#CSDSO II Directions & Live Stream

The Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre 2, with Dr Tom English, advisor to President Jimmy Carter on high-level nuclear waste and Joe Moross head Nuclear tech at Safecast, 3- 5:30 PM in San Clemente, free and open to the public, if you would like to attend remotely CLICK HERE FOR LIVESTREAM! 

#CSDSO II Real facts about what’s in the “cans” and what could come out of them.

#SaveTrestles; Thick Casks Not Thin Cans; Hot Cell Onsite For Damaged Can Repair & Real Time Public Third Party Radiation Monitoring #CSDSO

To Attend #CSDSO II In Person CLICK HERE FOR DIRECTIONS
 Address: 1201 Puerta Del Sol, San Clemente, CA 92673

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

#CSDSO II Directions & Live Stream

The Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre 2, with Dr Tom English, advisor to President Jimmy Carter on high-level nuclear waste and Joe Moross head Nuclear tech at Safecast, 3- 5:30 PM in San Clemente, free and open to the public, if you would like to attend remotely CLICK HERE FOR LIVESTREAM! 

#CSDSO II Real facts about what’s in the “cans” and what could come out of them.

#SaveTrestles; Thick Casks Not Thin Cans; Hot Cell Onsite For Damaged Can Repair & Real Time Public Third Party Radiation Monitoring #CSDSO

To Attend #CSDSO II In Person CLICK HERE FOR DIRECTIONS
 Address: 1201 Puerta Del Sol, San Clemente, CA 92673

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Community Symposium On Decommissioning San Onofre II

2nd Nuclear Waste Symposium/Radiation Monitoring

ROSE, invites you to attend our upcoming 2nd event on Nuclear Waste with Tom English and Joe Moross. Real facts about what’s in the “cans” and what could come out of them. There will also be a discussion about Independent Real-Time Radiation Monitoring at San Onofre Nuclear Waste site with Joe Moross from Safecast on Oct 18, 2018, at 1201 Puerta Del Sol Suite 100 San Clemente, California 92673, 3 to 5:30 pm.  We will also discuss the higher radiation readings Darin and I got on our last visit to San Onofre Nuclear Waste site.

We plan to stay on these two topics because of the time factor. Also, we want to have lots of time for a real back and forth discussion on both topics, so bring your questions. They will be answered with the best information we have.

SCE was invited to participate in this symposium, but they declined because they do not want to come out and speak in public until sometime in November when the NRC will hold a meeting with their findings from the September 10 inspection. Joe Moross from Safecast is only here until late October which is why we are going ahead with this symposium.

Sincerely,

Gene Stone
Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE)
On twitter @gene_stone
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/

Watch The 1st Community Symposium On Decommissioning San Onofre Streamed Oct 19, 2013 
Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Community Symposium On Decommissioning San Onofre II

2nd Nuclear Waste Symposium/Radiation Monitoring

ROSE, invites you to attend our upcoming 2nd event on Nuclear Waste with Tom English and Joe Moross. Real facts about what’s in the “cans” and what could come out of them. There will also be a discussion about Independent Real-Time Radiation Monitoring at San Onofre Nuclear Waste site with Joe Moross from Safecast on Oct 18, 2018, at 1201 Puerta Del Sol Suite 100 San Clemente, California 92673, 3 to 5:30 pm.  We will also discuss the higher radiation readings Darin and I got on our last visit to San Onofre Nuclear Waste site.

We plan to stay on these two topics because of the time factor. Also, we want to have lots of time for a real back and forth discussion on both topics, so bring your questions. They will be answered with the best information we have.

SCE was invited to participate in this symposium, but they declined because they do not want to come out and speak in public until sometime in November when the NRC will hold a meeting with their findings from the September 10 inspection. Joe Moross from Safecast is only here until late October which is why we are going ahead with this symposium.

Sincerely,

Gene Stone
Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE)
On twitter @gene_stone
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/

Watch The 1st Community Symposium On Decommissioning San Onofre Streamed Oct 19, 2013 
Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

What Needs To Be Done For San Onofre Safety

Instead of protecting our safety Southern California Edison’s plan appears to be to hide radiation leaks and hide the fact they are out of compliance with their Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license. See Condition 8 of License, page 3 (ML16341B080). This handout with more details (No Plan for Cracking Cans) was presented to Southern California Edison at the August 9th, 2018 Community Engagement Panel meeting.

For More Critical Independant SONGS information please visit https://sanonofresafety.org/

& Thank you Donna Gilmore for all of your investigational activities into the debacle that is the San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump.

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

What Needs To Be Done For San Onofre Safety

Instead of protecting our safety Southern California Edison’s plan appears to be to hide radiation leaks and hide the fact they are out of compliance with their Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license. See Condition 8 of License, page 3 (ML16341B080). This handout with more details (No Plan for Cracking Cans) was presented to Southern California Edison at the August 9th, 2018 Community Engagement Panel meeting.

For More Critical Independant SONGS information please visit https://sanonofresafety.org/

& Thank you Donna Gilmore for all of your investigational activities into the debacle that is the San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump.

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Sounding The Alarm: San Onofre Nuclear Waste Storage

SHOWING UP IS ALSO NOT THAT COMPLICATED! 

  • Who: Citizens concerned about nuclear waste safety at San Onofre
  • What: Edison’s quarterly Community Engagement Panel (CEP) Meeting – San Onofre
  • When: Wed, June 27, 2018 4:30pm – Meeting starts at 5:30pm
  • Where: Casino San Clemente, 140 West Avenida Pico, San Clemente, CA 92672
  • Why: Shocking revelations – Edison has no method in place to repair or replace defective canisters of nuclear waste. (they think it will take a few years to figure that out…) 

Background on Nuclear Waste issues at San Onofre, just south of the world famous Trestles spot in San Clemente California AKA SURFING USA!
:
In Feb 2018, Edison began the year and a half long process of loading 73 more canisters of nuclear waste into the beachside concrete storage silo at San Onofre, adding to the 51 loaded canisters that have been on-site starting in 2003.

Public criticism ranges from outrage to disbelief as people realize the location of the nuclear waste storage is 100’ from the ocean, inches above the water-table, in an earthquake-tsunami zone, a few hundred yards from the I-5 freeway and Railroad, and…. on one of southern California’s most iconic beaches.

Details about the thin-walled canisters being used to contain the deadly radioactive waste cause even more alarm.  Ongoing Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) studies show that these canisters are susceptible to corrosion which can lead to cracking.  Loaded canisters cannot be inspected for cracks.  And, as the President of Holtec, the manufacturer of the canisters, stated at a previous CEP meeting, even a microscopic through-wall crack will release millions of curies of radionuclides into the environment. https://youtu.be/euaFZt0YPi4 

With each welded-shut 5/8” thick (thin) stainless steel canister containing roughly the radioactive equivalent of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, critics aptly refer to the loaded canisters as Chernobyl Cans.

Recent Shocking Revelations:
At the March 2018 CEP meeting, in his update on the nuclear waste loading process, Tom Palmisano, Edison’s Chief Nuclear Officer, stated that a defective canister was discovered.  Workers found loose bolts in the bottom of an empty canister. The bolts hold the internal fuel basket structure in place, and allow passive helium flow inside the canister.  This air flow is critical for cooling the thermally hot and highly radioactive waste.  According to Palmisano, Holtec changed the interior design without notifying Edison or the NRC.  Palmisano stated that all remaining canisters with the defective design were returned to Holtec, and loading resumed using canisters with the original ‘bolt-less’ design.

But what about the four – already loaded – defective canisters?
When asked if the four defective canisters will be unloaded, and reloaded into canisters with the original ‘bolt-less’ design, Palmisano explained that the technology does not currently exist to unload the waste from the canisters back into the spent fuel pools.  He also mentioned this has been a known problem for years.  https://youtu.be/mjgna2atn7Y.   see video of entire March 2018 CEP meeting –
https://www.songscommunity.com/community-engagement/meetings/community-engagement-panel-meeting

AS YOU READ THIS LINE TODAY Edison has no method to repair or replace the defective canisters.  LET THAT SINK IN FOR A MOMENT!!! NO PLAN B IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG!

At this next CEP meeting, in response to Edison’s inability to unload / reload canisters, Palmisano will presumably repeat what he has already stated at a number of CEP meetings, that defective or leaking canisters will be stored inside transport casks (like Russian dolls).  But transport casks have not been approved by the NRC for storage of defective or leaking canisters. Transport casks were not designed for storing these extremely hot canisters.

Public awareness of Edison’s poor choice of both the storage canisters and the beach-side storage site is growing.   At this point, people are particularly concerned about the 51 canisters (Chernobyl Cans) that could already have significant corrosion and cracking.

We are calling for Edison to build a Hot Cell, and reload the fuel waste into proven Thick-wall Casks (10″ to 19.75″ thick).  A Hot Cell is a helium-filled, robotically-operated facility, and it is the only other NRC approved method to unload canisters.

Thick-wall Casks, unlike the Thin-wall Cans, can be inspected, maintained and monitored to PREVENT major radioactive releases into the environment.  Thick-wall Casks withstood the Fukushima disaster.

Further implications of recent revelations:its not just our backyard.

These problems with the canisters at San Onofre apply to numerous sites across the country where over 2400 loaded thin-walled canisters are currently stored.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board December 2017 report to Congress states
spent nuclear fuel and its containment must be retrievable, maintained and monitored to prevent hydrogen gas explosions in both short and long term storage and transport. Edison has clearly indicated this cannot be done with the on-site spent fuel pools.
NWTRB DOE Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel December 2017
http://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/nwtrb-mngmntanddisposal-dec2017-508a.pdf?sfvrsn=12

Edison’s NRC license requires the ability to unload canisters back into the pool.  It appears Edison is out of compliance with their NRC San Onofre dry storage licenses.  RESCIND THOSE LICENSES!

Edison needs to build a Hot Cell (asap) to address the
Chernobyl Can – Ticking Time Bombs – at San Onofre.

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Sounding The Alarm: San Onofre Nuclear Waste Storage

SHOWING UP IS ALSO NOT THAT COMPLICATED! 

  • Who: Citizens concerned about nuclear waste safety at San Onofre
  • What: Edison’s quarterly Community Engagement Panel (CEP) Meeting – San Onofre
  • When: Wed, June 27, 2018 4:30pm – Meeting starts at 5:30pm
  • Where: Casino San Clemente, 140 West Avenida Pico, San Clemente, CA 92672
  • Why: Shocking revelations – Edison has no method in place to repair or replace defective canisters of nuclear waste. (they think it will take a few years to figure that out…) 

Background on Nuclear Waste issues at San Onofre, just south of the world famous Trestles spot in San Clemente California AKA SURFING USA!
:
In Feb 2018, Edison began the year and a half long process of loading 73 more canisters of nuclear waste into the beachside concrete storage silo at San Onofre, adding to the 51 loaded canisters that have been on-site starting in 2003.

Public criticism ranges from outrage to disbelief as people realize the location of the nuclear waste storage is 100’ from the ocean, inches above the water-table, in an earthquake-tsunami zone, a few hundred yards from the I-5 freeway and Railroad, and…. on one of southern California’s most iconic beaches.

Details about the thin-walled canisters being used to contain the deadly radioactive waste cause even more alarm.  Ongoing Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) studies show that these canisters are susceptible to corrosion which can lead to cracking.  Loaded canisters cannot be inspected for cracks.  And, as the President of Holtec, the manufacturer of the canisters, stated at a previous CEP meeting, even a microscopic through-wall crack will release millions of curies of radionuclides into the environment. https://youtu.be/euaFZt0YPi4 

With each welded-shut 5/8” thick (thin) stainless steel canister containing roughly the radioactive equivalent of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, critics aptly refer to the loaded canisters as Chernobyl Cans.

