via Residents Organized for a Safe Environment | ROSE: taking care of the Earth for the next seven generations -
Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) For Immediate release:
Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE)
For Immediate release:
For Immediate release:
Coalition to Decommission San Onofre to ask Nuclear Regulatory Commission for official recognition as Citizens Oversight for Decommission of San Onofre and will pose tough questions today at public and private meeting with NRC officials.
Coalition announces Community Nuclear Waste Symposium Oct 19, 2013
Donna Gilmore of San Clemente says “I was shocked to learn San Onofre as well other plants in California and around the country, have be using high burnup fuel that is twice as radioactive and has no approved short or long safe storage solution.”
Gene Stone of Residents Organized for Safe Environment (ROSE) says “we may be a little safer with San Onofre closed, but we are not safe yet.”
We are here today in the hope that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will make San Onofre the “Flagship Project” for a safe-and-sane cleanup of America’s effort at decommissioning our
old and dangerous nuclear fleet and its highly radioactive nuclear waste problems. The original Manhattan Project brought us to where we are now; it’s time for the same kind of resources and energy to be put into a project to rid of us this dangerous radioactive waste.
Gene Stone of Residents Organized for Safe Environment (ROSE) says “we may be a little safer with San Onofre closed, but we are not safe yet.”
We are here today in the hope that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will make San Onofre the “Flagship Project” for a safe-and-sane cleanup of America’s effort at decommissioning our
old and dangerous nuclear fleet and its highly radioactive nuclear waste problems. The original Manhattan Project brought us to where we are now; it’s time for the same kind of resources and energy to be put into a project to rid of us this dangerous radioactive waste.
To this end the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre is forming a true citizens’ oversight committee to watch out for the health and safety of all Californians and workers at the plant during the decommissioning process. Our second goal is to watch out (delete watch out…add monitor) over the cost of decommissioning so the citizens and ratepayers of California are fully represented during the process.
1. The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre asks the NRC willing to give us official status in order to ensure that the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on significant decommissioning plans, including planned expenditures.
2. Coalition members learned recently from the NRC that high burnup fuel* has been used at San Onofre since 1996. But we have been unable to find a public notice of that from the NRC or SCE. Even the union and other workers we have contacted were not aware of its use. Was a notice ever given to the public and workers? Were workers made aware that this high burnup fuel is more than twice as radioactive?
* High burnup fuel is hotter and “between 2 and 158 times more radioactive”, requiring the waste to be cooled on-site in spent fuel pools for at least 12-15 years (rather than 5 years).
SCE SONGS 2 & 3 Early Decommissioning Scenario – CPUC Supplemental Testimony, July, 22, 2013,
3. The Coalition wants to know how the high burnup fuel may impact the decommissioning process at San Onofre. What specific problems does this higher radioactive fuel present for waste storage in fuel pools and dry cask storage at San Onofre and just how much longer will this radiation last? How will decommissioning be impacted by the current onsite storage of the spent fuel at San Onofre?
4. Coalition members also learned recently that some NRC staff are worried about short and long-term waste storage
in dry cask of high burnup fuel, and have initiated a new study to determine if it can safely be stored in dry casks. When will this NRC report be complete? Will it be released public and when? The Coalition has learned that there appears to be no way to monitor what’s occurring to
the spent fuel assemblies stored inside the dry casks. How does the NRC propose to monitor the condition of the highly radioactive material stored inside dry casks? How many casks will be required to safely store all the high burnup fuel that is on site in both the spent fuel pools and dry casks at San Onofre? How much high burn up fuel is on site in spent fuel pools and in dry cask storage at San Onofre?
To help inform ratepayers and the general public about the issues affecting the decommissioning process at San Onofre, the
Coalition to Decommission San Onofre will sponsor a Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre, Saturday, October 19, 2013 1:30 p.m to 4:30 p.m. at the Center for Spiritual Living,1201 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 100, San Clemente, CA 92673.
Featured speakers will include Arjun Makhijani, expert on Hardened On Site Storage of nuclear waste and long-term high-level waste management issues and President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and Marvin Resnikoff, expert on nuclear waste management issues and Senior Associate at Radioactive Waste Management Associates.
