Withhold funding for Nuclear Waste Storage before it's too late!

Nuclear waste storage must be conducted in a manner to optimize public safety over the full term of storage. This is an unacceptable plan.

The health and safety of residents is in jeopardy, how is this even being considered? Disgusted with our elected representatives.

REVOKE Nuclear Waste Storage Permit at San Onofre

I do not believe that the nuclear waste at San Onofre is adequately protected for extended storage and should be moved. The protective containers of this material are nearing the end of their useful, and safe, life.

Doesn’t the Japanese experience prove how unwise it is to store nuclear waste in an ocean contingent facility in an earthquake/Tsunami zone?

We need a safer approach to nuclear waste storage.

These canisters must be regularly monitored forever.

Please help us preserve our beaches and coastline from becoming a repository for nuclear waste!

Planning to bury more than 75 Chernobyls worth of nuclear waste in extremely thin walled cannisters [mostly one half inch to five eights of an inch thick] while the rest of the world uses cannisters that are 10 to 19.75 inches thick and can be checked for cracks, corrosion, etc. and fixed while these cannisters at San Onofre can't be checked or fixed is asking for a catastrophe beyond one's wildest nightmare. If one were drawing up a plan to destroy not just southern California but the United States and cause a global economic depression as well as incredible genetic damage to humans, animals and plants you couldn't have come up with a more insidious plan. Do NOT allow this. Get all the waste into the thickest cannisters possible that are able to be checked for damage and fixed and do not bury it in the beach 108 feet [for now, less as climate change brings the oceans closer] from the Ocean, inches from high tides [for now].

Until this material is in thicker casks you cannot in good conscience allow this permit to go forward!!

Utilize "hardened on-site storage" (HOSS), too

The decisions made regarding the need for thick-walled canisters that can be inspected, repaired, monitored, and transported safely will affect not only San Onofre, but the communities near all reactor sites and the numerous communities on the transport routes. The safety of nuclear waste storage and transport systems is a matter of national importance. My county in Utah is on a major proposed route, as are many communities that may be unaware of the hazards at this time of possible transport in unsafe containers.

Just as Sally Jane Ellert wrote, I do not approve of moving high level radioactive waste off-site, but the canisters must be robust and inspect-able.

No Nukes

Please note that I am NOT suggesting that the waste should be removed; rather, that the ON-site storage be in thick-wall canisters designed for longer, safer storage. Whether permit revocation is appropriate, or whether there are other means of achieving this, I don’t know—but I do know that the current situation is not safe.

Those who make decisions like this should be required to live next to the disposal area!

Revoke flawed permit for Edison. What could you be thinking of?

...been loving the coast around san onofre for the last 35 years...would like to believe it will last AT LEAST another 35 without succumbing to nuclear waste. Please use the thicker canisters!

The permit issued to S Cal Edison needs to be revoked. Storing nuclear waste with over 75 times the amount of radiation that Chernobyl released in extremely thin walled cannisters 108 feet from the ocean and inches from high tides that can't be monitored or corrected is astonishingly dangerous. It threatens the Pacific Ocean, and depending on the direction of the winds massive parts of southern California, all of California, part or all of Mexico and much of the northern hemisphere with a subsequent global environmental and economic meltdown.

The nuclear waste must Not be stored at or anywhere near San Onofre! That is Way to Dangerous! Move it out of here NOW!