Recent Shocking Revelations:
At the March 2018 CEP meeting, in his update on the nuclear waste loading process, Tom Palmisano, Edison’s Chief Nuclear Officer, stated that a defective canister was discovered.  Workers found loose bolts in the bottom of an empty canister. The bolts hold the internal fuel basket structure in place, and allow passive helium flow inside the canister.  This air flow is critical for cooling the thermally hot and highly radioactive waste.  According to Palmisano, Holtec changed the interior design without notifying Edison or the NRC.  Palmisano stated that all remaining canisters with the defective design were returned to Holtec, and loading resumed using canisters with the original ‘bolt-less’ design.

But what about the four – already loaded – defective canisters?
When asked if the four defective canisters will be unloaded, and reloaded into canisters with the original ‘bolt-less’ design, Palmisano explained that the technology does not currently exist to unload the waste from the canisters back into the spent fuel pools.  He also mentioned this has been a known problem for years.  https://youtu.be/mjgna2atn7Y.   see video of entire March 2018 CEP meeting –
https://www.songscommunity.com/community-engagement/meetings/community-engagement-panel-meeting

AS YOU READ THIS LINE TODAY Edison has no method to repair or replace the defective canisters.  LET THAT SINK IN FOR A MOMENT!!! NO PLAN B IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG!

At this next CEP meeting, in response to Edison’s inability to unload / reload canisters, Palmisano will presumably repeat what he has already stated at a number of CEP meetings, that defective or leaking canisters will be stored inside transport casks (like Russian dolls).  But transport casks have not been approved by the NRC for storage of defective or leaking canisters. Transport casks were not designed for storing these extremely hot canisters.

Public awareness of Edison’s poor choice of both the storage canisters and the beach-side storage site is growing.   At this point, people are particularly concerned about the 51 canisters (Chernobyl Cans) that could already have significant corrosion and cracking.

We are calling for Edison to build a Hot Cell, and reload the fuel waste into proven Thick-wall Casks (10″ to 19.75″ thick).  A Hot Cell is a helium-filled, robotically-operated facility, and it is the only other NRC approved method to unload canisters.

Thick-wall Casks, unlike the Thin-wall Cans, can be inspected, maintained and monitored to PREVENT major radioactive releases into the environment.  Thick-wall Casks withstood the Fukushima disaster.

Further implications of recent revelations:its not just our backyard.

These problems with the canisters at San Onofre apply to numerous sites across the country where over 2400 loaded thin-walled canisters are currently stored.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board December 2017 report to Congress states
spent nuclear fuel and its containment must be retrievable, maintained and monitored to prevent hydrogen gas explosions in both short and long term storage and transport. Edison has clearly indicated this cannot be done with the on-site spent fuel pools.
NWTRB DOE Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel December 2017
http://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/nwtrb-mngmntanddisposal-dec2017-508a.pdf?sfvrsn=12

Edison’s NRC license requires the ability to unload canisters back into the pool.  It appears Edison is out of compliance with their NRC San Onofre dry storage licenses.  RESCIND THOSE LICENSES!

Edison needs to build a Hot Cell (asap) to address the
Chernobyl Can – Ticking Time Bombs – at San Onofre.

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

San Onofre Hot Cell Demolition Video 2007

San Onofre Hot Cell Demolition Video 2007
Plan B RIP OCT 2007

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Test Area North (TAN) hot shop (hot cell) was destroyed in 2007. It was the only hot cell identified large enough for unloading San Onofre’s thin cans. The MPR Associates white paper “SONGS Used Fuel Management – Defense in Depth” (September 2017), page 20, incredulously states it is feasible to use this TAN hot shop (hot cell) for San Onofre’s thin cans. Their reference for this claim (Reference #21) actually states the opposite — it states the TAN facility was demolished in 2007. Viability of Existing INL Facilities for Dry Storage Cask Handling, USDOE Report, INL/EXT-13-29035, April 2013, Page v, Executive Summary. This appears to be a significant criminal comprehension error with the MPR authors.

Edison knew the TAN Hot Cell facility was demolished, yet did not catch this major error in the MPR San Onofre report. Closure of the TAN facility was discussed at the California Public Utilities Commission San Onofre decommissioning proceeding during August 2015 evidentiary hearings.

Every permit since 2007 needs to be rescinded, 

for the criminal lie that anyone ever had a “Plan B”


Let’s Start With A NEW Plan B. 

On Site Hot Cell 
Thick Casks
Real Time Radiation Monitoring 


Click Here To Become A Stakeholder 

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

San Onofre Hot Cell Demolition Video 2007

San Onofre Hot Cell Demolition Video 2007
Plan B RIP OCT 2007

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Test Area North (TAN) hot shop (hot cell) was destroyed in 2007. It was the only hot cell identified large enough for unloading San Onofre’s thin cans. The MPR Associates white paper “SONGS Used Fuel Management – Defense in Depth” (September 2017), page 20, incredulously states it is feasible to use this TAN hot shop (hot cell) for San Onofre’s thin cans. Their reference for this claim (Reference #21) actually states the opposite — it states the TAN facility was demolished in 2007. Viability of Existing INL Facilities for Dry Storage Cask Handling, USDOE Report, INL/EXT-13-29035, April 2013, Page v, Executive Summary. This appears to be a significant criminal comprehension error with the MPR authors.

Edison knew the TAN Hot Cell facility was demolished, yet did not catch this major error in the MPR San Onofre report. Closure of the TAN facility was discussed at the California Public Utilities Commission San Onofre decommissioning proceeding during August 2015 evidentiary hearings.

Every permit since 2007 needs to be rescinded, 

for the criminal lie that anyone ever had a “Plan B”


Let’s Start With A NEW Plan B. 

On Site Hot Cell 
Thick Casks
Real Time Radiation Monitoring 


Click Here To Become A Stakeholder 

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

FACTS On San Onofre For Surfrider Members

Call Surfrider Today! (949) 492-8170 

Southern California Edison’s (SCE) has not included many important facts in their responses to Surfrider Foundations questions regarding the nuke dump at San Onofre See “FACTS” below SCE’s responses.  A Printable PDF Version of this post is found at SanOnofreSafety.org. 

Timeline Inquiries & Comments (Julia Chunn‐Heer, San Diego Policy Manager)

1) Has the timeline for starting the movement into dry storage changed, or is it still slated to start in Dec 2017/Jan 2018?

SCE Response: No, the timeline has not changed. Fuel transfer from wet to dry storage could start as early as December 2017 following on‐site NRC reviews.

FACTS ON SAN ONOFRE THAT ALL SURFRIDER MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW:

a) SCE’s answer implies the Holtec 37-fuel assembly thin-wall canisters are safe. However, the NRC has approved a relatively new unproven design that they know cannot be adequately inspected, maintained, monitored or repaired to PREVENT radioactive leaks and that they know are vulnerable to short-term cracking. SCE has no approved plan in place to stop leaks or replace canisters.

  1. The NRC and SCE know there is no seismic/earthquake rating for partially cracked canisters, yet refuse to address this issue. 
  2. The existing 51 Areva NUHOMS 24-fuel assembly thin-wall canisters are up to 15 years old. SCE has no idea how many cracks they have or how deep the cracks may be, yet SCE continues to use thin-wall canisters and the NRC continues to approve inferior thin-wall canister technology, knowing that once cracks starts they can grow through the wall in only 16 years. 
  3. Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) was approved for an additional 40 years. Their Aging Management Plan does not require adequate inspections to find cracks or resolve cracking problems. Calvert Cliffs thin-wall canisters are similar to San Onofre thin-wall canisters. 
  4. SCE knows better quality dry storage systems are available that can be inspected, maintained, monitored and repaired (inside and out), but refused to require these minimum safety requirements in their Requests for Proposals and the NRC refuses to enforce minimum safety standards for containers they know need to be maintained for decades, if not centuries. 
  5. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reported it would be over 80 years before San Onofre canisters would leak. However, their report cherry picked data to reach that conclusion. They ignored conditions of the San Onofre marine environment (frequent fog, on shore surf and wind) and evidence that a 2-year old Diablo Canyon canister (also located near the Pacific Ocean) had a low enough temperature for moisture to dissolve corrosive salts (also found at Diablo). Salt corrosion is one of the major triggers to initiate cracking of these canisters. 
  6. The NRC claims we don’t have enough moisture at San Onofre to trigger “chloride induced stress corrosion cracking” from salt. They ignore the fact we have frequent fog along the coast and ignore that other comparable components at San Onofre have cracked and leaked from moist salt air. 
  7. The NRC and SCE are ignoring all the other conditions that can cause thin-wall canisters to start cracking, such as acid rain, and critters making microscopic scratches on the canister surface. 

b) The NRC approved record high temperatures for the Holtec thin-wall canisters (almost double those previously allowed). Previous maximum canister heat load at San Onofre was 15.29 Kw, with an average much lower than that. SCE is loading the Holtec canisters at just under 30 Kw. This allows SCE to expedite fuel from the pools to dry storage. Expediting fuel into dry storage is a major cost savings to SCE. Maintaining the pools is a high overhead cost.

  1. NRC engineers said Holtec did not justify the high heat loads. They are concerned about damaging the fuel assemblies. However, NRC management approved this anyway, putting industry profits over our safety. 
  2. The NRC is no longer requiring SCE to verify that the convection cooling system is performing adequately (for heat loads under 30Kw). This is a major change from previous canister approvals that required verification of adequate cooling after the canisters were loaded inside the concrete overpack. SCE is loading canisters at just under 30Kw. This allows SCE to avoid reporting effectiveness of the cooling system, since only canisters loaded at 30Kw or above must be reported. 
  3. The NRC is approving hotter canisters because that is what the nuclear energy corporations want – not because they have assurances fuel will not become damaged. Spent fuel pools are filling up with higher burnup fuel and must be unloaded in order to keep reactors running. The only other option to build an additional spent fuel pool for the additional fuel, but that is very expensive. Therefore, the NRC is approving much higher heat loads, even above 30kW. 

c) Since canisters are welded shut, they have no way to verify the condition of the fuel assemblies for storage or transport

2) According to the settlement agreement, there is a commitment to investigate a monitoring plan by 2020:

Q) When will the monitoring plan be completed?

SCE Response: The Coastal Development Permit approved by the Coastal Commission in 2015 includes a condition requiring SCE to develop an Inspection & Maintenance (I&M) Program by October 2022. As part of the settlement agreement, SCE agreed to expedite preparation of that program by two years, to 2020.

It is important to note, all dry cask storage facilities at U.S. nuclear plants are monitored once the system is in use. This activity is separate from the I&M Program discussed above.
Routine monitoring includes:

  • 24/7 Monitoring by Highly Trained Operations and Security Force 
  • Continuous Temperature Monitoring 
  • Daily Walkdowns of ISFSI 
  • Radiation Surveys 
  • Periodic Inspections 

In addition, the NRC requires an Aging Management Plan (AMP) to be in place after the system has been licensed for 20 years.

Q) When will the monitoring plan be implemented?

SCE Response: As noted in the prior question, routine monitoring of the UMAX system will commence immediately upon installation of the first canister, as required by the NRC. This monitoring, which includes temperature surveillance and operator visual inspections, is consistent with the system technical specifications and final safety analysis report, and was not impacted by the settlement agreement.

Q) To truly promote SCE’s principles of “safety, stewardship, and engagement”, we feel this plan should be fully developed before more spent fuel is moved into dry storage. Why not go above and beyond the bare minimum requirements of the NRC?

SCE Response: Under NRC regulations, the AMP is not required until 2035. Therefore, SCE has gone above and beyond NRC requirements by agreeing to develop an I&M Program by 2020, which will provide for more formal monitoring at an earlier stage. In addition, as mentioned earlier, routine monitoring of dry cask storage facilities is performed as soon as the fuel is moved into dry storage.

