OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Mar 27, 2013 13:25 PAPER NUMBER: ACTION OFFICE: AUTHOR: AFFILIATION: ADDRESSEE: SUBJECT: ACTION: DISTRIBUTION: LETTER DATE: ACKNOWLEDGED SPECIAL HANDLING: NOTES: FILE LOCATION: LTR- 13-0262 EDo0 0A LOGGING DATE: 03/27/2013 -o , N~2 Laura Lynch, et al. 1 k CA Chairman Resource Concerns issues at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and requests the 4/3 meeting to address Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California Appropriate RF, SECY to Ack. 03/26/201'3 No EDO/OPA Lead office to publicly release 24 hours after SECY's assignment, via SECY/EDO/DPC. Multiple similar e-mails received requesting the 4/3 meeting be held in Southern California. ADAMS DATE DUE: DATE SIGNED:
Transcript
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
Date Printed: Mar 27, 2013 13:25
PAPER NUMBER:
ACTION OFFICE:
AUTHOR:
AFFILIATION:
ADDRESSEE:
SUBJECT:
ACTION:
DISTRIBUTION:
LETTER DATE:
ACKNOWLEDGED
SPECIAL HANDLING:
NOTES:
FILE LOCATION:
LTR- 13-0262
EDo0 0ALOGGING DATE: 03/27/2013
-o , N~2
Laura Lynch, et al. 1 k
CA
Chairman Resource
Concerns issues at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and requests the 4/3 meeting toaddress Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California
Appropriate
RF, SECY to Ack.
03/26/201'3
No
EDO/OPA
Lead office to publicly release 24 hours after SECY's assignment, via SECY/EDO/DPC.
Multiple similar e-mails received requesting the 4/3 meetingbe held in Southern California.
ADAMS
DATE DUE: DATE SIGNED:
Joosten, Sandy
From: Laura Lynch [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:19 PMTo: CHAIRMAN ResourceSubject: NRC, SCE, SAN ONOFRE RESTART
Dear Chairman Macfarlane, below is a copy of a letter that I have sent to Senator Boxer and indicated to her myconcerns of the right of citizens to a full, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough license amendmentprocess to be upheld, that the NRC reject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting on April 3,2013 scheduled in Rockville MD to address Edison's license amendment request take place in SouthernCalifornia and not on the other side of the country. Thank you for your immediate attention to this crucialmatter before us.
Sincerely, Laura LynchSanta Barbara, CA.
Dear Chairman Boxer:
I write to express my deepest. appreciation for your attention and leadership on issues related to the San Onofrenuclear reactors. I applaud your leadership in revealing a previously confidential report from Mitsubishi HeavyIndustries that showed Edison had foreknowledge of serious safety concerns with the steam generators yearsbefore they were installed, which resulted in a redacted version of that report being released and Edison'sculpability being made public.
I was encouraged when Congressman Waxman questioned Nuclear Regulatory Commission ChairmanMacfarlane about the need for San Onofre operator, Southern California Edison, to obtain a license amendmentprior to any decision being made regarding their experimental restart at partial power proposal for the damagedSan Onofre reactor 2.
I am, however, deeply troubled by Edison's recent announcement that they are considering a voluntary licenseamendment request. While on its face, (this seems to be exactly what we have requested) it appears to be nomore than another end run around federal regulations in order to expedite restart of their crippled reactor.Specifically, Edison has indicated their intention to apply for a "No Significant Hazard Consideration" (NSHC)for this license amendment. This is nothing more than a regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slipthrough. An NSHC finding for this proposed license amendment would effectively strip the public of ameaningful role and necessary independent expert in a formal license amendment hearing that we areguaranteed under federal law, and which we have demanded. If the NRC acquiesces to Edison's demand forsuch a finding, it is unassailable - meaning any hearing that takes place would be no more than a dog and ponyshow; it could take place after the license amendment has been granted and would have no impact on the licenseamendment whatsoever - even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendment does pose more than aminor increase in the risk of an accident.
Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want to do every responsible thing we can to get Unit 2up and running safely before the summer heat hits our region. While the NRC continues to review the technicalmaterials we've submitted, we're considering a request for a license amendment so that we can pursue the bestpath to safe restart while avoiding unnecessary delays." The "unnecessary delays" to which he refers are in-depth technical inquiries into the veracity of Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federal regulations.Such a request is hardly the "responsible" path forward. In essence, Edison is asking NRC staff to move the
1
jprocess'for restart forward, so that they can be up and running by summer - during peak demand when profitsare greatest - before the NRC has even completedits technical review.
A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would be wholly inappropriate for restarting a nuclear reactorthat has two of the most damaged and defective steam generators in the history of the US nuclear industry - theother two being in its twin reactor, San Onofre Unit 3, which Edison admits are experiencing a globally uniquetube damage phenomenon.
This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporate culture that sets aside safety concerns in theinterest of expediency and profits - a culture that was clearly demonstrated by the revelations in the recentlyrelease MHI documents that showed they did just that when originally designing these defective replacementsteam generators. Their desire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatest profits placed the livesand livelihoods of the 8.7 million people living near these reactors at significant and unacceptable risk. Edisonmust not be allowed to do so again.
Recently, the California Independent Systems Operator stated that Southern California would be fine thissummer without the relatively meager 750 MW that this experimental restart plan for one of the two crippledSan Onofre reactors offers. Edison's claim of hurried restart in time for summer is in their interest - not that ofthe public.
Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between the NRC and Edison to discuss the license amendmentand NSHC is to be held April 3 in Rockville, MD. It is fundamentally unacceptable to have this meeting todiscuss such a critical issue on the opposite coast from the communities and people most impacted. The meetingshould to be held in Southern California where our family members and those most impacted can canparticipate.
In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversight capacity that you ensure the right of citizens to afull, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough license amendment process be upheld, that the NRCreject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting to address Edison's license amendment requesttake place in Southern California. (I will be sending a copy of this letter to the officials listed below).
Respectfully,Laura LynchSanta Barbara, CA 93101
cc: Senator Diane FeinsteinChairman Allison M. Macfarlane. N RC Chair: Chairmanamnrc.govR. William Borchardt, NRC Executive Director for Operations: Bill.Borchardt(Dvnrc.govEric Leeds, Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation: Eric.Leeds(n.nrc.uovElmo Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV: Elmo.Collins(a)nrc.gzovArthur Howell, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Art.Howell(2'anrc.govDaniel Dorman,.Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Dan.Dorman((nrc.gov
2
Joosten, Sandy
From: Rob [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:13 PMTo: CHAIRMAN ResourceCc: Borchardt, Bill; Leeds, Eric; Collins, Elmo; Howell, Art; Dorman, DanSubject: Southern California Edison NSHC and Request for License Amendment
March 26, 2013
The Honorable Barbara BoxerChairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.20510 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactFormCommittee Office Phone: 202-224-8832
The Honorable Henry WaxmanRanking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives2322 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515For Residents of the 33rd Cong. District ONLY: https://waxman.house.gov/contact-me/email-meWashington DC Office Phone: (202) 225-3976
Cc: Senator Diane Feinstein: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-meAlison Macfarlane, NRC Chair: [email protected] R. William Borchardt, NRC Executive Directorfor Operations: [email protected] Eric Leeds , Director* Nuclear Reactor Regulation:[email protected] Elmo Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV: [email protected] Howell, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: [email protected] Daniel Dorman, Co-Chair,SONGS Oversight Panel: [email protected]
Dear Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Waxman:
I write to express my deepest appreciation for your attention and leadership on issuesrelated to the San Onofre nuclear reactors. I applaud Senator Boxer's leadership in revealinga previously confidential report from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that showed Edison hadforeknowledge of serious safety concerns with the steam generators years before they wereinstalled, which resulted in a redacted version of that report being released and Edison'sculpability being made public. I was encouraged when Congressman Waxman questioned NuclearRegulatory Commission Chairman Macfarlane about the need for San Onofre operator, SouthernCalifornia Edison, to obtain a license amendment prior to any decision being made regardingtheir experimental restart at partial power proposal for the damaged San Onofre reactor 2.
