ensure that Edison undergoes the appropriate, thorough license amendment process for the multiple areas of noncompliance with their operating license, that all relevant investigations are completed, and that public hearings on these requests are held before any decision on a license amendment or restart proposal is made.Senator Boxer asked the NRC to complete comprehensive investigations and provide full opportunity for public participation with independent expert testimony.
The NRC ignored the requests of Senator Boxer and we the public, by announcing the "preliminary finding" that a San Onofre restart at 70 percent power posed no significant safety risk. .6L ,.-- , h t p : / w w f m6/gert5/https ://www.fdms.
gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?obj ectld=090000648 12de522&for...
05/14/2013 Page 2 of 2 The NRC MUST REJECT Edison's EXPERIMENTAL restart plans of defective San Onofre Unit 2 nuclear reactor. DO NOT approve a REDUCTION in safety standards!!
That's moving in the opposite direction from transparency and lessons learned!NRC investigations are continuing to uncover on-going San Onofre plant issues, added to Unit 3's continued shut-down and imminent decommissioning that all heighten stress to Edison International's management and SCE plant operations, which in turn ALL further compromise San Onofre nuclear plant's SAFETY. Public hearings are essential!
https://www.
fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?obj ectld=09000064812de522&for...
05/14/2013