|
---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML22348A0322022-11-30030 November 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Request to Resume Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for Decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 ML22348A0532022-11-30030 November 2022 NRC to National Marine Fisheries Service (Nmfs), Request to Resume Endangered Species Act Consultation for Decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 ML22278A0182022-10-0404 October 2022 (SONGS) Unit 2 Reactor Head and Closure of Commitments Related to Peaceful Use of Foreign Technology- Acknowledge Receipt ML22265A2122022-09-22022 September 2022 Request for Additional Information for Exemption Request from 100m 72.106(B) Requirement, Docket Nos 50-206, 50-361, and 50-362 ML22119A2422022-04-29029 April 2022 Riv FOLLOW-UP Response: Question About April 11 San Onofre Event ML22034A9962022-02-0202 February 2022 S. Morris Response to C. Langley-Questions About Moving Snf at San Onfre ML21280A1022021-12-0606 December 2021 NRC to NMFS, Supplement to Request to Reinitiate Endangered Species Act Consultation for San Onofre Decommissioning ML21277A2342021-09-30030 September 2021 NMFS to NRC, Receipt of Request to Reinitiate Endangered Species Act Consultation for San Onofre Decommissioning ML21242A0602021-09-30030 September 2021 NRC to NMFS, Request to Initiate Consultation for SONGS Decommissioning ML21117A3492021-03-30030 March 2021 March 30, 2021, Email from Public Watchdogs on Providing New Information to Its October 13, 2020, 2.206 Petition ML21069A2482021-03-10010 March 2021 Umax, 07200054, 05000361, 05000362, FSAR Revision 4 for San Onofre ISFSI ML21068A2712021-03-0909 March 2021 Request for Additional Information Regarding Biological Opinion - SONGS- EPID L-2021-LLL-0006 ML20343A1292020-12-0808 December 2020 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information ML20302A3252020-10-21021 October 2020 E-Mail: Acknowledgement of Receipt to the Petitioner Regarding SCE Use of Hi-Storm at SONGS ML20233A7342020-08-18018 August 2020 LTR-20-0313 David Victor, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Community Engagement Panel, Chair, Et Al., Letter Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Security at SONGS and Recent SONGS Community Engagement Panel Meeting on O ML20224A0172020-08-0707 August 2020 8-7-20 Corrected Hearing Time - Intervenor SCEs Acknowledgement of Oral Argument Notice (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899) ML20224A0182020-08-0707 August 2020 8-7-20 Intervenor SCEs Acknowledgement of Oral Argument Notice (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899) ML20204B0782020-07-22022 July 2020 Donna Gilmore Email Holtec Umax Materials (07200054, 05000361, 05000362) ML20198M4522020-07-15015 July 2020 Supplement to Public Watchdogs 2.206 Petition ML20163A3402020-05-0505 May 2020 Email Transmission - Peaceful Use Commitments State Dept for SONGS Rx Heads and Steam Generators ML20120A0282020-04-28028 April 2020 4-28-20 Notice of Addition of James Adler as Attorney for NRC (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899) ML20076A5742020-03-11011 March 2020 Response to A.Mcnally San Onofre Canisters (LTR-20-0003) ML20062F5762020-02-28028 February 2020 Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition - NRC E-mail to Petitioner Regarding Petition Screening Results February 28, 2020 ML20063M3092020-02-28028 February 2020 Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition - Response from Petitioner to NRC E-mail Regarding Petition Screening Results, February 28, 2020 ML20059M2292020-02-25025 February 2020 OEDO-20-00053 2.206 Petition - Flooding Likely to Create Radioactive Geysers at SONGS ML20049A0802020-02-14014 February 2020 Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition - E-mail to Petitioner on Immediate Actions Request Determination February 14, 2020 ML20007E5342020-01-0606 January 2020 Oceansiders Initial Assessment & Public Meeting Response E-Mail ML20006D7012019-12-23023 December 2019 Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition SONGS - Petitioner Request for Public Meeting and NRC Response - December 23, 2019 ML19354B6762019-12-20020 December 2019 2.206 Petition Initial Assessment Notification E-Mail ML19325C5902019-11-20020 November 2019 2.206 Petition Status Notification Email ML19326B2392019-11-18018 November 2019 Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition SONGS - Screened-in and PRB November 18, 2019 ML19319B6262019-11-0808 November 2019 Oceansiders 2.206 Petition Immediate Action Response E-Mail ML19326A7122019-10-30030 October 2019 Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition - SONGS Receipt of Exhibits October 30, 2019 ML19326A9692019-10-25025 October 2019 Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition - SONGS Immediate Action Determination October 25, 2019 ML19326A3602019-10-23023 October 2019 Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition - SONGS First E-mail to Petitioner October 23, 2019 ML19284B3232019-10-0808 October 2019 Response LTR-19-0351 Kalene Walker, E-mail Concerns About Critical Safety Problems with Holtec Nuclear Waste Storage System at San Onofre ML19344C7842019-09-0303 September 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 09-03-2019 RSCS ML19344C7212019-08-30030 August 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 08-30-2019 J Steinmetz ML19217A1862019-08-0202 August 2019 E-Mail from M. Layton/Nrc to K. Walker/Public San Onofre - SONGS Special Inspection - Damaged Canisters ML19214A1362019-08-0202 August 2019 Riv Pao Response to Mr. Langley Response to Inquiry ML19221B4122019-07-30030 July 2019 Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Nuclear Generating Station, E-mail from Charles Langley to Scott Morris, NRC, Redundant Drop Protection Features at SONGS ML19213A1072019-07-29029 July 2019 Reply to Mr. Langley Re. Redundant Drop Protection Feature at SONGS ML19210D4292019-07-29029 July 2019 E-Mail