4. Coalition members also learned recently that some NRC staff are worried about short and long-term waste storage
in dry cask of high burnup fuel, and have initiated a new study to determine if it can safely be stored in dry casks. When will this NRC report be complete? Will it be released public and when? The Coalition has learned that there appears to be no way to monitor what’s occurring to
the spent fuel assemblies stored inside the dry casks. How does the NRC propose to monitor the condition of the highly radioactive material stored inside dry casks? How many casks will be required to safely store all the high burnup fuel that is on site in both the spent fuel pools and dry casks at San Onofre? How much high burn up fuel is on site in spent fuel pools and in dry cask storage at San Onofre?
To help inform ratepayers and the general public about the issues affecting the decommissioning process at San Onofre, the
Coalition to Decommission San Onofre will sponsor a Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre, Saturday, October 19, 2013 1:30 p.m to 4:30 p.m. at the Center for Spiritual Living,1201 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 100, San Clemente, CA 92673.
Featured speakers will include Arjun Makhijani, expert on Hardened On Site Storage of nuclear waste and long-term high-level waste management issues and President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and Marvin Resnikoff, expert on nuclear waste management issues and Senior Associate at Radioactive Waste Management Associates.
For more info contact:
Gene Stone of ROSE, 949-233-7724, gentston@sbcglobal.net
Glenn Pascall of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapte, 949-248-3138,r pascall@att.net
Carol Jahnkow of Peace Resourse Center of SD, 760-300-0775, caroljahnkow@gmail.com
George Watland of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, 213-387-4287 ext. 210, george.watland@sierraclub.org
Posted in Uncategorized Leave a comment
Statement and Questions for the NRC Sept 26, 2013
Questions from the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre for the NRC September 26, 2013Decommission public meeting
We are here today in the hope that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will make San Onofre the “Flagship Project” for a safe-and-sane cleanup of America’s effort at decommissioning our old and dangerous nuclear fleet and its highly radioactive nuclear
waste problems. The original Manhattan Project brought us to where we are now; it’s time for the same kind of resources and energy to be put into a project to rid of us this dangerous radioactive waste.
waste problems. The original Manhattan Project brought us to where we are now; it’s time for the same kind of resources and energy to be put into a project to rid of us this dangerous radioactive waste.
To this end the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre is forming a true citizens’ oversight committee to watch out for the health and safety of all Californians, and workers at the plant during the decommissioning process. Our second goal is to watch out over the cost of decommissioning so the citizens and ratepayers of California are not gouged during the process.
1. Is the NRC willing to recognize and give us, The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre, official status? Will the public have an opportunity to review and comment on significant decommissioning plans, including planned expenditures?
2. High burnup has been used at San Onofre since 1996 we were told by the NRC recently. But we cannot find a public notice of that from the NRC or SCE. Even the union and other workers I have talked with were not aware of its use. Was a notice ever given to the public and workers? Were workers made aware that this high burnup fuel is more than twice as radioactive?
a. High burnup fuel is hotter and “between 2 and 158 times more radioactive”, requiring the waste to be cooled on-site in spent fuel pools for at least 12-15 years (rather than 5 years).
2. High burnup has been used at San Onofre since 1996 we were told by the NRC recently. But we cannot find a public notice of that from the NRC or SCE. Even the union and other workers I have talked with were not aware of its use. Was a notice ever given to the public and workers? Were workers made aware that this high burnup fuel is more than twice as radioactive?
a. High burnup fuel is hotter and “between 2 and 158 times more radioactive”, requiring the waste to be cooled on-site in spent fuel pools for at least 12-15 years (rather than 5 years).
