ML14353A263
| ML14353A263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/2014 |
| From: | San Clemente Green |
| To: | Macfarlane A M NRC/Chairman |
| AMT | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14353A264 | List: |
| References | |
| LTR-14-0719 | |
| Download: ML14353A263 (19) | |
Text
CHAIRMAN Resource From: Sent: To:
Subject:
i IJ Like San Clemente Green <gary@sanclementegreen.org>
Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:26 PM CHAIRMAN Resource Prolonged storage of nuclear waste near Laguna meets stiff opposition.
San Clemente Green Citizens for a Sustainable Future Last Tuesday night, with an overflow crowd, the Laguna Beach City Council voted unanimously to adopt the Resolution against storing nuclear waste at San Onofre indefinitely.
They even took it a step further and added stronger language.
You can watch the entire discussion at this link from 1:40:00 to 2:13:00. We were pleasantly surprised by Edison's comments, (starting at 1:43:20).
They were "fundamentally in agreement" with the Resolution.
Tom Palmisano stated that "local voices were very important".
He said that they would work with the public to pressure the Department of Energy, the Senate and House and other elected officials, to establish interim and permanent nuclear waste storage sites ASAP. Edison will be responsible for the safe and secure storage of nuclear waste at San Onofre until the DOE comes to take it away, so their position is understandable.
What is unclear at this time is how they define "safe and secure". Our definition is best described in this document which goes into much greater detail than a Resolution could contain, but provides clear guidelines to refer to. This historic step forward could not have been possible without the efforts of local activists getting the process going, (Rita Conn and Mami Magda in particular).
Similar actions are planned for other communities.
Please let us know if you are interested in getting your town to follow suit. Finally, I'd like to commend the Laguna Beach City Council for acting in such a responsible manner. They listened appreciatively to the people they represent and acted accordingly.
I only wish our own City Council had done the same. 1
- * *-------Forward this email San Clemente Green San Onofre Safety (SOS) This email was sent to chairman@nrc.gov by gary@sanclementegreen.org Update Profile/Email Address Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe'M Privacy Policy. San Clemente Green 2837 Penasco 2837 Penasco San Clemente CA 92673 2 The San Clemente City Council recently adopted a resolution (see Attachment
- 2) reiterating its previous request to the Department of Energy to move forward with creating a permanent repository for the spent nuclear fuel.
WHEREAS, the City of Laguna Beach is located outside of the 1 0-mile radius mandated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for emergency evacuation planning and is not included in San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) nuclear release accident evacuation planning and practice drills; and WHEREAS, in June 2013, Southern California Edison submitted notice of its 1 SECTION 2. The City of Laguna Beach does not support long-term or indefinite storage of spent nuclear fuel at SONGS, and formally requests that federal representatives coordinate with the appropriate agencies to take whatever regulatory action necessary to identifY a safe and secure interim location in an unpopulated area to store SONGS' spent nuclear fuel. 2 -*
ATTEST: City Clerk I, LISETTE CHEL-WALKER, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. :XXX:XXX was duly adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of said City held on December 16, 2014, by the following vote: * .3 WHEREAS, Congress assigned to the Energy Department the task of creating an underground repository for nuclear waste as a result of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which has yet to be completed; and WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente requests that SCE and the NRC enst,!re that public remains paramount during the dry cask storage process of spent nuclear fuel; and Section 4. The City e>f San Gfemente supports Semrte Eii.ll &4:326. Section 5. The City of San Clemente supports the State of California's 1976 Moratorium.on New Nuclear Power Plant Development.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward certified copies of this resolution to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Edison, Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressman Oarrelllssa, and San Clemente's surrounding cities. Section 7. The City Cieri<. shall t() the passage and aoopticm of this resolution and
- . . .
Nos$: ABSENT: *. *... . ::." *:.-*:-.*:-:::
- ... * ******** .... *. / \
i;i*******
DONCHAK. HAMM.
.*. Nof\11: EVERT VV .**
S V\fHEREOF, .I he,reuJ)k;.o set my haA.&n. d .. affixed the I. s ..*..
t.P J the C1ty ofSan Clemente, Cahfom1a, thts t7;.'0 day of . *
- V> * * * * * * * * . if;,/¥ . Approved as to fonn: .* .. **.**.*** .