from M. Layton/Nrc to D. Gilmore/Public Reply to E-Mail Questions ML19210D4342019-07-11011 July 2019 Curtiss-Wright SAS - 10 CFR Part 21 Reporting of Defects for Introl Positioner 890265-010 ML19190A0432019-06-28028 June 2019 Discusses Proprietary Information for Curtiss-Wright SAS - 10 CFR Part 21 Reporting of Defects for Introl Positioner 890265-010 - Cw SAS Initial Report No. 10CFR21-48 ML19165A1102019-06-11011 June 2019 SONGS Webinar (6-3-2019) Message - Sarah Akerson ML19190A0442019-06-0707 June 2019 10 CFR Part 21 Reporting of Defects for Introl Positioner 890265-010 - Cw SAS Initial Report No. 10CFR21-48 ML19158A4432019-06-0404 June 2019 Southern California Edison Company; Scratches on Nuclear Storage Canisters at San Onofre Pose No Problems, NRC Says After Its Own Analysis - Orange County Register ML19156A1422019-06-0404 June 2019 LTR-19-0218 Donna Gilmore, Sanonofresafety.Org, E-mail Scratches on Nuclear Storage Canisters at San Onofre ML19158A1312019-05-31031 May 2019 Paragon Energy Systems LLC -10 CFR Part 21 Report of Defect GS2 Terry Turbine Introl Positioners 2022-09-22
[Table view] |
Text
Wright, Darlene From: r johnson [r66nj@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 6:54 PM To: CHAIRMAN Resource
Subject:
public comment on San Onofre from local resident
Dear Dr. Macfarlane,
I have admired the skill with which you have guided the NRC in the last few months. But I fear that like the previous chair you might be outvoted by the other commissioners.
Your slow, careful, and concerned approach is appreciated.
But we all wonder if it is the same old style of the NRC appearing to be concerned about public safety ("Protecting People and the Environment").
Traditionally the NRC ends up taking the risky alternatives which favor the nuclear industry at the expense of public safety. In order to justify this, the NRC hides behind endless rules and regulations and concludes that if regulations are followed then the plants must be safe. Living in San Clemente, I am naturally concerned about San Onofre. I note that yesterday the Kewaunee plant decided to close, and it seems logical to me that Edison should close San Onofre for many of the same reasons. This is a good time to decommission since decommissioning costs are rising by 8-9% a year. Older facilities no longer have experts who thoroughly know the history of the plant. The cost of fixing a broken plant like San Onofre might be prohibitive, and Crystal River discovered.
Letting broken plants like San Onofre to remain open seems dangerous and irresponsible.
As Edison struggles to fulfill your procedures, let me give just a few examples to illustrate that following NRC procedures does not lead to safety. First, San Onofre is required to have an evacuation plan, which it does. But it is not required to have an evacuation plan that will work. The GAO now says it can't work. If you were really interested in safety, you would close plants in highly populated areas where evacuation is impossible.
Second, Edison is allowed to discharge radioactive waste into the air and ocean as long as it is within "permissible" limits (based on ALARA). It is not required to stay within safe limits. Its atmospheric releases blow right over densely populated areas (the prevailing winds blow inland). The ocean discharges start only 1000 ft out from a very popular swimming and surfing state beach. There are reportedly lots of surfers with cancer. The marine life has been devastated in spite of mitigation efforts. In 2011 Edison made 215 ocean discharges averaging 2.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> each totaling 517.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />. Including the atmospheric releases they discharged 1,400 Ci into a densely populated area. (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docsiML1211/ML12118A098.pdf Third, you can say that Edison followed your procedures when replacing the steam generators.
But the procedures didn't work and are full of loop holes which favor the industry.
Your procedures allowed them to make major and unsafe modifications and they were able to do it in such a way as to bypass thorough and public oversight.
Fourth, San Onofre sits on an active fault, something that the NRA in Japansays they will not allow. Why is something judged unsafe in Japan judged safe in the U.S.? In all the NRC public hearings over San Onofre, the NRC and Edison have carefully avoided any safety considerations related to seismology.
Being a geologist, you must be sensitive to this issue. Why does no one else at the NRC care? You should close all plants sitting on active faults. Fifth, the NRC has completely ignored terrorist threats, a major safety concern for San Onofre. A few weeks ago North Korea displayed target maps for its new long range missiles and southern California is one of the main targets. They don't even need a nuclear missile because thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste are stored right here. Nuclear weapons designer Ted Taylor once said that it is easy to turn a nuclear power plant into a nuclear weapon. The Sandia National Labs has stated that even a medium sized conventional explosive outside the perimeter could disable vital 1
- reactor systems and possibly lead to a meltdown.
The waste stored here 500 feet from an interstate highway has the radioactive equivalent of 1000 Hiroshima bombs. No one is connecting the dots: the San Onofre domes are the twin towers of the West Coast. So where is all the concern for safety? You have a long list of legitimate safety issues which are not being addressed.
It is not just Edison's San Onofre which is being judged: it is the NRC which is being judged. Is this a legitimate regulatory agency protecting the public or is it an agency dedicated to protecting the nuclear industry?
Shutting San Onofre would demonstrate that the NRC is doing its job. Permitting it to remain open would be proof that it is failing the public. Sincerely, Roger Johnson, Professor San Clemente, May 2