Does the NRC agree with these statement? If not how much more radioactive would the NRC say high burnup is? Edison reported to the CPUC they must keep some of their fuel in the spent fuel pools for at least 12 more years. SCE SONGS 2 & 3 Early
Decommissioning Scenario – CPUC Supplemental Testimony, July, 22, 2013
Decommissioning Scenario – CPUC Supplemental Testimony, July, 22, 2013
b. How does the high burn up fuel affect the decommissioning process at San Onofre? What specific problems does this higher radioactive fuel present for waste storage in fuel pools and dry cask storage at San Onofre and just how much longer will this radiation last? How will Decommissioning be impacted by the current
onsite storage of the Spent Fuel?
c. We understand the NRC staff is worried about short and long-term waste storage in dry cask of high burnup fuel, and has initiated a new study to determine if it can safely be stored in dry casks? Is this report complete? Will it be released public and when? One of your concerns is that there is no way to monitor what’s occurring inside the dry casks. How does the NRC propose to monitor the highly radioactive material inside of the dry casks? How many casks will be required to safely store all the high burnup fuel that is on site in both the spent fuel pools and dry casks at San Onofre? How much high burn up fuel is on site in fuel pools and dry cask at San Onofre?
onsite storage of the Spent Fuel?
c. We understand the NRC staff is worried about short and long-term waste storage in dry cask of high burnup fuel, and has initiated a new study to determine if it can safely be stored in dry casks? Is this report complete? Will it be released public and when? One of your concerns is that there is no way to monitor what’s occurring inside the dry casks. How does the NRC propose to monitor the highly radioactive material inside of the dry casks? How many casks will be required to safely store all the high burnup fuel that is on site in both the spent fuel pools and dry casks at San Onofre? How much high burn up fuel is on site in fuel pools and dry cask at San Onofre?
d. We know that MOX fuel was used in Unit 1 and removed from San Onofre to the GE Morris facility in Illinois. How and when was that done and under what permit was that done? If MOX fuel was transported away, can other high burnup fuel be moved from the site in the same way to the same place?
3. Will the NRC allow the resale of non-radioactive equipment and secondary side components (e.g., the Turbines, MSR’S, heat exchangers, condensers, intake pumps, intake piping, outfall piping, all associated piping and electrical components? Since some of these
are almost new (Turbines $90 million, Canister $50 million, Heat Exchangers $20 Million) will they be sold and where will the proceeds go?
4. We would like to know if there can be public announcements when any “allowable” toxic waste is to be released into the environment. We would also like to know, in general and
relative terms that everyone can understand, what the upper limits are for releasing radiation and toxic chemicals into the environment during the decommissioning process. When were those limits established and what would trigger a process to reevaluate those limits?
5. The NRC has not approved a transport dry storage cask nor even short-term dry cask
storage (over 20 years) for high burnup fuel. Will the NRC continue to allow high burnup fuel use even though they do NOT have an approved safe solution to store or transport this waste — even short-term? References: Dr. Robert E. Einziger’s 3/13/13 conference session on Storage and Transportation of High Burnup Fuel where he states the NRC has “insufficient data to support a licensing position” to extend high burnup dry cask storage over the initial 20 years currently approved. See his presentation (slide 7) on Status of NRC Research on High Burnup Fuel Issues, Regulatory Information Conference session on Storage and transportation of High Burnup Fuel.
are almost new (Turbines $90 million, Canister $50 million, Heat Exchangers $20 Million) will they be sold and where will the proceeds go?
4. We would like to know if there can be public announcements when any “allowable” toxic waste is to be released into the environment. We would also like to know, in general and
relative terms that everyone can understand, what the upper limits are for releasing radiation and toxic chemicals into the environment during the decommissioning process. When were those limits established and what would trigger a process to reevaluate those limits?
5. The NRC has not approved a transport dry storage cask nor even short-term dry cask
storage (over 20 years) for high burnup fuel. Will the NRC continue to allow high burnup fuel use even though they do NOT have an approved safe solution to store or transport this waste — even short-term? References: Dr. Robert E. Einziger’s 3/13/13 conference session on Storage and Transportation of High Burnup Fuel where he states the NRC has “insufficient data to support a licensing position” to extend high burnup dry cask storage over the initial 20 years currently approved. See his presentation (slide 7) on Status of NRC Research on High Burnup Fuel Issues, Regulatory Information Conference session on Storage and transportation of High Burnup Fuel.
