PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre
The intent of this plan is to help you understand and educate yourself about the dangers of “HIGH BURNUP FUEL” in your reactors and the problem they present in waste management and storage of these extremely dangerous fuels.
This plan consists of 3 actions that must be taken:
1. Education on High Burnup Fuels:
a. Who to educate, the Congress, activists, communities, all forms of news outlets.
b. EVERYONE NEEDS TO HEAR ABOUT “HIGH BURNUP FUEL.” Very few people know about it.
c. This fuel came to your reactor very quietly without the knowledge of the public, plant workers and their unions, only a few top executives seem to be aware this was happening.
2. Clear and present dangers of High Burnup Fuels:
a. Reactor problems caused by High Burnup Fuels.
b. Waste management & storage issues of High Burnup Fuels.
c. Much higher levels of radiation with High Burnup Fuels that are now sitting near you.
3. Action Alert process:
a. Email & phone call campaign to Senators and Congressmen & the 5 NRC Commissioners, state governors and legislators, petitions.
Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) & Coalition Against Nukes (C.A.N.) are taking a group of six activists from around the country to talk with the NRC commissioners and several senators in the third week in January to discuss this important issue. We hope this campaign will provide a minimum of 10,000 phone calls and emails to the groups listed above prior to our arrival to deliver this message.
The use of “HIGH BURNUP FUEL” has gone almost completely unnoticed by everyone and now must be brought to the forefront of our battle to shutdown the remainder of America’s nuclear power plants and to get a handle on our nuclear waste problem that is only magnified by the use of these extremely dangerous fuels. STOP THE PRODUCTION OF MORE NUCLEAR WASTE NOW.
Below you will find a detailed summary about High Burnup Fuels by Dr. Marvin Resnikoff noted waste management expert and Donna Gilmore.
High Burnup Fuel Fact Sheet High Burnup Nuclear Fuel
Pushing the Safety Envelope by Marvin Resnikoff and Donna Gilmore January 2014
As commercial reactor economics have declined, utilities, with the acquiescence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), have burned nuclear fuel longer and crammed more of it into storage containers. This experiment has unresolved serious safety issues for storage, transportation and disposal of this highly radioactive waste; issues that have been essentially overlooked by nuclear regulators and the general public.
For high burnup fuel (HBF), the cladding surrounding nuclear fuel, is thinner, more brittle, with additional cracks. In a transportation accident, the cladding could shatter and a large inventory of radioactivity, particularly cesium, could be released. The NRC should stop use of HBF and make solving HBF storage problems one of its highest priorities.
High Burnup Fuel Problems
Almost all commercial reactors have HBF. Since the 1990’s almost all spent nuclear fuel (SNF) being loaded into dry casks is HBF. HBF is low-enriched uranium that has burned in the reactor for more than 45 GWd/MTU (GigaWatt days per Metric Ton of Uranium). Many Pressurized-Water Reactors have fuel with projected burnup greater than 60 GWd/MTU. Cross Section Fuel Rod Significant Radial Hydride Orientation DE-NE-0000593
Fig. 1. Cladding cracks
The only issue NRC staff consider is the highest heat within a storage cask, but this ignores the fact that the cladding of HBF is thinner, more brittle, with additional cracks, as shown in Fig. 1. Longer cooling time will not solve these problems.
Uranium fuel pellets, stacked within long thin tubes called cladding, are struck by neutrons and fission, producing heat. A collection of these tubes is called a nuclear fuel assembly, shown in Fig. 2. After 3 to 4 years, extremely radioactive and thermally hot fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor and stored underwater in a fuel pool. Following a cooling period of 7 to 20 years, 24 to 32 fuel assemblies are removed from the fuel pool and inserted into a fuel canister, which are then pushed into a concrete overpack shown in Fig. 3. Because of the poor economics of nuclear power, utilities are pushing the limits for how long fuel remains in reactors with dire consequences.
Here are the high burnup fuel issues:
HBF is dangerously unpredictable and unstable in storage – even short-term. HBF is over twice as radioactive and over twice as hot. The higher the burnup rate and the higher the uranium enrichment, the more radioactive, hotter and unstable fuel and cladding become. Fig. 4 shows the increase of heat output of fuel assemblies as a function of burnup.