FACTS:

  1. SCE avoided the real answer to the Surfrider excellent recommendation. SCE doesn’t have the ability to adequately inspect, let alone the ability to repair, and likely will never have those capabilities with the thin-wall canister design. Their goal is to expedite the fuel out of the pools to save money. The only option to meet those conditions is to use thick-wall casks, but SCE refuses to do this. 
  2. The purpose of any monitoring plan is to prevent leaks or quickly stop leaks after they happen. Existing SCE “Routine monitoring” mentioned above does not meet either of those goals. The SCE Inspection & Maintenance (I&M) Program will not meet those goals, either. 
  3. The NRC, SCE and thin-wall canister vendors have not provided evidence that SCE’s thin-wall Areva NUHOMS canisters and thin-wall Holtec canisters can be adequately inspected or repaired and there is sufficient evidence to show otherwise. 
  4. No thin-wall canisters loaded with spent nuclear fuel waste have been adequately inspected and none have been repaired. 
  5. Holtec President, Dr. Kris Singh, admitted at an SCE public CEP meeting that even if you could find a crack, even a microscopic through-wall crack will release millions of curies of radionuclides into the environment. And even if you could find the cracks and a way to repair them, it’s not practical to repair them without introducing another condition for cracking. Tom Palmisano (SCE) disagrees with Singh, but has provided no evidence. 
  6. The Calvert Cliffs ISFSI has an approved NRC Aging Management Plan, but it is inadequate. It does not require adequate inspections to find or measure cracks and does not outline any method to repair or replace canisters. The renewal license states: The licensee shall perform inspections of DSC [dry storage cans] external surfaces using proven technology reasonably available at the time the inspection is conducted which is capable of meeting the physical access and environmental constraints of the HSM (concrete overpack) interior.” 
  7. There is no technology available to meet those conditions and the nuclear industry has not proven it will ever exist. Information provided by EPRI and SCE regarding this is very misleading, giving the impression that it actually exists and can be used to adequate inspect to find cracks and measure depth of cracks. 
  8. The NRC only requires visual inspection of one canister at each site, so even if they did have inspection technology that could find and measure cracks, the NRC regulations are extremely weak. 
  9. The nuclear industry promises future solutions for finding and repairing cracks. Believing nuclear industry promises of waste solutions is what got us into this mess. 

3) Is SCE looking into other options for offsite storage since Palo Verde has said publicly they do not want San Onofre’s waste?

SCE Response: SCE is closely monitoring, in particular, the proposed consolidated interim storage facilities in West Texas and East New Mexico. SCE will be submitting a formal request to Palo Verde to store the San Onofre used nuclear fuel.

FACTS:

  1. HR3053 proposed interim storage legislation has major flaws, making this a non-viable, unsafe and underfunded option. 
  2. The proposed CIS facilities in Texas and New Mexico are flawed designs, proposing to transport existing aging canisters by rail, with no plan to deal with leaking or cracking canisters. SCE only wants to consider options that remove their financial liability. 
  3. SCE, the NRC, DOE and the owners of the proposed CIS sites have not evaluated transport routes. SCE fuel would likely need to go by rail through Los Angeles. 
  4. Transport risk are significant and there is no plan to effectively handle accidents. 
  5. The NRC is still studying whether high burnup fuel (like that at San Onofre) will become damaged from train vibrations. 
  6. Moving existing thin-wall canisters that have been aging for decades may not make it across the freeway, let alone on a longer route. No one knows the conditions of the canisters or the fuel rods. 
  7. NRC transport regulations require intact canisters for transporting high burnup fuel. Contents must be inspected to ensure fuel is not damaged. The thin-wall canisters are not designed to be opened. 
  8. The citizens at the proposed sites do not want San Onofre (or any other) nuclear waste. Lawsuits will put a halt or at least slow down the process. Thin-wall canisters will likely start leaking before another site can be found. That is why the most important thing to do is move the fuel to thick-wall transportable storage casks that can be inspected, maintained, repaired and monitored to prevent radioactive leaks. 
  9. Fuel will go critical if exposed to unborated water. The NRC ignores this by claiming it will never happen. 
  10. High burnup fuel generates hydrides, that if exposed to air can cause hydrogen explosions. The NRC has not addressed this and just assumes it will never happen. 
  11. Palo Verde doesn’t want our fuel assemblies. Since SCE will still have liability, they do not want that option. Tom Palmisano said this in an email. 

4) We ask SCE to please provide our communities with more certainty that canisters will remain intact and safe, prior to burying nuclear waste so close to the ocean, on a dynamic coastline and bluff face, exposed to impacts from sea level rise.

We urge SCE to continually and thoroughly monitor all canisters onsite due to the significant risks if a leak were to occur, and the amount of unknowns and unintended consequences that could arise.

SCE Response: Used nuclear fuel has been safely stored in dry storage facilities for more than three decades in the United States. The canisters are licensed by the NRC. In addition, state regulatory review was performed to ensure the dry storage facility complies with the California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Commission found that the project would be consistent with the hazards, marine resources, water quality and view protection policies of the Coastal Act. These federal and state regulatory processes included a thorough evaluation of radiological and environmental concerns, and provide confidence that the fuel can be safely stored at San Onofre.

Even in the unlikely event that a leak were to occur, this would not give rise to significant risks or consequences. There would be minimal to no impact to the site or public, where the following is anticipated:

  • Inert helium release 
  • Any fission gases that did escape would diffuse into the air, and have minimal to no impact to the public 
  • No high‐pressure forces in canister to cause a release 
  • Solid fission products would remain in fuel rods in canister 

To address potential flaws, SCE is working with vendors/industry to develop mitigation techniques. Techniques under development include:

1. Remote weld repair
2. Canister‐in‐canister encapsulation
3. Transport cask to store/contain compromised canister

Safety is our core principle. SCE has and will continue to monitor the dry cask systems and safeguard the used nuclear fuel until government approved long‐term storage options are available in order to protect the people and environment surrounding San Onofre.

FACTS

  • SCE has no idea how safe the existing canisters are. Most canisters are around 10 years old. A few are over 30 years old. Since they cannot inspect for cracks they have no idea the condition of the canisters. However, we are increasing our probability of leaks as the years increase. No one can predict when a crack will start. The NRC only knows they are vulnerable to cracking. Once a crack starts it can grow through the wall in 16 years. 
  • Areva (the NUHOMS canister vendor) is asking the NRC to weaken their dry storage safety requirements – at SCE’s request. 
  • Eliminate the spent fuel pools after all fuel is move to dry storage (eliminating the only on-site method to replace canisters). 
  • Exclude reporting radiation levels at the outlet air vents. This is where the highest radiation levels will from through wall cracks. It appears SCE’s plan is to hide leaks rather that stop them. (When the steam generators leaked radiation 1/31/2012, we were not told until 2/17/2012 that the radionuclides were released into the atmosphere. SCE initially claimed the radiation was contained in the domes.) How can we trust a company that already attempted to hide leaks? 
  • The Coastal Commission added Special Conditions to the Coastal Permit, requiring the canisters be maintainable and transportable. This is hardly an endorsement. The Commission knows of the flaws of these canisters. That is the reason for the special conditions. 
  • The Coastal Commission and other state and local agencies have no jurisdiction over radiological impact, so their approval is not an endorsement of radiological risk. 
  • The NRC assumption of nothing can go wrong in dry storage is based on false assumptions, as outlined in the Sierra Club Comments to the NRC on Decommissioning, March 2016. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1608/ML16082A004.pdf
  • Claims of minor leaks are not based on evidence with high burnup fuels. 
  • Would you buy a car that could not be inspected, repaired, maintained and had no warning system that helped prevent problems? Would you buy a car that the vendor promised to add all these features at some time in the future, with unknown solutions? Would you take your family on a trip in this car? Well, SCE and the NRC are “taking us for a ride” in this car. It’s up to us to stop them. 
  • There are no long-term storage options in the wings. SCE knows that. We know that. SCE doesn’t even have a short-term safe storage plan and the NRC should be renamed the Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission. 
  • SCE has the worst safety complaint record in the nation from their own employees. And the highest rate of retaliating against their employees for reporting safety problems. Their priority is short-term profits at our expense. 
  • It’s time to educate others, including elected officials about how they are being mislead by these nuclear energy entities. It would help if we were all on the same page with a united message and mobilizing our volunteers and others in this effort – before it’s too late. 


Canister Integrity Inquiries (Katie Day, Staff Scientist at Surfrider Headquarters)

5) The UMAX Safety Evaluation Report was designed for an underground system (hence the U in UMAX). Since SONGS is planning on using a partially buried approach to account for the water table’s proximity:

Do these safety assurances apply?

SCE Response: Yes, since the SONGS system is not fully underground, an additional analysis was conducted for the UMAX system based on the SONGS configuration using the berm design.

Is there an approved updated safety evaluation report specific to the model and design used at SONGS?

SCE Response: Yes, the dry storage system at SONGS is approved by the NRC for storage (as well as transportation). An NRC approved cask is one that has undergone a technical review of its safety aspects and been found to be adequate to store used fuel at a site that has been evaluated by the licensee to meet all of the NRC’s requirements in 10 CFR Part 72.

FACTS:

  1. Where is the updated safety evaluation report that addresses the configuration at San Onofre? It appears SCE is stating they have approval for the site and are being allows to use it without an updated Safety Evaluation Report. 
  2. The NRC knows that system is too close to the ocean and half buried in soggy water. 
  3. The NRC knows the ground and air contain corrosive elements and significant moisture – all enemies of metal and concrete. 
  4. They do not require enclosing these system in a building for additional environmental or security protection. 
  5. If the NRC approved the nuclear power plant at that site, why would anyone think they wouldn’t also approve the nuclear waste at this site. The NRC employee nickname for the NRC is “Nobody Really Cares”. 
  6. The NRC knows the below ground concrete system cannot adequately be inspected, but approved it anyway.

6) The “CEC is meant to further resist corrosion” yet Holtec and SCE have noted that vents could allow rainwater to enter the CEC. They have been designed to capture that water between the CEC and the sealed canister to prevent that water from escaping into the natural environment:

Q) Since rain in coastal environments has a higher salt content, how can you be so positive that corrosion will not be exacerbated?

SCE Response: The stainless steel material (Type 316L) used in the SONGS dry cask storage system is resistant to corrosion and degradation. Currently there are over 2,000 stainless steel canisters loaded with used fuel in the U.S. – some in marine environments similar to San Onofre, such as Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, located on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. Calvert Cliffs has stainless steel canisters that have been in service for over 20 years. See “SONGS Used Fuel Management – Defense in Depth Report, September 8, 2017”

Regarding rain water, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report, the HI‐STORM UMAX is designed to direct storm water and snow/ice melt‐off away from the Cavity Enclosure Container (CEC) Flange and the Closure Lid where the air passages are located. Additionally, storm water intrusion tests found no water collected inside the module. In the unlikely event that rainwater enters the inlet vents, it would remain within the space between the CEC and the divider shell and therefore have little potential contact with the Multi‐Purpose Canister (MPC) (what you refer to as the “sealed canister”) which contains the used nuclear fuel. If the CEC experiences any degradation, a local repair would be performed and would not affect the overall integrity of the ISFSI.

Q) How will water be removed and handled when canisters get moved or transferred offsite?

SCE Response: If water is detected within the CEC, it would be pumped out.

Q) Since the CEC has vents, does that mean that there is only one completely sealed barrier between HLRW and the environment, workers, and nearby communities?

SCE Response: There are two barriers between the used fuel pellets and the outside environment: the zirconium fuel‐pin cladding and the stainless steel MPC. Uranium fuel pellets are placed within zirconium tubes during manufacturing, which are sealed shut, and the Uranium and all of the fission products created during operation remain within the sealed tubes during normal operation and thereafter. In the UMAX dry storage system, the assemblies of fuel pins (“fuel assemblies”) are placed inside the 5/8” thick stainless steel MPC.