Hear Dr. Einziger’s audio of the March 13, 2013 conference session on Storage and Transportation of High Burnup Fuel. Dr. Einziger’s presentation starts at 39:50 minutes. http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference symposia/ric/past/2013/docs/audio/w24.mp3
High burnup fuel is more difficult to store and transport. In addition, there is no transport cask design approved to store high burnup fuel. See GAO-12-797 August 2012 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL: Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors Present Storage and Other Challengeshttp://ml12046a013.pdf/ . Other source documents at http://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/ TheNRC currently licenses dry cask storage for high burnup for only 20 years.
High burnup fuel is more difficult to store and transport. In addition, there is no transport cask design approved to store high burnup fuel. See GAO-12-797 August 2012 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL: Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors Present Storage and Other Challengeshttp://ml12046a013.pdf/ . Other source documents at http://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/ TheNRC currently licenses dry cask storage for high burnup for only 20 years.
Current expiration date 2/5/2023. See
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0515/ML051520016.html and
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0515/ML051520016.html and
6. What are the reasons San Onofre has the highest percentage of damaged fuel assemblies? How many of these are high burnup? What is the impact of this to decommissioning in terms of safety, timeline and cost?
7. What is the status of Southern California Edison’s request to the NRC for approval to upgrade from 24 fuel assembly casks to the NUHOMS® 32PTH2 [32 fuel assembly] dry cask system, with an estimated install date of September 2014? The higher number of fuel assemblies brings higher risk of radiation releases, especially for high burnup fuel. High burnup fuel is hotter and more radioactive and therefore takes more space within a store.
Since it’s safer to reduce the number of assemblies, rather than increasing the number of assemblies, why does the NRC approve 32 assembly casks? Reference: SCE Request to replace Dry Cask Storage System to NUHOMS® 32PTH2, February 10, 2012
7. What is the status of Southern California Edison’s request to the NRC for approval to upgrade from 24 fuel assembly casks to the NUHOMS® 32PTH2 [32 fuel assembly] dry cask system, with an estimated install date of September 2014? The higher number of fuel assemblies brings higher risk of radiation releases, especially for high burnup fuel. High burnup fuel is hotter and more radioactive and therefore takes more space within a store.
Since it’s safer to reduce the number of assemblies, rather than increasing the number of assemblies, why does the NRC approve 32 assembly casks? Reference: SCE Request to replace Dry Cask Storage System to NUHOMS® 32PTH2, February 10, 2012
8. Is removing the spent fuel pool considered part of the decommissioning process? If so, how can dry casks be transported without use of a spent fuel pool in cases where that may
be needed? What vulnerabilities are there in San Onofre’s spent fuel pools? What improvements could be made to improve safety? Will any of them be made? If so, when? If not, why not?
be needed? What vulnerabilities are there in San Onofre’s spent fuel pools? What improvements could be made to improve safety? Will any of them be made? If so, when? If not, why not?
We feel these questions should be answered in the NRC opening statement:
1. What level of on-site staffing will NRC provide during the decommissioning process, and in which areas of technical expertise and oversight?
2. How do the waste confidence hearings affect the probability and timing at San Onofre for shipment of nuclear waste to remote interim or permanent storage?
1. What level of on-site staffing will NRC provide during the decommissioning process, and in which areas of technical expertise and oversight?
2. How do the waste confidence hearings affect the probability and timing at San Onofre for shipment of nuclear waste to remote interim or permanent storage?
Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre
Sat Oct 19, 2013 starting 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM at The Center for Spiritual Living, 1201 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 100, San Clemente, CA. 92673.
Featured speakers: Dr.Arjun Makhijani expert on Hardened On Site Storage of nuclear waste and long-term-waste management issures and President for Energy and Environment Research. 
Bio Dr. Makhijani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Makhijani
Dr. Marvin Resnikoff has worked on nuclear waste issues with government, industry, and activists for decades, Senior Associate at Radioactive Waste Management Associates and is an international consultant on radioactive waste management issues. He is Principal Manager at Associates and is Project Director for dose reconstruction and risk assessment studies of radioactive waste facilities and transportation of radioactive materials. 