....... *.*.**** . . .. *. ....
> > ... * .. / .CITY CLERK of the City of V'San Clemente, California To amend the At.onrlC!
Energy Act pf 19M t() provjqe t'or
"\\fith iliAA!
or arid an4 th¢ appri)vaLo:f decommissioning actiVities pof1B b;Ythe IN 'l'HE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY 13, 2014 Mr. SAI\'DERS (for himself, Mrs. BoXER, and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the lowing bill; whieh was read twice and referred to the Committee on ronment and Public Works A BILL 9A--62 5 t1le follolVi!lm . 6 "SEC. 113.
DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVI* 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :'::=.::*:*:*
.... *::_*.*:*.:.:
.. :.:::.::-:
- -.*::.
- .* . (a) this section: "(1) AFFECTED STATE.-The term 'affected State' triean.s-**
- * "(A) the host State of a covered facility; and "(B) each State that is within 50 miles of a covered facility.
"(2) ComnSSION.-.
The term 9A-63 4 *.***Of title 1 o, bride Of S eral (or *anY 6 "(b) li-. . . :: *. . . 7 deVei()J>
a J?SpAR, '(or a c()vered fa:-8 cilit; 9 "(1) each affected State; and 10 (2) each unit of local government and tribal 11 government in the affected State that is located 12 within 50 miles of the covered facility.
13 "(c) SUBMISSION TO COMMISSION; ADDITIONAL CON-14 SUJ,TATION.-
15 "(1) IN additional consulta-16. . tt()n w,ith iJ:l
(})) ****************.****t:?:***.****:
...... * .. *
.** .. **** * ..
.. *** ..
- ... *: .. **:::**.::;:
... : . .-*:-. ; :*.: : *.:**.::;*::,::::::....:
... :. *:.:**:: .. :.-:,:..:*:
.. :-:."**,: *, * . . ZP ...
..... Zl .*
- oK. ;we. *: proj)t>$e4
.. * .. *****22*******
- *
- 23.*********
.... * ..........
... *.* ... * ...........
- .*. **
- 24 .*xi{
". . . .. <*.** .. . . . . . .
- . * . .. *(d) tt pf tl,t ..... *.* ... ** .. * ... *:.* ... * ...... * .. * .........
- . . . . .. "*. .* .. . 6 90 days o,11*.ihe date on the**.licensee 7
- . the .to th,e 1ln:4er 8 subsection (c). the Commission shall solicit public partici-9 pation on the proposed PSDAR in the State, includ-1 o ill.g through-****
.. -.:.
5 "(2)
OF OR 6 SUPPORT; TO 7
- m lf th9 h()st .Stfl.w flies 8 a statement of support under paragraph (l)(.A), 9 a statement of nonsupport under paragraph 10 (1)(0), or to file a with the 11 Commission by the deadline specified in 12 graph (1), the Commission shall issue a deter-13 mination on whether the proposed PSDAR is 14 adequate or inadequate-IS "(i) based on. the considerations de .. 22 ./13<*******
.. *.*.***.* .Zff* *zs scrih¢4 in . ' * *** ******.**.****
- .******.>.*'**
- ...***....*.....
- .****** **. ** ***.*.*. ** .** .. * ... *.********.*****************.*********:
'
........
.. ********.**************.*********.**.**
.** ***** * . . .**....*
- t<> * ***.***
...............
- .. * ... * . . (!I}. >AAY* iP.P\l:t from th,¢ :pAbllc .. .... * ... ***. ***************.******.****
- >******
.. *.* $hfill.**
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 JQ **zo**.*.
... '2f** *: 23 the overall protection of human health and the environment* . . . . .. .. "'*' .,:. .. . .. ,, "(ii) tll:e a
- . * ... pf
- tlle.** .. pr<Jp!)S¢<1 PSDAR within the timeframe described in the proposed PSDAR; "(iii) the proposed PSDAR is in cordance with applicable law (including regulations);
and "(iv) the licensee has proactively dem* onstrated that the licensee has, or will h;we, tlle funds required to .fullyi:mple1Uel1t
- ******
- .**. ** * *********,**\<
...