FACTS:

  1. The NRC material engineers and other material engineers state 304/304L and 316/316L stainless steel are all susceptible to chloride induced stress corrosion cracking. SCE knows this. 
  2. Fog, rain and debris can enter the air vents and sit at the bottom of the Holtec hole. The only method to remove this is to pump it out. 
  3. SCE isn’t even required to inspect the holes unless the air vent temperature is elevated. In the past with other systems, air vents were required to be checked every 24 hours. And above ground systems have drains. 
  4. Humboldt Bay has a below ground Holtec system with no air vents. Fuel was already cool enough and no high burnup fuel existed. Holtec promised there would never be water leaks into the below ground holes. However, water leaked in. 
  5. Now is not the time to take SCE, Holtec or NRC promises without proof. They do not have the proof for this unproven system. 
  6. The Vermont Yankee nuclear power company refused to use the Holtec below ground system, stating it was too expensive, too complicated and unproven. 
  7. There is also a concern that the vent pipe that is open near the bottom could become blocked, which would stop the cooling system.

7) Edison has mentioned that it is possible to transport a cracked canister because Hi‐STAR transport casks do not take credit for internal canisters:

Q) How would a cracked canister be placed in the transport cask without causing exposure to staff and the surrounding environment ie SanO, Trestles, San Clemente, home of Surfrider Foundations World HQ?

SCE Response: We first want to clarify that your initial statement may misunderstand SCE’s prior comments on transporting casks. SCE has been asked if it’s possible to transport a cracked SONGS canister. We’ve responded by saying, it is possible, but with conditions. Some transport casks may accept a canister with defects, and others may require modification or additional evaluation. These types of transport may require additional license evaluation at the time of shipment. Additional evaluation will need to be done should a cracked canister in the US be identified. No leaks have been identified in the 2000 welded steel canisters in the U.S.

Understanding that these discussions are hypothetical, the cracking of concern would be microscopic in nature. Some relatively benign fission product gases may be released initially through microscopic cracks; the particulate will be retained within the canister. Microscopic cracking will not result in a tangible decrease in shielding effectiveness and does not impact canister integrity for transportation or dose to workers. Also note that the transportation cask provides the majority of radiation shielding during handling and transportation.

Q) The plan of moving a cracked canister into a larger intact canister as a safety precaution sounds great, except again, how would a cracked canister get transferred without exposing staff and the environment to radioactive gases?
SCE Response: See response above.

FACTS:

  1. SCE is finally admitting here that there are additional requirements other than just an approved transport cask. Partially cracked canisters (let alone leaking ones) are not approved by NRC transport regulations. The fuel assemblies also need to be confirmed as intact. 
  2. The high burnup Holtec transport cask is not approved for unloading. The NRC, SCE and others have not addressed unloading. They don’t have a plan for a canister that arrives leaking or with significant cracks that could affect the ability to unload the canister. 
  3. The oldest dry storage systems are thick-wall casks. They do not have the cracking issues or the inability to inspect them. Most thin-wall canisters are too new to leak. However, SCE and all the others have no idea how many cracks they have or how deep the cracks are. Just because they are claiming no leaks so far, doesn’t meet they know when they will start leaking. They are just hoping they don’t leak, because they have no plan in place, if they do. 
  4. Their report claiming minor impacts did not address high burnup fuel or criticality from water intrusion. 
  5. The NRC has not approved a container to store leaking canisters, let alone one to transport leaking canisters. They have no NRC approved safety evaluation of this scenario or how they would relocate a leaking canister. 
  6. Lots of promises. No evidence. 

Q) If a crack, or initial pitting is identified during routine monitoring, will Edison notify the public?

SCE Response: As with all issues important to the public, SCE intends to keep the public updated, such as through the Community Engagement Panel. (let us not forget they waited DAYS to inform the public that they had leaked radiation into our community, our ocean, waves and beaches)

FACTS: 

  1. SCE has no method to find cracks or pits in their routine monitoring. That explains the vague answer. 
  2. SCE sites the need to only need to examine one canister per site. 
  3. SCE has no plan even if they could find cracks. 

Q) Is there an NDE in development that would not require moving a canister?

SCE Response: Yes. For example, see the eddy current array inspection probe described in EPRI’s September 14, 2017, CEP presentation. In general, the industry’s goal is to employ in‐situ NDE equipment.

FACTS:

  1. Eddy current is useful for measuring cracks, but not finding them. 
  2. The methods being investigated will not be adequate to find all cracks. The best option for finding cracks is with a fluid dye. This method cannot be used in canisters loaded with fuel assemblies. 
  3. The question after inspection is, “what will they do if they find cracks?”. Without that answer, nothing else matters. They do not have that answer. Only promises of future solutions. 
  4. The fact SCE plans to destroy empty pools, shows their intention of assuming they do not need to ever repair canisters or find cracks. They likely will just try to hide the leaks and hope the canisters don’t go critical or explode. 

Settlement Inquiries (Denise Erkeneff, South Orange County Chapter Manager)

Q) What is the significance of the settlement agreement in the decommissioning process?

SCE Response: The Settlement Agreement does not directly pertain to the decommissioning process. The Settlement Agreement specifically addresses SCE’s onsite ISFSIs and steps SCE will take to assess the feasibility of relocating SONGS spent fuel to an offsite storage facility. In exchange for SCE’s commitments made as part of the Settlement, Plaintiffs dismissed their legal challenge. This allows for SCE to complete the ISFSI and to transfer all spent fuel to dry storage pending the availability of an offsite storage facility. The timely transfer of fuel to dry storage will help ensure that SCE can promptly proceed with decommissioning the facility.

Please see attached Settlement Agreement and Press Release/Settlement Agreement summary.

FACTS:

  1. Another excuse for expediting fuel out of the pools. “…help ensure that SCE can promptly proceed with decommissioning the facility”. Does this mean destroy the pools? Yes. 
  2. The Settlement Agreement doesn’t change anything. SCE only has to do what is “commercially viable” and they are in charge of the entire process, so nothing has changed. They paid the attorneys to drop the lawsuit. 

Q) How has the settlement agreement made SCE change their plans and operating procedures for the SONGS waste storage issue?

SCE Response: SCE’s plans for offloading spent fuel to the ISFSI have not changed. In addition, SCE’s operating procedures are in accordance with NRC requirements and those are not impacted by the Settlement Agreement. In terms of SCE’s long‐term plans, the Settlement Agreement requires SCE to use commercially reasonable efforts to relocate the spent fuel to an offsite storage facility. In furtherance of that objective, the settlement identifies specific steps SCE will take, including the following:

  • Maintain an “Experts Team” to advise SCE on any proposed relocation of spent fuel; 
  • Develop a conceptual plan for the offsite transportation of spent fuel; 
  • Develop a strategic plan to support the development of a commercially reasonable offsite storage facility; 
  • Make a formal, written request to the owners of Palo Verde regarding the development of an expanded ISFSI to store spent fuel 

These commitments could result in the transfer of fuel offsite in a shorter timeframe than SCE originally contemplated. SCE’s plans anticipated that SONGS spent fuel would be transferred to a government‐owned federal repository, which would result in fuel remaining onsite until 2049. In fulfilling its settlement commitments, SCE may be successful in improving this schedule. Pending availability of an offsite storage facility, SCE will continue to safely store the spent fuel in the onsite ISFSIs.

FACTS:

  1. SCE picks the experts and makes the plan. Nothing new here. 
  2. They know Palo Verde doesn’t want our waste, so this is just a formality. 
  3. SCE will continue to unsafely store the waste unless we find a way to stop them or one or more canisters explodes or goes critical. 
  4. SCE’s own witness at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) admitted the 2049 date for a permanent repository is “unlikely”, yet SCE has made no other plans. 
  5. SCE’s plan to the NRC, CPUC and the Coastal Commission assumes nothing will go wrong. 

Q) Are there any updates on the timeline for securing offsite transport?

SCE Response: No, not at this time. SCE is diligently working to satisfy its commitments under the Settlement Agreement, which includes the development of a conceptual transportation plan.

FACTS:

  1. What does a “conceptual transportation plan mean? A transportation plan to where? Who pays for the rail and road upgrades? 
  2. First responders are state and local agencies. In the case of a radioactive release, the FEMA instruction say, if the radiation levels are unsafe, get the heck out of there and don’t let anyone near it. That’s it. No other plan after that. 
  3. SCE has no authority to move waste anywhere. It’s the receiver that has the authority and no one wants it. 
  4. The Governor of New Mexico wrote a letter to the DOE stating she would have no problem taking the waste if one of her communities wanted it, since it is safely stored. It’s not safely and others in her state do not want it and will fight any attempts to move it there. 
  5. The DOE handout on their tour to discuss consent-based siting, claims the waste is safety stored. At the time they wrote this they did not know about the cracking issue. However, they know now and have not corrected this brochure. 

Q0 Will monthly progress reports, those SCE is required to provide to plaintiffs, be publicly available?

SCE Response: Yes. SCE plans to make these reports available through the Community Engagement Panel.

FACT:

I’m sure these SCE reports will be just as helpful and informative as the rest of SCE’s information. – Donna Gilmore

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

FACTS On San Onofre For Surfrider Members

Call Surfrider Today! (949) 492-8170 Southern California Edison’s (SCE) has not included many important facts in their responses to Surfrider Foundations questions regarding the nuke dump at San Onofre See “FACTS” below SCE’s responses.  A Printable PDF Version of this post is found at SanOnofreSafety.org. 

Timeline Inquiries & Comments (Julia Chunn‐Heer, San Diego Policy Manager)

1) Has the timeline for starting the movement into dry storage changed, or is it still slated to start in Dec 2017/Jan 2018?

SCE Response: No, the timeline has not changed. Fuel transfer from wet to dry storage could start as early as December 2017 following on‐site NRC reviews.

FACTS ON SAN ONOFRE THAT ALL SURFRIDER MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW:

Continue reading

Storing Nuclear Waste At San Onofre: It’s Only Complicated If You Are Confused About The Issues

The Shortboard "Thin Can"  VS Longboard "Thick Cask" Debate


Storing nuclear waste at San Onofre: it’s only complicated if you can’t tell the difference between a shortboard and a longboard, and where each should be paddled out.


The Shortboard “Thin Can” VS Longboard “Thick Cask” Debate


A “cask” is the thick radwaste metal container (10 to 19 inches thick).  The “canister” OR “can” is like the ½ to ⅝  of an inch steel cans at San Onofre. Think of a can as a shortboard, and a cask as a longboard.


Or let me put it to you this way so as to be perfectly clear.

YOU DON’T WANT NUCLEAR WASTE STORED IN THIN CANS ON THE BEACH AT SANO!

A “canister” OR “can” is like the ½ to ⅝  of an inch steel cans Edison has a permit for at San Onofre. A “cask” is a thick radwaste metal container up to 19 inches thick, this is an important distinction to make if we want to discuss safety at San Onofre from a factual point of view.


The Nuke Waste At Sano
The Issues From A Factual Point Of View


  1. This waste is onsite now, 3,600,000lbs of it.
  2. This waste has nowhere to go in the foreseeable future
  3. Edison has chosen thin walled cans over thick walled casks to store this radwaste, the NRC expects the waste to be here for 300 years.
  4. Each can would hold as much radiation as was released from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, each can is only warrantied for 20 years.
  5. Edison promises these “Chernobyl Cans” won’t leak. Do you forget the 40 year rating of the replacement steam generators? They lasted less than one year before leaking radiation, Edison lied about that radiation leak into our community for days after the event.
  6. Each can would have no internal monitoring.
  7. A can would have no “defense in depth” or “multiple layers of failure”
  8. Cans crack from exposure to salt air and engine exhaust
  9. There is no approved way to test or repair cracks in these cans.
  10. A cracked can, can have no seismic rating and cannot be transported
  11. Each can would be on the beach, straddling an earthquake fault, in a tsunami zone,
  12. Surrounded by millions of people, and thousands of surfers.
  13. Why are you still reading this? Toss these cans in the trash.