Bio for Dr. Resnifoff http://www.rwma.com/mr.htm
Dr. Donald Mosier of Department of Immunology at The Scripps Research Institute and Couniclmember from Del Mar Ca. will speak about the health effects of radiation. 
Bio for Dr. Mosierhttp://www.delmar.ca.us/Government/Pages/donmosierBiography.aspx
Symposium location: The Center for Spiritual Living, 1201 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 100, San Clemente, CA. 92673. Oct 19, 2013, 1:30 PM to 4:30 Pm
For more info contact: Gene Stone gentston@sbcglobal.net Glenn Pascall of the Sierra Clubgpascall@att.net Carol Jahakow of the Peace Resource Center of San Diegocaroljahnkow@gmail.com
Posted in ACTION ALERTS, Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO Tagged NRC, Nuclear Waste, SAN CLEMENTE, SAN ONOFRE Leave a comment
Oct 19 Nuclear Waste Symposium
COALITION TO DECOMMISSION SAN ONOFRE is working on our behalf.
Three months ago, civic and environmental activists won a huge victory in shutting down the San Onofre nuclear plant near San Clemente, California. It may seem that all is now quiet in San Onofre land, but that is not the case. Yes, we are safer since the plant has been retired – but we are not safe.
The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre (CDSO) has been startled by the enormous challenge of managing radioactive nuclear waste at the plant. The issues include: unusually potent forms of fuel, dense storage of spent fuel far beyond design limits, large uncertainties about where the waste will ultimately be stored and for how long, and last but not least, the economics of decommissioning. These issues were below the radar during the shutdown debate, but they now loom large.
The Coalition has secured the involvement of top-rated nuclear waste specialists to provide crucial details about the current situation at San Onofre and other U.S. nuclear power plants.
Arjun Makhijani is an expert on HOSS (Hardened On Site Storage) and long-term high-level waste management issues. Marvin Resnikoff has worked on nuclear waste issues with government, industry, and activists for decades.
Our immediate goal in securing this expertise is to assure that best practices will be applied to minimize the risk for those who must live with San Onofre as a nuclear waste dump. Our ultimate goal is to reinvigorate America’s national dialog on radioactive nuclear waste.
The Coalition is equally active on economic issues. Since January 2013, we have been a formal Party to the California Public Utilities Commission investigations regarding who will pay for the defective plant, and what costs will be authorized for reimbursement from the Decommissioning Fund. Much is at stake. Will the $3.4 billion in the Fund be used solely to cover crucial tasks? Will utility customers be protected from unjustified future charges?
Representing the Coalition on behalf of Southern California ratepayers are Martha Sullivan, with 20 years’ experience as a CPUC staffer, and engineer Ray Lutz, CEO of Citizens Oversight, Inc. They have formal standing as interveners along with other ratepayer advocates during four upcoming multi-year phases.
Responses received from our panel of experts, in video and written form, will serve to better inform public participation at upcoming hearings and public meetings of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). They will also provide program content for briefings and seminars held by the Coalition, with an invitation to other groups around the country to use these presentations at their own events.
We need your help in this public awareness and involvement campaign!
There is an urgent need for contributions to support expert research on the crucial facts and realities of radioactive waste, and to cover the costs of our ratepayer advocates’ presence on the scene at extensive upcoming hearings.
The basic cost is $8,500 to secure the best information and to hold the Nuclear Waste Symposium in San Clemente, along with the video copy that can be sent around the nation and world to help shut down more nuclear power plants. An additional $3,000 is required to cover the necessary expenses of ratepayer advocates. We have already received $4153 toward the symposium and $400 toward ratepayer advocates. To make your tax deductible donation use one of the methods below.
To support these efforts, please send a check made out to the “Coalition to Decommission San Onofre”, lower left memo “Nuclear Waste Symposium” or CPUC actions, c/o Gene Stone, 1203 Via Presa San Clemente, CA 92672.