HBF requires a minimum of 7 to 20+ years of cooling in spent fuel pools before storage in dry casks. The years of cooling depends on the burnup rate, percent of uranium enrichment and other factors as defined in the dry cask system’s technical specifications. Lower burnup fuel requires a minimum of 5 years. See Fig. 5. HBF requires more storage space between fuel assemblies due to the higher heat, higher radioactivity, and instability, yet the NRC approves high density of fuel assemblies in fuel pools and dry casks systems. San Onofre requested use of a new dry cask system that crowds 32 fuel assemblies into the same space that currently holds 24. Absent a comprehensive safety analysis, the NRC should NOT approve the NUHOMS® 32PTH2 cask system for HBF, but is considering doing so this year. The NUHOMS system consists of a welded canister that holds 24 or 32 fuel assemblies; the canister slips inside a concrete storage overpack, shown in Fig.3. Diablo Canyon now uses a HOLTEC 32 fuel assembly cask system. No transportation casks for HBF have been approved by the NRC, so even if a waste repository were available, HBF could not be relocated. Nuclear fuel is approved for only 20 years storage in dry casks, based on faulty assumptions about how HBF reacts in the first 20 years of storage. There is insufficient data to approve dry casks for over 20 years, per Dr. Robert Einziger, Senior Materials Scientist, NRC Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation. Experimental data show fuel with burnup as low as 30 GWd/MTU have signs of premature failure. As was done at Maine Yankee, all HBF assemblies should be containerized in damaged fuel cans for dry storage. The NRC has no adequate strategies to detect and mitigate unexpected degradation of HBF during dry storage.[14, 15, 16]
HBF has major implications for pool storage before movement to dry storage. The NUHOMS 32 assembly cask requires up to 20 years and longer if HBF is to be transported. As seen in Fig. 4, HBF would require more than 30 years in storage before it could be transported. This has major ramifications for decommissioning reactors. Essentially, reactors cannot be immediately dismantled after ceasing operation. SAFSTOR is the only option. The reactor license must be retained for this period. A longer time is required before HBF can be removed from the reactor site. In addition, the current high spent fuel pool densities present an even greater risk due to inclusion of HBF assemblies.
HBF has major implications for disposal in a repository. If DOE intends to open NUHOMS and HOLTEC canisters and repackage HBF for disposal, major problems may arise. Because the cladding is brittle and has cracks, it may be damaged during transportation and storage. Each HBF assembly may have to be containerized before storage, similar to damaged fuel assemblies.
HBF has major implications for transportation. Transportation issues have not been well examined by NRC in NUREG-2125, the latest transportation risk assessment, a 509 page report with numerous references. But NUREG-2125 does not investigate transportation of HBF, a major oversight, as is discussed below.
NRC Transportation Accident Analysis
Public input on NUREG-2125 was unwisely curtailed at 60 days. The report was sold to the Commissioners by NRC Staff as a way to gather input from stakeholders, but in practice, this did not meaningfully happen. NRC staff required 7 years to produce this report, yet the State of Nevada’s request for an additional 30 days review was denied.
NUREG-2125 should have been critically reviewed. NUREG-2125 is essentially a transportation risk analysis. As the critique by the State of Nevada shows, the NRC picked and chose which of its reports to include as references. Important accident sequences were not included. Here are just 3 examples of many, some of which are discussed in footnote 19.
Transportation casks have impact limiters at each end. Therefore, the most vulnerable position is a side impact, where the impact limiters are avoided, the so-called backbreaker accident. The references not chosen by NRC discuss this accident. NUREG-2125 does discuss a side impact by a train at a RR crossing. If the train sill directly impacts a transportation cask, the forces and accelerations can be great enough to stretch the bolt lids and leave an opening to the cask interior. But cited references do not include the 1-ton impact limiters at each end, which would increase the bending. For HBF, 140 g forces, a 60 mph side impact, would easily shatter the brittle cladding. HBF has over twice the cesium inventory. There are serious unanswered questions about long duration, high temperature fires and effect on cask and fuel cladding. Casks have neutron shielding on the outside, generally boronated plastic, within a thin metal cylinder. Fuel would heat up with this plastic blanket, except for the fact that metal brackets that hold the thin outer metal cylinder in place are heat conductors. But in a fire accident, these metal conductors can serve as heat inputs to the cask. This is not correctly modeled by cask manufacturers.