Rescind the Coastal permit for this badly planned nuke dump on the beach at San Onofre.

Demand Thick Walled Metal Casks, Not Cans
Make anything purchased for San Onofre Nuclear Waste match the location that we find ourselves in, using the best thick-wall cask technology available in the world.  Let this become the standard of waste management.

Safety should be our only concern.  

UPDATE the April 14th 2PM  hearing has been CANCELLED.


Superior Court Central Courthouse, Dept C68
220 W Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
Google Maps Link https://goo.gl/maps/V9szQGEb9Sr

Storing Nuclear Waste At San Onofre: It’s only complicated if you are confused about the issues and don’t want to think about the facts. #SaveTrestles our very own #StandingRock

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Storing Nuclear Waste At San Onofre: It’s Only Complicated If You Are Confused About The Issues

The Shortboard "Thin Can"  VS Longboard "Thick Cask" Debate


Storing nuclear waste at San Onofre: it’s only complicated if you can’t tell the difference between a shortboard and a longboard, and where each should be paddled out.


The Shortboard “Thin Can” VS Longboard “Thick Cask” Debate


A “cask” is the thick radwaste metal container (10 to 19 inches thick).  The “canister” OR “can” is like the ½ to ⅝  of an inch steel cans at San Onofre. Think of a can as a shortboard, and a cask as a longboard.


Or let me put it to you this way so as to be perfectly clear.

YOU DON’T WANT NUCLEAR WASTE STORED IN THIN CANS ON THE BEACH AT SANO!

A “canister” OR “can” is like the ½ to ⅝  of an inch steel cans Edison has a permit for at San Onofre. A “cask” is a thick radwaste metal container up to 19 inches thick, this is an important distinction to make if we want to discuss safety at San Onofre from a factual point of view.


The Nuke Waste At Sano
The Issues From A Factual Point Of View


  1. This waste is onsite now, 3,600,000lbs of it.
  2. This waste has nowhere to go in the foreseeable future
  3. Edison has chosen thin walled cans over thick walled casks to store this radwaste, the NRC expects the waste to be here for 300 years.
  4. Each can would hold as much radiation as was released from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, each can is only warrantied for 20 years.
  5. Edison promises these “Chernobyl Cans” won’t leak. Do you forget the 40 year rating of the replacement steam generators? They lasted less than one year before leaking radiation, Edison lied about that radiation leak into our community for days after the event.
  6. Each can would have no internal monitoring.
  7. A can would have no “defense in depth” or “multiple layers of failure”
  8. Cans crack from exposure to salt air and engine exhaust
  9. There is no approved way to test or repair cracks in these cans.
  10. A cracked can, can have no seismic rating and cannot be transported
  11. Each can would be on the beach, straddling an earthquake fault, in a tsunami zone,
  12. Surrounded by millions of people, and thousands of surfers.
  13. Why are you still reading this? Toss these cans in the trash.


Rescind the Coastal permit for this badly planned nuke dump on the beach at San Onofre.

Demand Thick Walled Metal Casks, Not Cans
Make anything purchased for San Onofre Nuclear Waste match the location that we find ourselves in, using the best thick-wall cask technology available in the world.  Let this become the standard of waste management.

Safety should be our only concern.  

UPDATE the April 14th 2PM  hearing has been CANCELLED.


Superior Court Central Courthouse, Dept C68
220 W Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
Google Maps Link https://goo.gl/maps/V9szQGEb9Sr

Storing Nuclear Waste At San Onofre: It’s only complicated if you are confused about the issues and don’t want to think about the facts. #SaveTrestles our very own #StandingRock

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Nuke Dump Outlet Mall San Clemente

 Nothing says Welcome To Town like a Nuke Dump and an Outlet Mall.

Nuke Dump Outlet Mall San Clemente
No Nuke Dump At San Onofre #SaveTrestles



It’s a beautiful day in San Clemente, California, and you are here, discovering treasure, never mind the 3,600,000 lbs of high grade nuclear waste a few miles south. So Cal Edison would like to bury it in the sand, a few feet from the ocean in thin steal canisters that can crack thru in our lifetime. They will tell you they have no way to test for these cracks, or even have a way to fix them. If something were to go wrong there real time radiation monitoring of the nuclear dump at San Onofre is not avalable to you. With Edisions past track record of first denying and then admitting there was a radiation release beg for more transparency? With radiation you can’t see it, you can’t smell it and we may never know, wink, if it affects its neighbors, read you and me, thanks to the Nuclear Regulatory Commision cancelling the cancer study.

Traffic along the I-5 has been a nightmare with the widening of the freeway, and since La Pata, the only other potential way out of town, is not completed, someone thought it would be a good idea to have the Outlet at San Clemente Grand Opening Ribbon Cutting Ceremony today at 10:30!

Now the good news, the nuke dump is in the planning stages, if you live in California you want to support candidates that will fight the notion that a nuke dump at Trestles is somehow a good idea. If they think that this is not a problem they need to be replaced before that sign is set in stone. 

When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk http://t.co/vsQN7EfWyo

— Tim Brown (@timthebrown) September 22, 2015

The real risk is apathy. No Nuke Dump At San Onofre. #SaveTrestles 

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Nuke Dump Outlet Mall San Clemente

 Nothing says Welcome To Town like a Nuke Dump and an Outlet Mall.

Nuke Dump Outlet Mall San Clemente
No Nuke Dump At San Onofre #SaveTrestles



It’s a beautiful day in San Clemente, California, and you are here, discovering treasure, never mind the 3,600,000 lbs of high grade nuclear waste a few miles south. So Cal Edison would like to bury it in the sand, a few feet from the ocean in thin steal canisters that can crack thru in our lifetime. They will tell you they have no way to test for these cracks, or even have a way to fix them. If something were to go wrong there real time radiation monitoring of the nuclear dump at San Onofre is not avalable to you. With Edisions past track record of first denying and then admitting there was a radiation release beg for more transparency? With radiation you can’t see it, you can’t smell it and we may never know, wink, if it affects its neighbors, read you and me, thanks to the Nuclear Regulatory Commision cancelling the cancer study.

Traffic along the I-5 has been a nightmare with the widening of the freeway, and since La Pata, the only other potential way out of town, is not completed, someone thought it would be a good idea to have the Outlet at San Clemente Grand Opening Ribbon Cutting Ceremony today at 10:30!

Now the good news, the nuke dump is in the planning stages, if you live in California you want to support candidates that will fight the notion that a nuke dump at Trestles is somehow a good idea. If they think that this is not a problem they need to be replaced before that sign is set in stone. 

When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk http://t.co/vsQN7EfWyo

— Tim Brown (@timthebrown) September 22, 2015

The real risk is apathy. No Nuke Dump At San Onofre. #SaveTrestles 

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

San Onofre Cancer Study Cancelled?

#NRC cancels health study around nuclear plants, including #SanOnofre – The Orange County Register http://t.co/QhVMFNKlRv

— AA Clearinghouse (@AAClearinghouse) September 18, 2015

San Onofre Operators Exposed on #NBC: Massive Contamination at Pristine Beach http://t.co/TcxQu7J2dB #nonukes #climate #security #sec #law

— Cecalli Helper (@Cecalli_Helper) September 22, 2015

Report: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station very very sloppy, very very careless in handling radioactive material.

The most common wind direction for most of the year was North (Orange County) except in the spring (April-June) when it was to the south (San Diego County).

In 2012, there were 29 incidents of effluent monitoring instruments being out of service for more than 30 days. In 2013 there were 22 such incidents.

It is interesting to examine NRC documents on batch releases after the reactors were shut down (Jan., 2012) compared to when they were in full operation.  There were 3 batch releases of gaseous effluents in when Units 2 and 3 were in operation in 2011 (total 44.2 hours).  In 2012 (after it was shut down) there were 6 such releases totaling 43.1 hours.

Liquid radioactive batch releases in 2011 totaled 518 hours at 740,000 gal per minute.  In 2012 after operation ceased, releases went on for 335 hours at 612,000 gal per minute.

The NRC claims that it cannot afford the $8 million to carry out the cancer study proposed by the National Academy of Sciences.  For 2016, the NRC has requested $1.032  billion of which 90% will be paid for by the nuclear industry it is supposed to be regulating.  The NRC spends $25 million/year on travel expenses.  In 2015, the nuclear industry gave the NRC $43 million for “outreach” and “policy support.”  

Ask your local representative to tell the NRC, 
BRING BACK THE CANCER STUDY! 
&
“NO effluent releases at any time in cases of effluent monitoring instrument failure”


Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

San Onofre Cancer Study Cancelled?

#NRC cancels health study around nuclear plants, including #SanOnofre – The Orange County Register http://t.co/QhVMFNKlRv

— AA Clearinghouse (@AAClearinghouse) September 18, 2015

San Onofre Operators Exposed on #NBC: Massive Contamination at Pristine Beach http://t.co/TcxQu7J2dB #nonukes #climate #security #sec #law

— Cecalli Helper (@Cecalli_Helper) September 22, 2015

Report: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station very very sloppy, very very careless in handling radioactive material.

The most common wind direction for most of the year was North (Orange County) except in the spring (April-June) when it was to the south (San Diego County).

In 2012, there were 29 incidents of effluent monitoring instruments being out of service for more than 30 days. In 2013 there were 22 such incidents.

It is interesting to examine NRC documents on batch releases after the reactors were shut down (Jan., 2012) compared to when they were in full operation.  There were 3 batch releases of gaseous effluents in when Units 2 and 3 were in operation in 2011 (total 44.2 hours).  In 2012 (after it was shut down) there were 6 such releases totaling 43.1 hours.

Liquid radioactive batch releases in 2011 totaled 518 hours at 740,000 gal per minute.  In 2012 after operation ceased, releases went on for 335 hours at 612,000 gal per minute.

The NRC claims that it cannot afford the $8 million to carry out the cancer study proposed by the National Academy of Sciences.  For 2016, the NRC has requested $1.032  billion of which 90% will be paid for by the nuclear industry it is supposed to be regulating.  The NRC spends $25 million/year on travel expenses.  In 2015, the nuclear industry gave the NRC $43 million for “outreach” and “policy support.”  

Ask your local representative to tell the NRC, 
BRING BACK THE CANCER STUDY! 
&
“NO effluent releases at any time in cases of effluent monitoring instrument failure”


Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

ACTION ALERT Request San Onofre Agenda Items Be Moved To Newport Beach Coastal Commision Meeting

Request to move San Onofre agenda items to Newport Beach meeting
SAVE TRESTLES! 

The California Coastal Commission meeting on changing the San Onofre spent fuel pool cooling system is still scheduled for Santa Barbara on May 14th.

Please request the Coastal Commission to change it to the Newport Beach meeting. 
The Coastal Commission needs to hear from more of you.  
They are getting pressure from Edison to speed up yet another experiment in nuclear waste dump managment.

Send request for meeting change to joseph.street@coastal.ca.gov

Subject:  Request to move Southern California Edison San Onofre agenda items to Newport Beach meeting

These waivers are for major changes to the San Onofre spent fuel cooling systems, air cooling systems and the ocean discharge systems. These are very significant issues.

Please move the decision on the Southern California Edison Coastal Development Permit Waivers (9-15-0417-W and 9-15-0162-W) from the May 14 Santa Barbara meeting to the June Newport Beach meeting.

It will take over 4 hours to drive to Santa Barbara from San Diego and over 3 hours from South Orange county.  Given the length of time and starting time of the meeting, this is an undue hardship for the people most impacted by these decisions. There doesn’t appear to be any significant reason or legal deadline to justify this hardship.

The Coastal Commission website states:
The Commission meets once a month in different locations of the State in order to facilitate public participation. Staff attempts, whenever possible, to schedule matters for hearings that will be relatively close to the location of a proposed development. However, legal deadlines for action may require that the hearing on an item take place in a different area than the proposed project.