- *.**
..
- '********,**., .. *., *** * * .*
- .*., . ....... ."*:**.:.*.,;.:.::.**.:**
4 s 6 7 8 9 sion rejecting the proposed PSDAR, cludil1g the re{isons f9r 'the decisioi:t;
(ii) the 1iceJ1see sl\all develop d subl!lit
.. a n,ew.*.prQppsed PSD.AR in accordance with this section. "(3) CONDITIONAL SUPPORT BY HOST 10 STATE.-11 "(A) IN GENERAL.-The Commission shall 12 determine whether the proposed PSDAR is per-13 missible under applicable law (including regula-14 tions) if the host State files a statement ofcon-15 dition.fl.l for the . proposed PSD.AR with 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 * ..
- 21*'.*
22 \' 2,j<< , .. *** * ... 2ft 25 ble law; or of the
- outweigh t}le . or enyiroi1Jllen,tiU of the change to the host State; and (ii) provide the rationale for a mination of inappropriateness under clause (i). " (C) DECISION DOCUMENT.-
"(i) IN GENERAL.-Based on the terminations made under subparagraphs (AJ a,nd (13),. the Coii1nlissi()n shall issue a *
... ,, ... .
.. *ai'e .**.
- *. . .... CO:) .. tejeeta, the . prppQsed
- /
.. _::: *_::_: ... >>: : .. *,_ ;* ":-*_':i:*::..:"::
.. :.*:::*:*
.. :;-.:: .. * * ..... * .. iM(iiJ .
.:P.A.w.
doeuiilerit.
uhder cl8.1lse . (i)*.
be ..
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 the proposed PSDAR
(i) the PSD#tis final; alld *.* {ii) the lllltY*begi,n tation of the PSDAR. "(E) REJECTION.-If the jects theproposecf:PsriARut1dcr subparagraph (C)(i)(II), the licensee shall develop and submit to the Commission a new proposed PSDAR in accordance with this section. "(f) .ADDITIONAIJ REQUIREMENT.-Notwithstanding CHAIRMAN Resource From: Sent: To:
Subject:
i IJ Like San Clemente Green <gary@sanclementegreen.org>
Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:26 PM CHAIRMAN Resource Prolonged storage of nuclear waste near Laguna meets stiff opposition.
San Clemente Green Citizens for a Sustainable Future Last Tuesday night, with an overflow crowd, the Laguna Beach City Council voted unanimously to adopt the Resolution against storing nuclear waste at San Onofre indefinitely.
They even took it a step further and added stronger language.
You can watch the entire discussion at this link from 1:40:00 to 2:13:00. We were pleasantly surprised by Edison's comments, (starting at 1:43:20).
They were "fundamentally in agreement" with the Resolution.
Tom Palmisano stated that "local voices were very important".
He said that they would work with the public to pressure the Department of Energy, the Senate and House and other elected officials, to establish interim and permanent nuclear waste storage sites ASAP. Edison will be responsible for the safe and secure storage of nuclear waste at San Onofre until the DOE comes to take it away, so their position is understandable.
What is unclear at this time is how they define "safe and secure". Our definition is best described in this document which goes into much greater detail than a Resolution could contain, but provides clear guidelines to refer to. This historic step forward could not have been possible without the efforts of local activists getting the process going, (Rita Conn and Mami Magda in particular).
Similar actions are planned for other communities.
Please let us know if you are interested in getting your town to follow suit. Finally, I'd like to commend the Laguna Beach City Council for acting in such a responsible manner. They listened appreciatively to the people they represent and acted accordingly.
I only wish our own City Council had done the same. 1
- * *-------Forward this email San Clemente Green San Onofre Safety (SOS) This email was sent to chairman@nrc.gov by gary@sanclementegreen.org Update Profile/Email Address Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe'M Privacy Policy. San Clemente Green 2837 Penasco 2837 Penasco San Clemente CA 92673 2 The San Clemente City Council recently adopted a resolution (see Attachment
- 2) reiterating its previous request to the Department of Energy to move forward with creating a permanent repository for the spent nuclear fuel.