The State of Nevada has been asking for some time for full cask testing. These double layer casks, a canister within a transportation overpack, should be fully physically tested. Instead cask manufacturers rely on computer simulations and scale models. It is important to benchmark these computer models. Examples of failures by manufacturers to properly evaluate effectiveness can be found in the fire insulation failures throughout the US nuclear fleet due to inaccurate manufacture qualifications. NRC Security Analysis
Finally, malevolent events should be seriously examined. We do not have confidence this has been done. Anti-tank weapons such as the Russian Kornet, or French Milan, can easily penetrate 1 meter of metal. For transportation, the concern is about events that include entrance and exit holes. This is of particular concern with HBF, with large Cesium inventories and suspect fuel cladding. High Burnup Fuel Recommendations It is imperative the NRC Stop approval of high burnup fuel (HBF) use. Stop approval of HBF dry cask storage. Make solving high burnup fuel storage problems one of its highest priorities. The DOE EPRI “Demonstration Project” (EPRI High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project), that NEI is promoting is not a solution. This project only tests HBF in existing cask technology (TN-32). The TN-32 cask isn’t even approved for HBF. Over ten years after HBF was first produced and stored in dry storage casks, the industry has finally begun to study the consequences. The NRC has been asleep at the switch, allowing this dangerous experiment in the field to proceed. Develop adequate strategies to detect and mitigate unexpected degradation during dry storage. Absent a comprehensive safety analysis, not approve 32 assembly casks for HBF, such as the NUHOMS® 32PTH2 cask system. Require all HBF assemblies be containerized in damaged fuel cans for dry storage. Require full cask testing, rather than computer simulations and scale models. Reject NUREG-2125 Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment as inadequate as it does not address HBF. Time is of the essence. As of 2012, most fuel in pools for future loading is high burnup and approximately 200 loaded-casks contain HBF. Dry cask storage of HBF in the U.S. started about a decade ago: Since 2003, Maine Yankee casks contain HBF up to 49.5 GWd/MTU. (Maine Yankee HBF is in damaged fuel cans, due to unknowns with HBF) Since 2005, HB Robinson casks contain HBF up to 56.9 GWd/MTU Since 2006, Oconee casks contain HBF up to 55 GWd/MTU After 2008, many other sites have casks that contain HBF up to 53.8 GWd/MTU, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
 email@example.com; http://www.rwma.com  firstname.lastname@example.org; http://www.SanOnofreSafety.org  DOE EPRI High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project: Draft Test Plan, Contract No.: DE-NE-0000593, September 13, 2013, Page 2-1http://1.usa.gov/1f6LkJH  GAO-12-797 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors Present Storage & Other Challenges, August 2012,http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/593745.pdf. Low-enriched uranium = up to 5% of U-235. GWd/MTU is the amount of electricity produced (gigawatt-days) per metric ton of uranium.  Savannah River National Laboratory, “Inventory and Description of Commercial Reactor Fuels within the United States,” SRNL-STI-2011-00228, March 31, 2011http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/SRNL-STI-2011-00228.pdf  CoC No. 1029 Technical Specifications for Advanced NUHOMS® System Operating Controls and Limits, Appendix A Tables 2-9 to 2-16http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0515/ML051520131.pdf  RWMA Marvin Resnikoff, PhD: The Hazards of Generation III Reactor Fuel Wastes, May 2010 http://bit.ly/19dVRsY  Edison request for NUHOMS® 32PTH2http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12046A013.pdf  SFPO Interim Staff Guidance 11, Rev 3 Cladding Considerations for the Transportation and Storage of Spent Fuel 11/17/2003 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/isg-11R3.pdf  NWTRB Douglas B. Rigby, PhD: The NRC approved the initial 20 year dry cask storage based on assumptions. However, no information was found on inspections conducted on HBFs to confirm the predictions that were made. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, December 2010 report,http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/eds_rpt.pdf  NRC R. E. Einziger, PhD: insufficient data to support licensing dry casks for >20 years, March 13, 2013 http://1.usa.gov/15E8gX5  DOE FCRD-NFST-2013-000132, Fuel Cycle Research & Development-Nuclear Fuel Storage and Transportation-2013-000132, Rev. 1, June 15, 2013 https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=739345  Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company’s Response to the NRC’s Request for Comments Regarding Retrievability, Cladding Integrity and Safe Handling of Spent Fuel at an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation and During Transportation (Docket ID NRC-2013-0004), March 18, 2013http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1309/ML13091A009.pdf  Fancy New Lids for Nuclear Waste Casks, As Contents Get Hotter, Jeff McMahon, May 2, 2013 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/05/02/fancy-new-lids-for-nuclear-waste-casks-as-contents-get-hotter/?view=pc  NRC 10 CFR Part 72: [Docket