We don’t know which day in June the waivers will be addressed. They do not list them on the agenda.  I do know they will be under the section labeled as:

ENERGY, OCEAN RESOURCES and FEDERAL CONSISTENCY.

Report by the Deputy Director on permit waivers, emergency permits, immaterial amendments & extensions, negative determinations, matters not requiring public hearings, and status report on offshore oil & gas exploration & development. For specific information contact the Commission’s Energy, Ocean Resources, and Federal Consistency Division office at (415) 904-5240.

Even if you don’t plan to speak at the meeting, we need you to show up or at least write for the delay of the meeting.  The Coastal Commission is our friend, but not if we don’t express an interest.

Here’s the link to meeting rules.
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html#meetingRules

It doesn’t appear the chillers Edison proposes are “nuclear grade chillers”.  The Coastal Commission was told they are “commercial grade chillers”.  And as usual, the NRC is not doing their job. They don’t plan to inspect until after the new systems are installed, so we cannot count of them to even review this new method of cooling spent fuel pools filled with hot fuel that can boil the water out, if the pools are not kept cool. 

Using water chillers to cool spent pools appears to be another Edison experiment. In fact, We have found only one that used chillers and it had fuel that didn’t need cooling.  Edison told the Coastal Commission that “chillers are commonly used in commercial industries” and that “spent fuel pool islands” have been used at nuclear plants.  However, these misleading statements don’t mean that chillers are used for spent fuel pool island cooling.  We have asked both the NRC and Edison to provide me a list of nuclear spent fuel pools cooled with chillers. We do not have a response from either of them, even though we have requested this at the last CEP meeting.  We’ve followed up with Edison via email, but do not have a response yet.  

Here’s a document that talks about methods of cooling spent fuel pools as well as how to save water use at nuclear plants.  It does not list water chillers for cooling spent fuel pools, even for decommissioned plants.  It even has information about Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde cooling systems and water use.

IAEA Technical Reports: Efficient Water Management in Water Cooled Reactors, No. NP-T-2.6, November 5, 2012
Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

ACTION ALERT Request San Onofre Agenda Items Be Moved To Newport Beach Coastal Commision Meeting

Request to move San Onofre agenda items to Newport Beach meeting
SAVE TRESTLES! 

The California Coastal Commission meeting on changing the San Onofre spent fuel pool cooling system is still scheduled for Santa Barbara on May 14th.

Please request the Coastal Commission to change it to the Newport Beach meeting. 
The Coastal Commission needs to hear from more of you.  
They are getting pressure from Edison to speed up yet another experiment in nuclear waste dump managment.

Send request for meeting change to joseph.street@coastal.ca.gov

Subject:  Request to move Southern California Edison San Onofre agenda items to Newport Beach meeting

These waivers are for major changes to the San Onofre spent fuel cooling systems, air cooling systems and the ocean discharge systems. These are very significant issues.

Please move the decision on the Southern California Edison Coastal Development Permit Waivers (9-15-0417-W and 9-15-0162-W) from the May 14 Santa Barbara meeting to the June Newport Beach meeting.

It will take over 4 hours to drive to Santa Barbara from San Diego and over 3 hours from South Orange county.  Given the length of time and starting time of the meeting, this is an undue hardship for the people most impacted by these decisions. There doesn’t appear to be any significant reason or legal deadline to justify this hardship.

The Coastal Commission website states:
The Commission meets once a month in different locations of the State in order to facilitate public participation. Staff attempts, whenever possible, to schedule matters for hearings that will be relatively close to the location of a proposed development. However, legal deadlines for action may require that the hearing on an item take place in a different area than the proposed project.

We don’t know which day in June the waivers will be addressed. They do not list them on the agenda.  I do know they will be under the section labeled as:

ENERGY, OCEAN RESOURCES and FEDERAL CONSISTENCY.

Report by the Deputy Director on permit waivers, emergency permits, immaterial amendments & extensions, negative determinations, matters not requiring public hearings, and status report on offshore oil & gas exploration & development. For specific information contact the Commission’s Energy, Ocean Resources, and Federal Consistency Division office at (415) 904-5240.

Even if you don’t plan to speak at the meeting, we need you to show up or at least write for the delay of the meeting.  The Coastal Commission is our friend, but not if we don’t express an interest.

Here’s the link to meeting rules.
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html#meetingRules

It doesn’t appear the chillers Edison proposes are “nuclear grade chillers”.  The Coastal Commission was told they are “commercial grade chillers”.  And as usual, the NRC is not doing their job. They don’t plan to inspect until after the new systems are installed, so we cannot count of them to even review this new method of cooling spent fuel pools filled with hot fuel that can boil the water out, if the pools are not kept cool. 

Using water chillers to cool spent pools appears to be another Edison experiment. In fact, We have found only one that used chillers and it had fuel that didn’t need cooling.  Edison told the Coastal Commission that “chillers are commonly used in commercial industries” and that “spent fuel pool islands” have been used at nuclear plants.  However, these misleading statements don’t mean that chillers are used for spent fuel pool island cooling.  We have asked both the NRC and Edison to provide me a list of nuclear spent fuel pools cooled with chillers. We do not have a response from either of them, even though we have requested this at the last CEP meeting.  We’ve followed up with Edison via email, but do not have a response yet.  

Here’s a document that talks about methods of cooling spent fuel pools as well as how to save water use at nuclear plants.  It does not list water chillers for cooling spent fuel pools, even for decommissioned plants.  It even has information about Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde cooling systems and water use.

IAEA Technical Reports: Efficient Water Management in Water Cooled Reactors, No. NP-T-2.6, November 5, 2012
Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Join The San Onofre Cancer Study

Join The San Onofre Cancer Study
Calling All San Onofre Surfers
          While many of us have been busy focusing on the host of problems we face because of San Onofre,  there is one very important issue we are neglecting: the immanent pending decision of the NRC on whether to fund the Natioinal Academy of Sciences (NAS) cancer streak study in this area.  The NAS sent their Phase 2 proposal to the NRC back in January and the NRC is dragging its feet on whether to approve it.  Many think that the NRC does not want this study done because of the possibility of revealing that the radioactive releases Edison has been doing into the ocean and into our atmosphere for the last half century may have a significant toll on our health.

          The NAS study will focus particularly on women and children who are the most vulnerable.  If you have lived within 31 miles (50 km) of the plant and had children since the 1980s, you will be part of the study.  As you know, nuclear power plants are known emitters of beta and gamma radiation which can easily penetrate your home and your body and rearrange cell DNA which might result in cancer after years or decades of exposure.

          There is Congressional oversight on this,  but the NRC has played down this investigation and more public pressure is needed to get this study funded.  Even though San Onofre is “closed,” we know that considerable emissions will continue to take place during the coming decades of decommissioning.  They will continue to be discharging up to 36 radionuclides into the giant 18 ft pipes into the ocean (at a rate up to a million gallons per minutes with some discharges lasting 25 hours).  Since 1990, the NRC has relied totally on an old and now discredited study by the National Cancer Institute which performed a heavily flawed study that failed to find a cancer effect.  The NRC and the nuclear industry like this study and they routinely (and mistakenly) say it proves that radiation is harmless to people living near NPP.

          There are two key people in Congress who are actively concerned about this. They are in a position to put pressure on the NRC to fund the study.  They are our own Sen. Boxer and Massachusetts Senator Markey.  Please write to both of them, perhaps both a written letter and an email (and call them).  It is not necessary to sound like a nuclear physicist and cite the details.  Just express your concern as a resident, and ask them to please contact the NRC and help get this study funded.

Many thanks!
Roger Johnson

Senator Barbara Boxer
312 N. Spring St., Suite #1748
Los Angeles, CA  90012    213-894-5000
 
Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510    202-224-3553
 
Senator Edward Markey
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building   
Washington, D.C. 20510  202-224-2742
 
Senator Edward Markey
975 JFK Federal Building
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, MA 02203   Phone: 617-565-8519
Also copy:    sarah_butler@markey.senate.gov and Michal_Freedhoff@market.senate.gov (she is a director of policy)
 
Link to Analysis of Cancer Risks Among Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Jan. 2015:
 
 

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Join The San Onofre Cancer Study

Join The San Onofre Cancer Study
Calling All San Onofre Surfers
          While many of us have been busy focusing on the host of problems we face because of San Onofre,  there is one very important issue we are neglecting: the immanent pending decision of the NRC on whether to fund the Natioinal Academy of Sciences (NAS) cancer streak study in this area.  The NAS sent their Phase 2 proposal to the NRC back in January and the NRC is dragging its feet on whether to approve it.  Many think that the NRC does not want this study done because of the possibility of revealing that the radioactive releases Edison has been doing into the ocean and into our atmosphere for the last half century may have a significant toll on our health.

          The NAS study will focus particularly on women and children who are the most vulnerable.  If you have lived within 31 miles (50 km) of the plant and had children since the 1980s, you will be part of the study.  As you know, nuclear power plants are known emitters of beta and gamma radiation which can easily penetrate your home and your body and rearrange cell DNA which might result in cancer after years or decades of exposure.

          There is Congressional oversight on this,  but the NRC has played down this investigation and more public pressure is needed to get this study funded.  Even though San Onofre is “closed,” we know that considerable emissions will continue to take place during the coming decades of decommissioning.  They will continue to be discharging up to 36 radionuclides into the giant 18 ft pipes into the ocean (at a rate up to a million gallons per minutes with some discharges lasting 25 hours).  Since 1990, the NRC has relied totally on an old and now discredited study by the National Cancer Institute which performed a heavily flawed study that failed to find a cancer effect.  The NRC and the nuclear industry like this study and they routinely (and mistakenly) say it proves that radiation is harmless to people living near NPP.

          There are two key people in Congress who are actively concerned about this. They are in a position to put pressure on the NRC to fund the study.  They are our own Sen. Boxer and Massachusetts Senator Markey.  Please write to both of them, perhaps both a written letter and an email (and call them).  It is not necessary to sound like a nuclear physicist and cite the details.  Just express your concern as a resident, and ask them to please contact the NRC and help get this study funded.

Many thanks!
Roger Johnson

Senator Barbara Boxer
312 N. Spring St., Suite #1748
Los Angeles, CA  90012    213-894-5000
 
Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510    202-224-3553
 
Senator Edward Markey
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building   
Washington, D.C. 20510  202-224-2742
 
Senator Edward Markey
975 JFK Federal Building
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, MA 02203   Phone: 617-565-8519
Also copy:    sarah_butler@markey.senate.gov and Michal_Freedhoff@market.senate.gov (she is a director of policy)
 
Link to Analysis of Cancer Risks Among Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Jan. 2015:
 
 

Aging Nuke Dumps On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Fukushima To San Onofre Sunseting On Nuclear Power

Public Meeting on San Onofre — Public can speak out about PUC Dysfunction and Sky High Power Rates

Hundreds of secret documents in PUC San Onofre files may halt settlement

Opponents “GAGGED” at San Onofre Public Meeting but PUC Allows Hours of Private Meetings With Utilities

The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) announced a public meeting regarding the San Onofre proposed settlement, Monday, June 16, 2014, at the Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92627, 4pm to 7pm. The public is invited to present their views and ask questions

Opponents to the settlement will also hold a press conference at 3:30pm in the patio of the center just prior to the main event, which is considered the kick off to the “World Cup of Bailouts.”

Some members of the public have said the CPUC is a “Kangaroo Court” and there are rumors that wild kangaroos will invade the meeting.

The settlement was negotiated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric SDG&E) in secret meetings starting in May 2013, with one outside party, TURN (The Utility Reform Network) and one CPUC internal party, the Office of Ratepayer Advocacy (ORA). The final settlement was first revealed to the public and to other parties on March 27, 2014, with the stipulation that it could not be modified in any way.

It provides that SCE receive $3.3 billion for the crippled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Proponents have sold this as a $1.4 billion “refund” but in reality, that figure is simply the difference from the original absurd utility request of $4.7 billion and the proposed settlement figure.

