Letter Sequence Other |
---|
|
|
MONTHYEARML12335A3462012-10-25025 October 2012 Print Screen of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012 - Species by County Report: Rhea and Meigs Counties, Tn Project stage: Request ML12335A3492012-10-25025 October 2012 Print Screen of TDEC 2012 Division of Natural Areas Re Rare Species by County Rhea/Meigs Project stage: Request ML12335A3512012-10-29029 October 2012 Print Screen of TDEC 2012 Division of Natural Areas Re Piney Falls Class II Natural - Scientific State Natural Area Project stage: Request ML12335A3522012-10-29029 October 2012 Print Screen of TDEC 2012 Division of Natural Areas Re Stinging Fork Falls Class II Natural - Scientific State Natural Area Project stage: Request ML13080A3662013-03-18018 March 2013 Enclosure 1, Summer 2010 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall Passive Mixing Zone Project stage: Request ML13080A3632013-03-18018 March 2013 Enclosure 3, Summer 2011 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall Passive Mixing Zone Project stage: Request ML13144A0392013-05-0202 May 2013 Comment (329) of Donald E. Mosier Opposing the No Significant Hazards Consideration for the License Amendment Application from Southern California Edison Proposing the Restart of the San Onofre Unit 2 Station Project stage: Other ML13144A0922013-05-31031 May 2013 NUREG-0498 Supp 2 Vol 1 Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (Final Report) Project stage: Request ML13221A4012013-09-27027 September 2013 FRN of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Extension of Construction Permit Project stage: Other ML13221A3342013-09-27027 September 2013 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Extension of Construction Permit Project stage: Other ML13326A0922013-11-21021 November 2013 Order for Extension of Construction Permit Project stage: Other 2013-03-18
[Table View] |
|
---|
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
RULES AND DIRECTIVES BRANCH USNqC May2, 2013 2 AY 21 AM 9:31 Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, RECFIVED Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, e(Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Re: Docket ID NRC-2013-0070
Dear NRC Staff:
I am writing to express my opposition to the "No Significant Hazards Consideration" for the license amendment application from Southern California Edison proposing to restart Unit 2 at SONGS at 70% power. I am a scientist at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA, and a trained pathologist with experience in radiation exposure.
I wish to comment on the findings necessary to support the NSHC determination.
- 1. "involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated";
The design flaws that led to fluid elastic instability and in-plane tube vibrations in the unit 3 steam generator are also present in unit 2. SCE's own analysis cites a high probability of tube failure if unit 2 were operated at 100% power. The reduction in risk by operating at 70% is unknown.2. "create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated":
The extent of tube damage in unit 2 is unprecedented given it's short time in operation.
In plane tube vibration is also unprecedented, and tube support plates were not designed to prevent this effect. The probability of cascading tube failure and loss of cooling capacity has to be considered.
- 3. "involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety"; One tube failure in unit 3 was a significant warning sign. The possibility of multiple tube failures in unit 2 does pose a significant reduction in the margin of safety for the 8.5 million residents within 50 miles of SONGS.We now appreciate that low level radiation doses are more dangerous than thought in the past, and that concentration of cesium and iodine in the food chain followed by human ingestion is a much more dangerous form of exposure than airborne radionuclides encountered shortly after an accident.
For example, cesium levels in fish offshore of Fukushima remain very high (up to 25,000 Bq/kg) up to a year after the March 2011 disaster (1). Thus, any release of significant amounts of radiation from SONGS would have both immediate and long-term consequences, including an increased incidence of cancers associated with radiation exposure such as leukemias and thyroid cancer.SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= B. Benney (bjb) w t," As a research physician who performs studies with human subjects, I am very familiar with the risk:benefit analysis that is used by Institutional Review Boards to evaluate any research involving human subjects.
The risks must be minimal even if the benefits to the population are potentially large. The same criteria should be applied to this request to restart unit 2. The risk of harm to the large local population is not worth the benefit of the 700 mW of energy to be produced.
And the analogy is not flawed, because the restart proposal is an experiment to determine how serious further tube damage will be under the reduced power option, an experiment with an unknown outcome.I urge you to deny the license amendment request and proceed with the ongoing investigation of the faulty steam generator design that led to SONGS suspending operation in January 2012.Yours sincerely, Donald E. Mosier, PhD, MD 1. Buesseler, K.O., 2012. Ecology. Fishing for answers off Fukushima.
Science 338, 480-482.