No. PRM-72-4]: Prairie Island Coalition; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, Federal Register, v. 66, no. 25 (February 6, 2001): p. 9058. FR Doc No: 01-3025 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-02-06/pdf/01-3025.pdf  NRC Acceptance Review of Renewal Application to Materials License No. SNM-2506 for Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation – Supplemental Information Needed (TAC NO. L24592)http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12046A157.pdf  Under SAFSTOR, which utilities refer to as “deferred dismantling,” a nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; afterwards, it is dismantled and the property decontaminated… http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html  Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment, NUREG-2125, May 2012http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12125A218.pdf  Memo from Marvin Resnikoff to Bob Halstead, 7/18/2013, “NUREG-2125 Review”http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/nureg-2125-review.pdf  DOE EPRI High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project: Draft Test Plan, Contract No.: DE-NE-0000593, September 13, 2013, Page 2-1,http://1.usa.gov/1f6LkJH  NEI High Burn-up Used Nuclear Fuel Extended Storage and Transportation Demo, Rod McCullum, INL High Burn-up Used Fuel Demonstration Workshop, August 22-23, 2012 http://www.inl.gov/conferences/highburnupusedfuel/d/extended-storage-and-transportation-demo.pdf  TN-32 Generic Technical Specificationshttp://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0036/ML003696874.pdf  Storage of High Burn-up Fuel, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Marc Nichol, July 25, 2012 NRC Public Meeting, Slide 3,http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/nei-highburnupslide2012-07-25.pdf  DOE EPRI High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project: Draft Test Plan, Contract No.: DE-NE-0000593, September 13, 2013, Page 2-1http://1.usa.gov/1f6LkJH  Data from Characteristics for the Representative Commercial Spent Fuel Assembly for Preclosure Normal Operation, Bechtel SAIC Co., May 2007, OOO-PSA-MGRO-OO700-000-00A, Table 3. Thermal Power (Watts) per PWR Fuel Assembly with 4.0% U-235 http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0907/ML090770390.pdf  Data from Characteristics for the Representative Commercial Spent Fuel Assembly for Preclosure Normal Operation, Bechtel SAIC Co., May 2007, OOO-PSA-MGRO-OO700-000-00A, Table 3. Thermal Power (Watts) per PWR Fuel Assembly with 4.0% U-235 http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0907/ML090770390.pdf
WANT TO STOP NUKE’S then join with us. ROSE’s 2nd Solar Project. Solar Panels For Marine Mammals in Laguna Beach Ca. Pacific Marine Mammal Center’s Fundraiser on CrowdRise http://www.crowdrise.com/solarpanelsformarine
Now that we have shutdown San Onofre please help with our 2nd free solar project and be part of the solution to CA’s energy needs.
THE STORY: Help light up the lives of marine mammals by helping Pacific Marine Mammal Center, a non-profit organization that rescues and rehabilitates marine mammals, go SOLAR! The new year brings new goals, and for 2014 we at PMMC have set our focus on making a big effort towards becoming a more environmentally friendly hospital. By adding solar panels to our facility, PMMC will be able to reduce its energy costs by more than 30%, which saves over $500 in utilities for our Center. Because every $1 at PMMC equals 1 lb of fish, this is approximately 500 more lbs of fish for our seal and sea lion patients each and every month! Help us reduce our energy costs, become a leader in green initiatives, and put more funds back towards food and medication for marine mammals. PMMC has partnered with Planet Earth Solar, LLC and R.O.S.E. (Residents Organized for a Safe Environment) http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/ to help make this project a reality. Planet Earth Solar has already agreed to donate much of their labor and supportive materials, and R.O.S.E. has already helped us to raise over $2,000 for the project! Please join with us on our journey to be better stewards of the environment and make a tax-deductible contribution to PMMC’s Solar Panel project.
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
|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.
3 Sources for high burnup information at http://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/
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 email@example.com / Martha Sullivan, Women Occupy San Diego, 858-945-6273 firstname.lastname@example.org / Glenn Pascall, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, 949-248-3183 email@example.com / Gary Headrick, San Clemente Green, 949-218-4051 firstname.lastname@example.org
San Onofre, the risks live on Our Coa…Continue reading
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
Add Your Voice HereThis Saturday, October 19, 2013 1:30 p.m to 4:30 p.m. The Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre will help inform ratepayers and the general public about the issues of nuclear waste affecting the decommissioning process at…Continue reading
In June, environmental activists won a big victory when the troubled San Onofre nuclear plant ceased operations permanently. The current dispute over defective technology between Edison and Mitsubishi confirms how necessary this outcome was.