Opponents believe ratepayers should receive refund checks of about $250 million.

“The difference in the two sides is stark. The utilities and their followers want ratepayers to provide the net asset value of the base plant PLUS a return of 2.65%, a situation unheard of, even in the distorted world of public utilities,” said Ray Lutz, National Coordinator of Citizens Oversight, representing the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre (CDSO) a leading opponent to the bailout settlement. “It is clear that the Commission had this rigged from the beginning, as the meat of the investigation was delayed so long while they fiddled with inconsequential issues.”

“The Commission has likely jumped to a conclusion to support the unfair settlement, without allowing the proceedings to complete, and that’s why rumors are circulating that wild kangaroos may be invading the meeting,” said Charles Langley, a San Diego Gas & Electric ratepayer.

In response to a recent Public Records Request, the CPUC revealed hundreds of secret documents provided to the Commission by technical consultants and never provided to other parties. “It is highly improper to collect all this data and share with the utilities but not with the other parties in the proceeding,” said Michael Aguirre, who represents Ruth Henricks, a party in the CPUC San Onofre investigation. “Technical consultants have apparently been working for the Commission and with Commission lawyers for months, generating this treasure trove of secret documents that will likely kill the settlement on the spot. This looks like a way to set up a back-channel with utilities to allow the settlement to be discussed.” The consultants were slated to be used for the Phase 3 investigation, which never was started.

The PUC’s pattern of stifling public participation is troubling. Last week a Court issued a decision to stop ratepayers from going to Superior Court to prevent closed door meetings in violation of the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act.  Ratepayer advocate, Maria Severson, has called on state legislators to draft a bill that ensures the PUC – like every other state agency – has no closed door meetings and complies with the Public Records Act, and if they try to shut the door to the public, the ratepayers can go to Superior Court to stop them.  These “Sunshine” and “Open Meeting” Laws are not being obeyed by the Commission. Last month, PUC President Michael Peevey, a former Southern California  Edison officer, weighed in on the public’s right to participate in PUC proceedings. His position articulated on the attached five-second mp3 recording.

An extremely brief evidentiary hearing was held on May 14, 2014 in CPUC headquarters in San Francisco. At that meeting, SCE President Ron Litzinger admitted to Aguirre’s questions that there was nothing in the record that would allow the Commission to evaluate whether the settlement adequately addressed ratepayer’s claims.

Now, a public participation meeting is being held to allow the parties to make statements and to allow the public to ask questions. “We had to struggle to get equal time,” Lutz said. “But now they are trying to control what we can say as well.”

At first, they gave opponents no time at all. Then, proponents 40 minutes and opponents only 20 minutes. When the CDSO said they planned to make a Powerpoint presentation and needed more time, perhaps 30 minutes, the ALJ implemented a ‘gag’ order, disallowing a powerpoint presentation, and requiring all documents to be pre-approved by the ALJs (Administative Law Judges) before it could be presented.

ALJ Melanie Darling said “No projectors, power points, or other argumentative aids will be permitted inside the meeting.” and refused to provide a webcast of the meeting.

In response, the CDSO reasserted their request for 30 minutes during the meeting, with the following email, sent to all parties, bringing up the fact that the proponents of the settlement have already met with the Commission in ex parte meetings, including a personal meeting with Florio, the primary Commissioner of the proceeding, for more than two hours.

Dear ALJ Darling:

On April 14, 2014, Southern California Edison and other proponents (SDG&E, TURN, ORA, FOE) of the proposed settlement met in a number of private ex parte meetings. The notice of these meetings is attached. These parties met for 45 minutes with representatives for Commissioner Peevey, 30 minutes with advisors to Commissioner Picker, 30 minutes with advisors to, and with Commissioner Florio, and 30 minutes with Advisors to Commissioner Peterman. During these meetings, they presented their point of view to Commissioner Florio and advisors of the other Commissioners.

There were also other ex parte meetings with the Commission by the proponents of the settlement.

According to the rules of practice and procedure (8.2 and 8.3), such meetings are allowed in ratemaking proceedings with advisors to Commissioners without prior notice. Prior notice was provided for the meeting with Commissioner Florio. This is a ratemaking proceeding. Also, including in those rules, other parties are allowed to request equal time in similar ex parte meetings.

The CDSO hereby makes such a request. We request that we be allowed time at this public meeting to make our presentation to those commissioners and advisors who are present at the meeting. We will not be constrained in what we choose to present to the commissioners. We plan to bring a power point projector and screen so we may effectively communicate our position, since I’m sure the proponents were not constrained in their private presentations, and we will be distributing any material we see fit during our presentation to the Commissioners.

I hereby reassert our request for 30 minutes during this meeting for the opponents to the settlement to use as they see fit.

Respectfully,
–Raymond Lutz 

“We have yet to hear back from ALJ Darling, but we are going to assert our rights to make our case as strongly as we can, even though it’s clear that this regulatory agency is fully captured by the utilities,” Lutz said. 

CONTACT:  Ray Lutz    619-820-5321  / raylutz at citizensoversight dot org

EVENT 1: Orange County Press Conference
WHERE:   Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92627
WHEN:     (just prior to the public meeting at 4pm)

EVENT 2: CPUC Public Meeting
WHERE:   Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92627
WHEN:     4-7 pm, Monday, June 16, 2014
NOTE:       Rumors are that wild kangaroos will be invading this “kangaroo court”

Fukushima To San Onofre Sunseting On Nuclear Power
Fukushima To San Onofre Sunseting On Nuclear Power
Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Sen. Boxer Reads SCE’s Request for EXEMPTION from ALL Off Site Evacuation Plans at SONGS!

Senator Boxer reads SCE’s Request to be EXEMPT from ALL Offsite Evacuation Plans at San Onofre to NRC Chairman McFarlane! The NRC received the request March 30, 2014 but has yet to review it. The exemption includes: NO Alarms, No Warning Sirens, NO Ev…

Continue reading

San Onofre Evacuated While Testing Sirens In San Clemente #SCECEP

Is Siren Testing During A Nuke Plant Evacuation A Good Idea?
Is Siren Testing During A Nuke Plant Evacuation A Good Idea?  
About a dozen non-essential employees have been evacuated from #SanOnofre as a precaution in response to a brush fire near #CampPendleton.
— SCE_SONGS (@SCE_SONGS) May 14, 2014

SONGS is conducting routine siren maintenance in #SanClemente on 5/14 and 5/15. Growl sound may be heard. No action needs to be taken.
— SCE_SONGS (@SCE_SONGS) May 14, 2014

The above tweets were posted by the official twitter account for SONGS as the San Onofre Nuke Dump was being evacuated during our recent wildfires here in San Clemente.  In my discussions with other nearby San Clemente Residents, who are obviously not essential to running this now defunct nuclear waste generating station, we all agreed on one thing,

Who in their right mind would run a siren test during an actual emergency?

One is reminded of the childhood story and the lessons learned from “A Boy Who Cried Wolf” Have the people who run these tests never heard of this story? In a nutshell a boy The Boy Who Cried Wolf is one of Aesop’s Fables, derived the English idiom “to cry wolf”, meaning to give a false alarm. The fable concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. So when the time comes that the boy really was being eaten by a wolf, no one paid any attention.

Please Join Us Thursday Night To Express Your Dismay At This Alarming Lack Of Common Sense.

Are you coming? The #SanOnofre Community Engagement Panel will be held on May 22. It’s open to the public: http://t.co/pBgc2Kl9tL
— SCE_SONGS (@SCE_SONGS) May 20, 2014

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

ACTION ALERT! San Onofre Nuclear Waste Experiment

NUHOMS® 32PTH2
Don’t Experiment With Nuke Waste Storage In Southern California 

Southern California Edison plans to upgrade to NUHOMS® 32PTH2 dry cask system to store their highly radioactive nuclear waste.  This means storing 32 nuclear fuel assemblies in a space original designed for 24 fuel assemblies..  The higher number of fuel assemblies brings higher risk of radiation releases, especially for the hotter and more radioactive high burnup fuel. This is a brand new design that the NRC approved.  However, the NRC is accepting public comments until May 15, 2014.

Submit comments at this Federal Register link. Refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0271 in any correspondence to the NRC about this.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2013-0271-0001

The NRC should not lower safety standards by approving this new canister.

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Safe and Secure Decommissioning Act of 2014

Safe and Secure Decommissioning Act of 2014
Is 50 Miles Enough?

Washington, D.C. — Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) introduced three bills today aimed at improving the safety and security of decommissioning reactors and the storage of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear plants across the nation.

When spent nuclear fuel is removed from the part of the reactor that generates electricity, it continues to produce significant quantities of heat and radiation for years. Spent nuclear fuel is too dangerous to be removed from the spent fuel pools for 5-7 years. Studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and independent experts have shown that partial draining of the water from a spent fuel pool caused by an accident or terrorist attack could result in a spontaneous fire, the release of large quantities of radiation, and widespread contamination. However, NRC regulations allow spent fuel to remain stored in spent fuel pools until the reactor completes decommissioning, which can take as long as 60 years. Current NRC regulations also allow the NRC and the nuclear plant operator to adopt a decommissioning plan without considering the concerns of nearby states and communities. The three bills introduced today will solve all of these problems.

Senator Boxer said: “ In my home state of California, the San Onofre nuclear plant has closed permanently, and this legislation will help guarantee that this facility, and others like it, are safely decommissioned and are no longer a liability for local communities.”

Senator Sanders said: “Every state with a nuclear power plant has a strong interest in how that plant is decommissioned. This is about making sure that states and local communities can play a meaningful role in a decision that has enormous economic, environmental, and community impacts.”

Senator Markey said: “Experts agree that a spent fuel pool accident could have consequences that are every bit as bad as an accident at an operating reactor. In Massachusetts, Pilgrim nuclear plant’s spent fuel pool contains nearly four times more radioactive waste than it was originally designed to hold. Nuclear waste must be moved to safer storage now before the next nuclear disaster occurs.”

Safe and Secure Decommissioning Act of 2014 (Boxer, Sanders, Markey)
The Safe and Secure Decommissioning Act of 2014 would prohibit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from issuing exemptions from its emergency response or security requirements for spent fuel stored at nuclear reactors that have permanently shut down until all of the spent nuclear fuel stored at the site has been moved into dry casks, which are a more secure and safe option for storage. NRC has determined that earthquakes would be the most likely cause of a spent fuel pool failure that could result in a spontaneous fire, the release of large quantities of radiation, and widespread contamination, but has granted every request from emergency response requirements that it has ever received from a licensee of a decommissioning reactor.

Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Act of 2014 (Sanders, Boxer, Markey)
The Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Act of 2014 would ensure that states and local communities have a meaningful role in the crafting and preparation of decommissioning plans for retired nuclear plants located in those areas. The bill also requires NRC to publicly and transparently approve or reject every proposed decommissioning plan, which it currently is not required to do.

Dry Cask Storage Act of 2014 (Markey, Boxer, Sanders)
The Dry Cask Storage Act of 2014 would ensure that every nuclear reactor operator complies with an NRC-approved plan that would require the safe removal of spent nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pools and place that spent fuel into dry cask storage within 7 years of the time the plan is submitted to the NRC. The legislation also provides funding to help reactor licensees implement the plans and expands the emergency planning zone for non-compliant reactor operators to 50 miles.

For Immediate Release (Important please read) Contact: Mary Kerr or Kate Gilman: 202-224-8832
May 13, 2014

mary_kerr@epw.senate.gov or kate_gilman@epw.senate.go
Michael Briggs (Sanders): 202-224-5141
Giselle Barry (Markey): 202-224-2742

U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works

Senators Boxer, Sanders and Markey Introduce Legislation to Increase Safety at Nuclear Plants
Three bills address safety of spent fuel storage and decommissioning plans

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Health Effects Of Living Near A Nuclear Reactor

Health Effects of Living Next To A Nuclear Reactor
Nuclear Reactors, On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones Equal Fukushimas
Decommission Diablo Canyon 

The two Diablo Canyon nuclear power reactors (Diablo Canyon) in San Luis Obispo (SLO) County are aging. They began operation in 1984 and 1985, respectively.