I am, however, deeply troubled by Edison's recent announcement that they are considering avoluntary license amendment request. While on its face, this seems to be exactly what we haverequested, it appears to be no more than another end run around federal regulations in orderto expedite restart of their crippled reactor. Specifically, Edison has indicated theirintention to apply for a "No Significant Hazard Consideration" (NSHC) for this licenseamendment. This is nothing more than a regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slipthrough. An NSHC finding for this proposed license amendment would effectively strip thepublic of a meaningful role and necessary independent expert in a formal license amendmenthearing that we are guaranteed under federal law, and which we have demanded. If the NRCacquiesces to Edison's demand for such a finding, it is unassailable - meaning any hearingthat takes place would be no more than a dog and pony show; it could take place after thelicense amendment has been granted and would have no impact on the license amendmentwhatsoever - even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendment does pose more than aminor increase in the risk of an accident.
Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want to do every responsible thing wecan do to get Unit 2 up and running safely before the summer heat hits our region. While theNRC continues to review the technical materials we've submitted, we're considering a requestfor a license amendment so that we can pursue the best path to safe restart while avoidingunnecessary delays." The "'unnecessary delays" to which he refers are in-depth technicalinquiries into the veracity of Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federalregulations. Such a request is hardly the "responsible" path forward. In essence, Edison isasking NRC staff to move the process for restart forward, so that they can be up and runningby summer - during peak demand when profits are greatest - before the NRC has even completedits technical review.
A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would be wholly inappropriate for restarting anuclear reactor that has two of the most damaged and defective steam generators in thehistory of the US nuclear industry - the other one being in its twin reactor, San Onofre Unit3, which Edison admits are experiencing a globally unique tube damage phenomenon.
This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporate culture that sets asidesafety concerns in the interest of expediency and profits - a culture that was clearlydemonstrated by the revelations in the recently release MHI documents that showed they didjust that when originally designing these defective replacement steam generators. Theirdesire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatest profits placed the lives andlivelihoods of the 8.7 million people living near these reactors at significant andunacceptable risk. Edison must not be allowed to do so again.
Recently, the California Independent Systems.Operator stated that Southern California wouldbe fine this summer without the relatively meager 750 MW that this experimental restart planfor one of the two crippled San Onofre reactors offers. Edison's claim of hurried restart intime for summer is in their interest - not that of the public.
Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between the NRC and Edison to discuss thelicense amendment and NSHC is to be held April 3 in Rockville, MD. It is fundamentallyunacceptable to have this meeting to discuss such a critical issue on the opposite coast fromthe communities most impacted. The meeting ought to be held in Southern California where myneighbors and I can participate.
In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversight capacity, you ensure that theright of citizens to a full, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough licenseamendment process is upheld, that the NRC reject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcomingmeeting to address Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California.
[email protected]: re: Request related to San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant
The Honorable Barbara BoxerChairman, Committee on Environment and Public WorksUnited States SenateWashington, D.C. 20510htup:!,/cpv,. ;cnatc %-vpnicm c~ tifF 'c ci~ ":C0111tu lJS.
Dear Chairman Boxer:
I write to express my deepest appreciation for your attentionand leadership on issues related to the San Onofre nuclearreactors. I applaud Senator Boxer's leadership in revealing apreviously confidential report from Mitsubishi Heavy Industriesthat showed Edison had foreknowledge of serious safetyconcerns with the steam generators years before they wereinstalled, which resulted in a redacted version of that reportbeing released and Edison's culpability being made public. Iwas encouraged when Congressman Waxman questionedNuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Macfarlane aboutthe need for San Onofre operator, Southern California Edison,to obtain a license amendment prior to any decision being maderegarding their experimental restart at partial power proposalfor the damaged San Onofre reactor 2.
I am, however, deeply troubled by Edison's recentannouncement that they are considering a voluntary licenseamendment request. While on its face, this seems to be exactlywhat we have requested, it appears to be no more than anotherend run around federal regulations in order to expedite restart oftheir crippled reactor. Specifically, Edison has indicated theirintention to apply fbr a "No Significant Hazard Consideration"(NSHC) for this license amendment. This is nothing more thana regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slip through.An NSHC finding for this proposed license amendment wouldeffectively strip the public of a meaningful role and necessaryindependent expert in a formal license amendment hearing thatwe are guaranteed under federal law, and which we havedemanded. If the NRC acquiesces to Edison's demand for sucha finding, it is unassailable - meaning any hearing that takesplace would be no more than a dog and pony show; it couldtake place after the license amendment has been granted andwould have no impact on the license amendment whatsoever -even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendmentdoes pose more than a minor increase in the risk of an accident.
Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want todo every responsible thing we can do to get Unit 2 up andrunning safely before the summer heat hits our region. Whilethe NRC continues to review the technical materials we'vesubmitted, we're considering a request for a license amendmentso that we can pursue the best path to safe restart while
1
avoiding unnecessary delays." The "unnecessary delays" towhich he refers are in-depth technical inquiries into the veracityof Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federalregulations. Such a request is hardly the "responsible" pathforward. In essence. Edison is asking NRC staff to move theprocess for restart forward, so that they can be up and runningby summer - during peak demand when profits are greatest -before the NRC has even completed its technical review.
A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would bewholly inappropriate for restarting a nuclear reactor that hastwo of the most damaged and defective steam generators in thehistory of the US nuclear industry - the other two being in itstwin reactor, San Onofre Unit 3, which Edison admits areexperiencing a globally unique tube damage phenomenon.
This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporateculture that sets aside safety concerns in the interest ofexpediency and profits - a culture that was clearlydemonstrated by the revelations in the recently release MHIdocuments that showed they did just that when originallydesigning these defective replacement steam generators. Theirdesire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatestprofits placed the lives and livelihoods of the 8.7 million peopleliving near these reactors at significant and unacceptable risk.Edison must not be allowed to do so again.
Recently, the California Independent Systems Operator statedthat Southern California would be fine this summer without therelatively meager 750 MW that this experimental restart planfor one of the two crippled San Onofre reactors offers. Edison'sclaim of hurried restart in time for summer is in their interest -not that of the pfsblic.
Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between theNRC and Edison to discuss the license amendment and NSHCis to be held April 3 in Rockville, MD. It is fundamentallyunacceptable to have this meeting to discuss such a criticalissue on the opposite coast from the communities mostimpacted. The meeting ought to be held in Southern Californiawhere my neighbors and I can participate.
In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversightcapacity, you ensure that the right of citizens to a full,adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough licenseamendment process is upheld, that the NRC reject Edison'sNSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting to addressEdison's license amendment request take place in SouthernCalifornia.
Sincerely,
John P. FalchiSan Diego, CA 92107
View Post on Facebook Edit Email Settings , Reply to this email to add a comment.
Ulrich; Ace Hoffman; Andy Shrader; Martin Schlageter; Lisa Pinto; Lee Haydu; Mike Bonin;Marcy Winograd; Randy Ziglar
Subject: Query re SoCal Public Meeting on San Onofre Restart
Hi Jason,
Thanks for following up on my query about whether or not concerned members of the public will have anopportunity to participate in an NRC "Public Meeting" in Southern California prior Southern CaliforniaEdison's being allowed to restart its San Onofre Unit 2 reactor. I placed "Public Meeting" within quotationmarks because your next so-called "Public Meeting" (April 3, 2013) will be located thousands of miles awayfrom the communities most directly impacted by Edison's San Onofre nuclear plant.
If Southern California Edison does apply for a license amendment to run its San Onofre nuclear plant atreduced power for five months "with no significant hazard", will the NRC convene a public meeting inSouthern California prior to granting that license amendment?
Of course a public meeting in Southern California is not a suffient substitute for a full, transparent Adjudicatory Hearingand License Amendment process adressing a wide range of concerns including the fundamental design changes in the San Onofre replacement steamgenerators and the potential for a long overdue great earthquake and tsunami - The amendment process should include evidentiary hearings with sworntestimony and cross-examination which include experts independent of the NRC, Edison and the nuclear power industry.
I look forward to your reply.
Myla ResonSan Onofre Danger Zone Resident
Myla ResonFollow me on TwitterWhat Part of Fukushima Do You NOT Understand?