Environmental and citizen groups had only a short time to celebrate averting the risk posed by continued operation of the plant. Almost immediately it became clear that this site, wedged between Interstate 5 and the Pacific shoreline, poses a huge challenge of radioactive nuclear waste stored at the plant.
“San Onofre’s use of enriched uranium high burnup fuel puts us at greater risk for a nuclear disaster. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not approved a transport method for this waste and says there is insufficient data to support storing it in dry casks for more than 20 years.” Donna Gilmore San Onofre Safety
Large uncertainties persist about where the waste will ultimately be stored and for how long. Billions of dollars of expense will be required to resolve these uncertainties. The issues involved in “decommissioning” San Onofre were secondary during the shutdown debate but now they loom large.
Dr. Arjun Makhijani, expert on Hardened On Site Storage of nuclear waste and long-term management of high-level waste. Dr. Makhijana is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, advisor to government, industry and environmental groups on nuclear waste management issues. Dr. Resnikoff is Senior Associate at Radioactive Waste Management Associates.
Dr. Donald Mosier, expert on the public health effects of radiation. Dr. Mosier is a member of the Department of Immunology, Scripps Research Institute, and City Council member, Del Mar, California.
Co-sponsors of the symposium include Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Peace Resource Center of San Diego, San Clemente Green, Women’s Occupy, Citizens Oversight Project, and San Onofre Safety, Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE), & SanOnofre.com
The immediate goal of the symposium is to assure that “best practices” are applied to make the decommissioning of San Onofre as safe as possible and minimize the long-term risk to area residents.
The ultimate goal of the symposium is to rejuvenate the national dialog about how the U.S. manages nuclear waste, including the safest on-site storage and options for remote storage.
“Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre and the Ongoing Dangers of Nuclear Waste”
“We are safer since San Onofre shut down – but we are not safe.” Gene Stone, Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE)
PLEASE USE THE HASHTAG
Gene Stone, ROSE,
George Watland Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Angeles Chapter
George.watland AT sierraclub DOT org
(213) 387-4287 ext 210
Carol Jahnkow Peace Resource Center of S.D.
caroljahnkow AT gmail DOT com
The danger from the now defunct San Onofre Nukes extents far beyond the reach of her sirens.
If you would like to make a difference for the future of all Californians this is a must attend event.
Tune in here tomorrow for a live stream of all the information.
Better Active Today, Than Radioactive tomorrow. Click Here to Attend
Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre is now LIVE! Related articlesNuclear-waste experts to speak about San OnofreExperts: San Onofre’s nuclear waste isn’t going anywhereCapitol Alert: AM Alert: How best to decommission San Onofre nuclear…Continue reading
|photo from Art of the Rural|
Indigenous Elders and Medicine Peoples Council Statement on Fukushima
View the original statement with signatures here (PDF): COUNCIL_FUKUSHIMA_STATEMENT_OCT_2013
Powerful technologies are out of controland are threatening the future of all life
The foundation for peace will be strengthened by restoring the Original Instructions in ourselves
Representatives of the Council
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
19th Generation Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe
The Great Sioux Nation
Bobby C. Billie
Clan Leader and Spiritual Leader
Council of the Original Miccosukee
Simanolee Nation Aboriginal Peoples
Faith Spotted Eagle, Tunkan Inajin Win
Brave Heart Society Grandmother/Headswoman & Ihanktonwan Treaty Council
Ihanktonwan Dakota from the Oceti Sakowin
|Joe Mangano The Radiation and Public Health Project
P.O. Box 1260 Ocean City NJ 08226
Everyone and especially those with small children should consider making a donation to Joe Mangano’s* The Radiation and Public Health Project for publishing his San Onofre Cancer Report at no cost, as a public service.