WHEREAS, the City of Laguna Beach is located outside of the 1 0-mile radius mandated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for emergency evacuation planning and is not included in San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) nuclear release accident evacuation planning and practice drills; and WHEREAS, in June 2013, Southern California Edison submitted notice of its 1 SECTION 2. The City of Laguna Beach does not support long-term or indefinite storage of spent nuclear fuel at SONGS, and formally requests that federal representatives coordinate with the appropriate agencies to take whatever regulatory action necessary to identifY a safe and secure interim location in an unpopulated area to store SONGS' spent nuclear fuel. 2 -*
ATTEST: City Clerk I, LISETTE CHEL-WALKER, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. :XXX:XXX was duly adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of said City held on December 16, 2014, by the following vote: * .3 WHEREAS, Congress assigned to the Energy Department the task of creating an underground repository for nuclear waste as a result of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which has yet to be completed; and WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente requests that SCE and the NRC enst,!re that public remains paramount during the dry cask storage process of spent nuclear fuel; and Section 4. The City e>f San Gfemente supports Semrte Eii.ll &4:326. Section 5. The City of San Clemente supports the State of California's 1976 Moratorium.on New Nuclear Power Plant Development.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward certified copies of this resolution to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Edison, Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressman Oarrelllssa, and San Clemente's surrounding cities. Section 7. The City Cieri<. shall t() the passage and aoopticm of this resolution and
- . . .
Nos$: ABSENT: *. *... . ::." *:.-*:-.*:-:::
- ... * ******** .... *. / \
i;i*******
DONCHAK. HAMM.
.*. Nof\11: EVERT VV .**
S V\fHEREOF, .I he,reuJ)k;.o set my haA.&n. d .. affixed the I. s ..*..
t.P J the C1ty ofSan Clemente, Cahfom1a, thts t7;.'0 day of . *
- V> * * * * * * * * . if;,/¥ . Approved as to fonn: .* .. **.**.*** .
....... *.*.**** . . .. *. ....
> > ... * .. / .CITY CLERK of the City of V'San Clemente, California To amend the At.onrlC!
Energy Act pf 19M t() provjqe t'or
"\\fith iliAA!
or arid an4 th¢ appri)vaLo:f decommissioning actiVities pof1B b;Ythe IN 'l'HE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY 13, 2014 Mr. SAI\'DERS (for himself, Mrs. BoXER, and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the lowing bill; whieh was read twice and referred to the Committee on ronment and Public Works A BILL 9A--62 5 t1le follolVi!lm . 6 "SEC. 113.
DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVI* 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :'::=.::*:*:*
.... *::_*.*:*.:.:
.. :.:::.::-:
- -.*::.
- .* . (a) this section: "(1) AFFECTED STATE.-The term 'affected State' triean.s-**
- * "(A) the host State of a covered facility; and "(B) each State that is within 50 miles of a covered facility.
"(2) ComnSSION.-.
The term 9A-63 4 *.***Of title 1 o, bride Of S eral (or *anY 6 "(b) li-. . . :: *. . . 7 deVei()J>
a J?SpAR, '(or a c()vered fa:-8 cilit; 9 "(1) each affected State; and 10 (2) each unit of local government and tribal 11 government in the affected State that is located 12 within 50 miles of the covered facility.
13 "(c) SUBMISSION TO COMMISSION; ADDITIONAL CON-14 SUJ,TATION.-
15 "(1) IN additional consulta-16. . tt()n w,ith iJ:l
(})) ****************.****t:?:***.****:
...... * .. *
.** .. **** * ..
.. *** ..
- ... *: .. **:::**.::;:
... : . .-*:-. ; :*.: : *.:**.::;*::,::::::....:
... :. *:.:**:: .. :.-:,:..:*:
.. :-:."**,: *, * . . ZP ...
..... Zl .*
- oK. ;we. *: proj)t>$e4
.. * .. *****22*******
- *
- 23.*********
.... * ..........
... *.* ... * ...........