"A common denominator, in every single nuclear accident -- a nuclear plant or on a nuclear submarine -- is that before the specialists evenknow what has happened, they rush to the media saving, 'There's no danger to the public.' They do this before they themselves know what hashappened because they are terrified that the public might react violently, either by panic or by revolt." - Jaceue Cousteau. 1Q8q
Sent to Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works (via web form)
In regard to the San Onofre nuclear reactors. I would like to request that the NRC re-schedule the 4/3 "publicmeeting" to allow citizen participation.
I applaud Senator Boxer's leadership in revealing a previously confidential report from Mitsubishi HeavyIndustries that showed Edison had foreknowledge of serious safety concerns with the steam generators yearsbefore they were installed, which resulted in a redacted version of that report being released and Edison'sculpability being made public. I was encouraged when Congressman Waxman questioned Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Chairman Macfarlane about the need for San Onofre operator, Southern California Edison, toobtain a license amendment prior to any decision being made regarding their experimental restart at partialpower proposal for the damaged San Onofre reactor 2.
I am deeply troubled by SoCal Edison's recent announcement that they are considering a voluntary licenseamendment request. While on its face, this seems to be exactly what we have requested, it appears to be nomore than another end run around federal regulations in order to expedite restart of their crippled reactor.Specifically, Edison has indicated their intention to apply for a "No Significant Hazard Consideration" (NSHC)for this license amendment. This is nothing more than a regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slipthrough. An NSHC finding for this proposed license amendment would effectively strip the public of ameaningful role and necessary independent expert in a formal license amendment hearing that we areguaranteed under federal law, and which we have demanded. If the NRC acquiesces to Edison's demand forsuch a finding, it is unassailable - meaning any hearing that takes place would be no more than a dog and ponyshow; it could take place after the license amendment has been granted and would have no impact on the licenseamendment whatsoever - even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendment does pose more than aminor increase in the risk of an accident.
Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want to do every responsible thing we can do to get Unit2 up and running safely before the summer heat hits our region. While the NRC continues to review thetechnical materials we've submitted, we're considering a request for a license amendment so that we can pursuethe best path to safe restart while avoiding unnecessary delays." The "unnecessary delays" to which he refersare in-depth technical inquiries into the veracity of Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federalregulations. Such a request is hardly the "responsible" path forward. In essence, Edison is asking NRC staff tomove the process for restart forward, so that they can be up and running by summer - during peak demandwhen profits are greatest - before the NRC has even completed its technical review.
A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would be wholly inappropriate for restarting a nuclear reactorthat has two of the most damaged and defective steam generators in the history of the US nuclear industry - theother two being in its twin reactor, San Onofre Unit 3, which Edison admits are experiencing a globally uniquetube damage phenomenon.
This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporate culture that sets aside safety concerns in theinterest of expediency and profits - a culture that was clearly demonstrated by the revelations in the recentlyrelease MHI documents that showed they did just that when originally designing these defective replacement
1
steam generators. Their desire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatest profits placed the livesand livelihoods of the 8.7 million people living near these reactors at significant and unacceptable risk. Edisonmust not be allowed to do so again.
Recently, the California Independent Systems Operator stated that Southern California would be fine thissummer without the relatively meager 750 MW that this experimental restart plan for one of the two crippledSan Onofre reactors offers. Edison's claim of hurried restart in time for summer is in their interest - not that ofthe public.
Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between the NRC and Edison to discuss the license amendmentand NSHC is to be held April 3 in Rockville, MD. It is fundamentally unacceptable to have this meeting todiscuss such a critical issue on the opposite coast from the communities most impacted. The meeting ought tobe held in Southern California where my neighbors and I can participate.
In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversight capacity, you ensure that the right of citizens to afull, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough license amendment process is upheld, that the NRCreject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting to address Edison's license amendment requesttake place in Southern California.
Another point is that we do not need San Onofre or even Diablo. We have not had any power issues since SanOnofre was shut down. I can provide further information on this if needed. You will find some information inthe links below.
Looking to the future, I am hopeful that we can come up with some safe, clean alternative energy sources suchas what Germany has had great success with. We don't need a fukishima in our backyard..