To us PayPal use these links below:
PayPal link for Nuclear Waste Symposium link: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5K6JAPS2EGU4W
PayPal link for CPUC action: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=M8DAR46WLV5AE
We hope the potential value of this information and outreach initiative will encourage you and/or your organization to become a funding partner. Your investment will help assure a higher level of public awareness about crucial facts, and will increase the likelihood that best practices are applied to deal with the continuing threat to the environment, land use and public health created by the nuclear waste challenge.
Our thanks for your attention to this appeal.
Contact information:
Gene Stone 949-233-7724 genston@sbcglobal.net
Martha Sullivan 858-945-6273 marthasullivan@gmail.com
Glenn Pascall 949-248-3183 gpascall@sbcglobal.net
Gene Stone 949-233-7724 genston@sbcglobal.net
Martha Sullivan 858-945-6273 marthasullivan@gmail.com
Glenn Pascall 949-248-3183 gpascall@sbcglobal.net
Posted in ACTION ALERTS, Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO Tagged Nuclear Waste, SAN CLEMENTE,SAN ONOFRE, SOCAL, SONGS Leave a comment
San Onofre the risks live on
Our Coalition to Decommission San Onofre can now proudly announce that nationally-regarded nuclear experts Dr. Marvin Resnikoff and Dr. Arjun Makhijani have confirmed they will be joining us for the October 19 symposium at the Center for Spiritual Living Capistrano Valley, 1201 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 100, San Clemente, California 92673.Registration will start at 12 noon and the program will begin at 12:30 PM.
We have been startled by the magnitude of the radioactive nuclear waste management challenge, which involves unusually potent forms of fuel, dense storage of spent fuel far beyond design limits, and huge uncertainties about where the fuel will ultimately be stored and for how long. These issues were below the radar during the shutdown debate but now they loom large.
The symposium will help concerned residents inform ourselves and get active to be sure the outcome is the fairest and best possible for those who continue to live with the presence of San Onofre as a nuclear waste storage site. Come and get briefed on the crucial issues, share your thoughts with other concerned residents, and join us as we organize to help shape the decisions that lie ahead.
We are working diligently on fundraising outreach for necessary costs of the event, and we will put out a notice related to this as soon as possible.
Our coalition member groups include: Peace Resource Center of San Diego, Citizens Oversight Project, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Women Occupy San Diego, San Clemente Green, San Onofre Safety, and Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE). For more info contact; http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/
genston@sbcglobal.net
genston@sbcglobal.net
Posted in Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO 1 Comment
SAN ONOFRE: THE RISK LIVES ON
Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre and the Ongoing Dangers of Nuclear Waste
Heartfelt thanks to all who gave their time and effort over many months to help shut down San Onofre. It may seem that all is now quiet in San Onofre land, but it is not. Our Coalition to Decommissioning San Onofre has been startled by the magnitude of the radioactive nuclear waste management challenge, which involves unusually potent forms of fuel, dense storage of spent fuel far beyond design limits, and huge uncertainties about where the fuel will ultimately be stored and for how long. These issues were below the radar during the shutdown debate but now they loom large.
We are organizing a symposium for October featuring national experts on the key issues, plus plenty of time for questions to panelists and group discussion. The symposium will help concerned residents inform ourselves and get active to be sure the outcome is the fairest and best possible for those who continue to live with the presence of San Onofre as a nuclear waste storage site.
Come and get briefed on the crucial issues, share your thoughts with other concerned residents, and join us as we organize to help shape the decisions that lie ahead. In coming weeks, we’ll keep you posted as details of the event are confirmed. For now save the date October 19, 2013. If this date changes we will let you know immediately.
Our coalition member groups include: Peace Resource Center of San Diego, Citizens Oversight Project, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Women Occupy San Diego, San Clemente Green, San Onofre Safety, and Residents Organized for a Safe Environment
(ROSE).
(ROSE).
Residents Organized for a Safe Environment | ROSE: taking care of the Earth for the next seven generations
No comments:
Post a Comment