- .*. **
- 24 .*xi{
". . . .. <*.** .. . . . . . .
- . * . .. *(d) tt pf tl,t ..... *.* ... ** .. * ... *:.* ... * ...... * .. * .........
- . . . . .. "*. .* .. . 6 90 days o,11*.ihe date on the**.licensee 7
- . the .to th,e 1ln:4er 8 subsection (c). the Commission shall solicit public partici-9 pation on the proposed PSDAR in the State, includ-1 o ill.g through-****
.. -.:.
5 "(2)
OF OR 6 SUPPORT; TO 7
- m lf th9 h()st .Stfl.w flies 8 a statement of support under paragraph (l)(.A), 9 a statement of nonsupport under paragraph 10 (1)(0), or to file a with the 11 Commission by the deadline specified in 12 graph (1), the Commission shall issue a deter-13 mination on whether the proposed PSDAR is 14 adequate or inadequate-IS "(i) based on. the considerations de .. 22 ./13<*******
.. *.*.***.* .Zff* *zs scrih¢4 in . ' * *** ******.**.****
- .******.>.*'**
- ...***....*.....
- .****** **. ** ***.*.*. ** .** .. * ... *.********.*****************.*********:
'
........
.. ********.**************.*********.**.**
.** ***** * . . .**....*
- t<> * ***.***
...............
- .. * ... * . . (!I}. >AAY* iP.P\l:t from th,¢ :pAbllc .. .... * ... ***. ***************.******.****
- >******
.. *.* $hfill.**
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 JQ **zo**.*.
... '2f** *: 23 the overall protection of human health and the environment* . . . . .. .. "'*' .,:. .. . .. ,, "(ii) tll:e a
- . * ... pf
- tlle.** .. pr<Jp!)S¢<1 PSDAR within the timeframe described in the proposed PSDAR; "(iii) the proposed PSDAR is in cordance with applicable law (including regulations);
and "(iv) the licensee has proactively dem* onstrated that the licensee has, or will h;we, tlle funds required to .fullyi:mple1Uel1t
- ******
- .**. ** * *********,**\<
...
- *.**
..
- '********,**., .. *., *** * * .*
- .*., . ....... ."*:**.:.*.,;.:.::.**.:**
4 s 6 7 8 9 sion rejecting the proposed PSDAR, cludil1g the re{isons f9r 'the decisioi:t;
(ii) the 1iceJ1see sl\all develop d subl!lit
.. a n,ew.*.prQppsed PSD.AR in accordance with this section. "(3) CONDITIONAL SUPPORT BY HOST 10 STATE.-11 "(A) IN GENERAL.-The Commission shall 12 determine whether the proposed PSDAR is per-13 missible under applicable law (including regula-14 tions) if the host State files a statement ofcon-15 dition.fl.l for the . proposed PSD.AR with 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 * ..
- 21*'.*
22 \' 2,j<< , .. *** * ... 2ft 25 ble law; or of the
- outweigh t}le . or enyiroi1Jllen,tiU of the change to the host State; and (ii) provide the rationale for a mination of inappropriateness under clause (i). " (C) DECISION DOCUMENT.-
"(i) IN GENERAL.-Based on the terminations made under subparagraphs (AJ a,nd (13),. the Coii1nlissi()n shall issue a *
... ,, ... .
.. *ai'e .**.
- *. . .... CO:) .. tejeeta, the . prppQsed
- /
.. _::: *_::_: ... >>: : .. *,_ ;* ":-*_':i:*::..:"::
.. :.*:::*:*
.. :;-.:: .. * * ..... * .. iM(iiJ .
.:P.A.w.
doeuiilerit.
uhder cl8.1lse . (i)*.
be ..
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 the proposed PSDAR
(i) the PSD#tis final; alld *.* {ii) the lllltY*begi,n tation of the PSDAR. "(E) REJECTION.-If the jects theproposecf:PsriARut1dcr subparagraph (C)(i)(II), the licensee shall develop and submit to the Commission a new proposed PSDAR in accordance with this section. "(f) .ADDITIONAIJ REQUIREMENT.-Notwithstanding