"Meanwhile, the conversion to green power in Germany is booming. When 8 reactors were shut and theconversion to wind, solar and biomass became official policy, "experts" predicated energy shortages andsoaring prices. But the opposite has happened as supply has boomed and prices have dropped."_http://www.alternet.org/einvironment/showdown-san-onofre-whv-nuc~ear-industrv,-may-be-dealt-biv-biow
Even when nuclear power plants perform as designed, they present a problem: What to do with the radioactivewastes? Some types of spent fuel will be dangerous for 240,000 years, others for more than 2 million years.What is being done to address this issue?
"San Onofre's Steam Generators: Significantly Worse than All Others Nationwide" -Former nuclear engineerand senior vice president of Fairewinds, Arnie Gundersen http://fairewinds.org
Questions for officials:
Do you have a means of dealing with a full out nuclear disaster at San Onofre similar to Fukushima? Can youcontain the radiation? Stop the meltdown? Safely dispose of the nuclear contamination such as spent fuel rods?Evacuate the citizens?
San Onofre sits on active earthquake faults and is also right on the ocean. A quake will happen, a tsunami isinevitable. Just like Fukushima.
Songs is designed to resist a 7.0 earthquake - It is entirely possible that we will have one greater than 7.0.
The tsunami wall at San Onofre is 14 feet at high tide - The fuku tsunami was 45-65 feet high..
2
Is San Onofre prepared for a possible Solar Superstormn which could knock out all power and functionality ofcomputers, communications etc.?
Solar 'superstorm' set to strike Earth - and we'll only have a 30 MINUTE warninghttp://www.dailvmail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2274605/Solar-superstorm-set-strike-Earth--30-MINUTE-warnin2.html#ixzz2KR3CVvTE
Just shut songs down and work on safely removing the nuclear remains. It would save the government, theNRC, the ratepayors and others a lot of time and money.
Another point is that we do not need San Onofre or even Diablo. We have not had any power issues since SanOnofre was shut down.Further information on this in the links below.
I also have a question. What is the status on this initiative?http://www.forbes.com/sites/ieffmcmahon/201 3/02/08/initiative-would-shutter-california-nuclear-plants-for-decades-while-feds-ponder-waste/
"When all the trees have been cut down, When all the animals have been hunted, When all the waters arepolluted, When all the air is unsafe to breathe, Only then will you discover.., you cannot eat money." - CreeProphecy
Please keep me informed regarding the San Onofre nuclear plant.
Sincerely,
Susan Brown, a very concerned grandmother
for your reference:
Nuclear Power is over. It's not a good business deal.http://enenews.com/watch-top-economist-nuclear-power-is-over-frank-Iv-i-think-from-a-business-perspective-its-over-i-think-its-over-video
Fairewinds Energy Education40 of the nation's 104 operating commercial reactors experienced a near miss between 2010 and 2012.https://www.facebook.com/fairewinds/posts/5736876526422 15http://www.fairewinds.orL/content/are-whistleblowers-being-protected-nrc-not-reallv
"California nuclear plant (San Onofre) a 'time bomb' if restarted - Chance of nuke disaster in U.S. very, very,very high... not if, but when" -Dr. Helen Caldicotthttp://enenewscom/caldicott-san-onofre-a-time-bomb-if-restarted-chance-of-nuelear-disaster-in-L-s-verv-hi Yh-its-not-if-but-when-video
to Senator Boxer https ://boxer. senate. gov/en/contact/policvcomments.cfmnCc:Governor Jerry Brown http://gov.ca.gov/rn contact.phpSenator Diane Feinstein: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/.index.cfm/e-mail-me(not my district couldn't email Cong. Waxman)Congresswoman Susan Davis https://susandavisforms.house.Lov/forms/writeyourrep/Alison Macfarlane, NRC Chair: Chairman(anrc.govR. William Borchardt, NRC Executive Director for Operations: Bill.Borchardt(anrc. ovEric Leeds , Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation: Eric.Leeds Rwnrc.govElmo Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV: Elrno.Collins(Dnrc.govArthur Howell, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Art.Howell(Zinrc.govDaniel Dorman, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Dan.Dorman(F'mrc.gov
4
Joosten, Sandy
From: Doris Schiller [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:51 PMTo: CHAIRMAN ResourceSubject: San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant
Please do not allow SONGS to restart without hearings. Edison took a chance in not making changes necessarythat would have prevented the recent leak. This company does not use enough care in the area of safety, nowonder since their liability is limited if they cause an accident. I do not have nuclear contamination insurancefor my property. I will hold you responsible if there is an accident and my grandkids can't visit my home.