They are the only California nuclear power reactors still operating to produce electricity, after the San Onofre reactors were closed in June 2013. In 2010, 465,521 people lived within 50 miles of the plant.

As of 2010, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant held 1126 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, containing more radioactivity than that released during the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Diablo Canyon emitted more highly-toxic liquid tritium into the environment than any U.S. plant during the late 2000s.

A 2013 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that the discovery of “a previously unknown earthquake fault line running as close as 2,000 feet from Diablo Canyon’s two reactors…could cause more ground motion during an earthquake than the plant was designed to withstand. Since this new fault was discovered, the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has not demonstrated that the reactors meet agency safety standards.”

Average radioactive Strontium-90 (Sr-90) levels in baby teeth from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties were 30.8% greater than the Sr-90 levels in all California baby teeth tested. In the state of California, Sr-90 levels in baby teeth rose steadily, increasing 50.2% in children born in the late 1990s vs. the late 1980s. Nuclear power plants are the only current source of Sr-90 emissions into the environment.

Major findings about local health patterns around the Diablo Nukes include:

1. Since the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant opened in the mid-1980s, San Luis Obispo County has changed from a relatively low-cancer to a high-cancer county.

2. Due to increases in the San Luis Obispo County cancer rate during 2001-2010, an additional 738 people were diagnosed with cancer.

3. Cancer incidence in San Luis Obispo County rose from 0.4% below to 6.9% above the average for the state of California during the time period of 1988-1990 to 2003-2010. The current cancer rate is the highest of all 20 counties in southern California.

4. After Diablo Canyon began operating, significant rapid increases occurred for the incidence of thyroid and female breast cancer in San Luis Obispo County, both highly radiosensitive cancers.

5. After Diablo Canyon began operating, infant mortality in San Luis Obispo County rose significantly.

6. After Diablo Canyon began operating, child/adolescent cancer mortality in the county rose rapidly.

7. Melanoma incidence in San Luis Obispo County soared from 3.6% above to 130.2% above the state incidence rate during the period from 1988-1990 to 2003-2010, and is now the highest of all California counties.

8. Cancer mortality for people of all ages in San Luis Obispo County rose from 5.1% below to 1.4% above California from 1988-1990 to 2008-2010, making SLO the 25thhighest county in the state (up from 43rd highest).

9. The ratio of babies born at very low-weight (below 3 pounds, 4 ounces) rose 45.0% higher in the 9 San Luis Obispo County zip codes closest to Diablo Canyon, versus the other more distant 10 county zip codes.

10. The ratio of all-cause mortality rose 47.9% higher in the 9 San Luis Obispo County zip codes closest to Diablo Canyon, versus the other more distant 10 county zip codes.

11. In the 10 zip code areas in Santa Barbara County closest to Diablo Canyon, there was a greater rise in the rates of infant mortality (61.7%), low weight births (40.2%) and total mortality (19.1%), than in the 5 zip codes areas in the city of Santa Barbara, located approximately 90 miles from the reactors.

12. The major findings of this report show increases in various rates of disease and death in San Luis Obispo County, as compared to the state of California, since the 1980s (before plant startup and during its early years of operation). This includes increases in infant mortality, child/adolescent cancer mortality, cancer incidence for all ages (especially thyroid, female breast, and melanoma), and cancer mortality for all ages.

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Private Profit, Public Debt, The Nuclear Saga Continues In San Clemente

Would you give 3 hours of your time on Tuesday to lower cancer rates in San Clemente and adjacent communities?Studies show that communities who are actively involved in the decommissioning of their power plants result in lower radiation readi…

Continue reading

Remembering Fukushima Film Screening Laguna Beach March 11

Remembering Fukushima BC Space Gallery Laguna Beach

Film Screening : March 11 : Metamorphosis by Jun Hori : 7 pm
(3rd Anniversary of the 2011 Earthquake & Tsunami)

Jun Hori is a noted Japanese television journalist and commentator. His documentary video “Metamorphosis” explores the Japanese citizen reaction to the Fukushima reactor meltdowns, and public opposition to government proposals to reopen Japan’s remaining 50 reactors. “Metamorphosis” also explores several nuclear accident sites in the United States, including Three Mile Island. When NHK, Japan’s public television network, refused to broadcast “Metamorphosis,” Jun Hori ended his long-term relationship with NHK.

When San Onofre’s nuclear waste generating plant closed last summer, many breathed a sigh of relief. Yet San Onofre still requires a multi-decade ‘decommissioning,’ with radioactive fuel and components carted away to uncertain disposal, at further expense measured in hundreds of millions of dollars. Who profits and who pays is in dispute.

Plutonium Is Forever
For additional information please contact the gallery or Mark Chamberlain at 949.697.5237

BC Space Gallery
235 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949.497.1880
bcspace@mol.net

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Nuclear Facility Citizen Oversight Committee

San Onofre Nuclear Facility
Citizen Oversight Committee

ROSE is calling for a email campaign, or place a call to each of the NRC commissioners for Recognition in the oversight of the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear power plant. We must …

Continue reading

Pandora’s Promise is Fukushima USA

Stop the Nuclear Waste Con! 

The NRC Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement is unacceptable. Much of it appears to be based on unsubstantiated hope.

WHAT: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting to receive comments on the Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement Report and Proposed Rule.

WHEN: MONDAY, November 18, 2013

5 p.m.  CDSO Press Conference
5 – 7 p.m.   Overpass Light Brigade — We need Volunteers to hold Lighted Letters!

6 – 7 p.m.   NRC Open House (Q&A with NRC Staff)

7 – 10 p.m.  NRC Public Comment Meeting

WHERE: Sheraton Carlsbad Resort and Spa, 5480 Grand Pacific Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008

Background: As described by the NRC Chairman, Alison Macfarlane, in a recent speech, “in June 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the NRC’s 2010 Waste Confidence rule. In the court’s opinion, the Commission’s conclusion that a high-level waste repository would be available ‘when necessary’ lacked an appropriate discussion of the environmental consequences of failing to achieve that objective. The ruling also expressed concern about potential spent fuel pool leaks and fires. In the time since the court issued its decision … NRC staff has been working to revise the Waste Confidence rule and develop a generic environmental impact statement. From the beginning, the Commission made it clear that public involvement must be an essential part of this process. Starting last month, the NRC has been holding a series of public meetings around the country to get important input for our final products.” 1

The public meeting in Carlsbad on November 18, 2013, is one of 12 being held by the NRC around the country to take comment on the Draft ”Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement” Report,2 including a second California public meeting in San Luis Obispo on November 20th. See complete schedule at http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel- storage/wcd/pub-involve.html#schedule

Stop the Nuclear Waste Con: “The NRC Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) is unacceptable. Much of it appears to be based on unsubstantiated hope and it ignores the unsolved problems of high burnup fuel. The NRC won’t approve short-term storage or transport of high burnup used nuclear fuel because they have no confidence it is safe,” states Donna Gilmore of SanOnofreSafety.org. The Waste Confidence GEIS needs to address:

√ HIGH BURNUP FUEL – Too hot to handle
No short-term storage or transportation solutions for high burnup fuel waste.3
• The NRC and DOE are concerned with the instability of high burnup nuclear waste in both storage and transport, yet the NRC continues approving this dangerous fuel for reactors.

> The NRC won’t approve high burnup dry cask storage over 20 years because they have NO CONFIDENCE it can be stored longer without releasing radiation into the environment, even though it must be stored for thousands of years.

The NRC won’t approve transportation4 of high burnup used fuel because they have NO CONFIDENCE it can be transported without releasing radiation into the environment.

San Onofre’s high burnup used fuel is so hot and radioactive, it requires up to a MINIMUM 20 YEARS cooling in the crowded spent fuel pools, instead of the minimum 5 years for lower burnup fuel.

√ Generic Environmental Impact Statement – NOT acceptable for California

California didn’t “sign up” for permanent (100+ years) nuclear waste dumps.

California nuclear waste sits in the world’s earthquake “ring of fire”, the same as

Fukushima, the most active and dangerous earthquake zone in the world. California’s nuclear waste is surrounded by known active earthquake faults and the USGS says no one has ever predicted a major earthquake.

California’s nuclear waste sits along an eroding coastline, in tsunami zones, and is exposed to a highly humid and corrosive coastal environment. NRC’s NUREG/CR-7030 states atmospheric corrosion of sea salt can lead to stress corrosion cracking within 32 and 128 weeks in austenitic [corrosion resistant] stainless steel canisters.5

It would be impossible to evacuate the millions of people living near California’s waste. Of the 34 million people in California, over 8.5 million reside within 50 miles of San Onofre.

A radiological disaster impacts the nation’s and world’s security, economy and food supply.

California is the eight ranking economy in the world, virtually tied with Italy and the Russian Federation, and larger than Canada, Australia and Spain.6

More than 40 percent of containerized imports enter the country through California ports, and nearly 30 percent of the country’s exports depart through them.7

California produces nearly half of the U.S. grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. California remained the number one state in cash farm receipts in 2011, with its $43.5 billion in revenue representing 11.6 percent of the U.S. total. U. S. consumers regularly purchase several crops produced solely in California.8

San Onofre is located adjacent to the primary vehicle transportation artery between Los Angeles and San Diego (I-5), and one of the largest military installations (and targets) on the West Coast (Camp Pendleton).

√ We oppose NRC’s proposed rule that future licensing can be based on the assumption spent fuel can be safely stored above ground virtually forever.

In the proposed NRC rule9 that accompanies the draft GEIS, the NRC proposes to incorporate into every reactor license the Draft GEIS’ conclusion that spent fuel can be safely stored above ground indefinitely.

This proposal would in effect forbid any further public discussion, in individual reactor licensing actions, of the serious question of whether generation of additional spent fuel is justifiable in light of the absence of any means of safe disposal.

The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre includes Citizens Oversight, Inc., Peace Resource Center of San Diego, San Clemente Green, SanOnofreSafety.org, and Women Occupy San Diego. For more information on nuclear waste, go to SanOnofreSafety.org.

###

1 http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1330/ML13309A775.pdf
2 http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1322/ML13224A106.pdf
3 Sources for high burnup information at http://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/

4 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/isg-11R3.pdf

5 Atmospheric Stress Corrosion Cracking Susceptibility of Welded and Unwelded 304, 304L, and 316L Austenitic Stainless Steels Commonly Used for Dry Cask Storage Containers Exposed to Marine Environments (NUREG/CR-7030) http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1031/ML103120081.pdf

6 http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2013-CA-Economy-Rankings-2012.pdf, http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm 7 Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 11/10/13 http://www.pmsaship.com/default.aspx?ID=8
8 California Agricultural Statistics USDA October 31, 2012

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/California_Ag_Statistics/Reports/2011cas-all.pdf 9 http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1325/ML13256A004.pdf page1image13844

Coalition to Decommission San Onofre (CDSO) and Sierra Club Angeles Chapter

PRESS RELEASE AND MEDIA ADVISORY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contacts: Donna Gilmore, SanOnofreSafety.org 949-204-7794 donnagilmore@gmail.com / Martha Sullivan, Women Occupy San Diego, 858-945-6273 marthasullivan@mac.com / Glenn Pascall, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, 949-248-3183 gpascall@att.net / Gary Headrick, San Clemente Green, 949-218-4051 gary@sanclementegreen.org

Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre

Continue reading

Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre (HD)

Decommissioning San Onofre and the Ongoing Dangers of Nuclear Waste — San Onofre, The Risks Live On… a community symposium held October 19, 2013 in San Clemente, California. Main speakers: Dr. Arjun Makhijani, Dr. Don Mosier and Dr. Marvin Resn…

Continue reading