The Honorable Barbara BoxerChairman, Committee on Environment and Public WorksUnited States SenateWashington, D.C. 20510http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ContactUs.ContactFormCommittee Office Phone: 202-224-8832
The Honorable Henry WaxmanRanking Member, Committee on Energy and CommerceUnited States House of Representatives2322 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515For Residents of the 33rd Cong, District ONLY:https://waxman.house.gov/contact-me/email-meWashington DC Office Phone: (202) 225-3976
Dear Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Waxman:
I write to express my deepest appreciation for your attention and leadership on issues related to the San Onofre nuclear reactors. I applaud SenatorBoxer's leadership in revealing a previously confidential report from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that showed Edison had foreknowledge of serious safetyconcerns with the steam generators years before they were installed, which resulted in a redacted version of that report being released and Edison'sculpability being made public. I was encouraged when Congressman Waxman questioned Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Macfarlane aboutthe need for San Onofre operator, Southern California Edison, to obtain a license amendment prior to any decision being made regarding theirexperimental restart at partial power proposal for the damaged San Onofre reactor 2.
I am, however, deeply troubled by Edison's recent announcement that they are considering a voluntary license amendment request. While on its face,this seems to be exactly what we have requested, it appears to be no more than another end run around federal regulations in order to expedite restartof their crippled reactor. Specifically, Edison has indicated their intention to apply for a "No Significant Hazard Consideration" (NSHC) for this licenseamendment. This is nothing more than a regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slip through. An NSHC finding for this proposed licenseamendment would effectively strip the public of a meaningful role and necessary independent expert in a formal license amendment hearing that we areguaranteed under federal law, and which we have demanded. If the NRC acquiesces to Edison's demand for such a finding, it is unassailable - meaningany hearing that takes place would be no more than a dog and pony show; it could take place after the license amendment has been granted andwould have no impact on the license amendment whatsoever - even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendment does pose more than aminor increase in the risk of an accident.
Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want to do every responsible thing we can do to get Unit 2 up and running safely before thesummer heat hits our region. While the NRC continues to review the technical materials we've submitted, we're considering a request for a licenseamendment so that we can pursue the best path to safe restart while avoiding unnecessary delays." The "unnecessary delays" to which he refers are in-depth technical inquiries into the veracity of Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federal regulations. Such a request is hardly the "responsible"path forward. In essence, Edison is asking NRC staff to move the process for restart forward, so that they can be up and running by summer - duringpeak demand when profits are greatest - before the NRC has even completed its technical review.
A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would be wholly inappropriate for restarting a nuclear reactor that has two of the most damaged anddefective steam generators in the history of the US nuclear industry - the other two being in its twin reactor, San Onofre Unit 3, which Edison admitsare experiencing a globally unique tube damage phenomenon.
This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporate culture that sets aside safety concerns in the interest of expediency and profits - a culturethat was clearly demonstrated by the revelations in the recently release MHI documents that showed they did just that when originally designing thesedefective replacement steam generators. Their desire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatest profits placed the lives and livelihoods ofthe 8.7 million people living near these reactors at significant and unacceptable risk. Edison must not be allowed to do so again.
Recently, the California Independent Systems Operator stated that Southern California would be fine this summer without the relatively meager 750 MWthat this experimental restart plan for one of the two crippled San Onofre reactors offers. Edison's claim of hurried restart in time for summer is in theirinterest - not that of the public.
Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between the NRC and Edison to discuss the license amendment and NSHC is to be held April 3 inRockville, MD. It is fundamentally unacceptable to have this meeting to discuss such a critical issue on the opposite coast from the communities mostimpacted. The meeting ought to be held in Southern California where my neighbors and I can participate.
In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversight capacity, you ensure that the right of citizens to a full, adjudicatory public hearing requiredfor a thorough license amendment process is upheld, that the NRC reject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting to address Edison'slicense amendment request take place in Southern California.