— Oct. 24 2:03 PM EDT
The NRC will hold a public meeting to discuss the decommissioning process for all nuke waste plants, including our very own San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station.The meeting will be held September 26 at the Omni La Costa Hotel, 2100 Costa del Mar…Continue reading
What is going to happen with all the nuclear waste at San Onofre? Those questions remain to be answered here in the US. What is the rest of the world doing with their nuke waste?Watch Into Eternity a documentary directed by Danish director Michae…Continue reading
Short video announcement of the “Fukushima Is Here” campaign. We need your help to turn this message into a human mural on Ocean Beach in San Francisco, at 11:00AM on Saturday, October 19th 2013. Help us break the media sound barrier for a day! To say …Continue reading
Tune in here, For a LIVE Presentation By Ace Hoffman on The Physics of Spent Fuel.Where else in society do we say, “Lets worry about the waste later” Learn what is next for the nuclear waste site formerly known as the San Onofre Nuclear…Continue reading
73% of the 948,956 spent fuel rods generated by The San Onofre Nukes are still stored in the plant’s two spent fuel pools.
The time has come to set our intention about how we want to safely store this waste for the next 1 million years.
Click here for the San Onofre Water Blessing Photoset
KA MALUHIA O KA “I”
To the people of Japan,We, the anti-nuclear activists and environmentalists around the world, are very sorry this catastrophic nuclear accident has happened to the people in the land of Japan. We will continue to support and pray for you all….Continue reading
Everybody is Goin Surfing Surfing USA! Recent whistle blower news from San Onofre, San Clemente Green has been told that Edison is in the process of releasing bulk chemicals into the ocean as a cost saving measure. Edison is emptying huge storage…Continue reading
Can Germany Lead California To Energy Freedom?
Germany’s Clean Energy Push: What Can the World Learn
Live, Free Webinar*
Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM EDT
Known as the Energiewende, or “energy transition“, Germany’s campaign to move to renewable power is ambitious, massively popular at home, and by many accounts, quite successful. With 25% of Germany’s electricity currently being sourced from solar, wind, and biomass generation and a target of 80% renewable by 2050 in place, the German energy economy is worth watching.
What can the rest of Europe, the U.S., and other nations learn from one wealthy nation’s aggressive clean energy push? Will Germany succeed in meeting its goals? Which are its biggest obstacles? And perhaps most importantly, can other nations replicate Germany’s most positive achievements? Join us as we ask:
– What distinguishes Germany in terms of economics or political will that has made energiewende possible? Which nations have similar qualities?
– What has been Germany’s most successful strategy in cleaning up its energy mix?
– Is the decision to eliminate nuclear power after the Fukushima event consistent with Germany’s goals?
– What could prevent other nations from adopting similar strategies?
– Rainer Baake:
Director of Agora-Energiewende, former Deputy Minister of the German Federal Environmental Ministry
– Dr. Sören Buttkereit:
Vice President of regulatory strategies for Siemens Energy, focused on market design in the power sector and the adaptations required for a successful transition towards systems with a higher share of (intermittent) renewables.
– Stephanie Wang
Regulatory Policy Director for the Clean Coalition, a nonprofit working to encourage a modern energy system of smaller-scale, efficient, renewable energy projects.
– Jesse Jenkins, Moderator:
MIT Energy Initiative Energy Fellow and Community Manager at The Energy Collective, former Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Instituteenergiewende possible? Which nations have similar qualities?
What has been Germany’s most successful strategy in cleaning up its energy mix?
Is the decision to eliminate nuclear power after the Fukushima event consistent with Germany’s goals?
What could prevent other nations from adopting similar strategies?
* Leak contained within unit, no radiation released (same thing said at first at SONGS) * Company didn’t say when reactor would resume output * California power supply seen tight with unit shutdown J…Continue reading
A citizen speaking at the Naoto Kan, Gregory Jaczko, Arnie Gundersen and Peter Bradford presentation June 4th, 2013 in San Diego, California Days later (June 7th, 2013) it was announced that the San Onofre nuclear power plant would be decommissioned an…Continue reading
|The $742 Million Question|
Who should pay for the extra Decommissioning money, not yet collected?
Since the operators of San Onofre made the financial decision to shut it down prematurely, all decommissioning fees not already collected for Units 2 and 3 by 01/31/12, should be paid by the operators of San Onofre, not ratepayers!
Also the California Public Utilities Commission should required SCE put the Decommissioning of San Onofre out for public bid, instead of just giving the mega billion dollar job to SCE. California ratepayers cannot afford a sole source bid when so many International Companies with nuclear expertise are looking for work.
A public bidding process will save California ratepayers huge amounts of money, money which should not end up in SCE’s shareholders pockets. This single project has the potential to jump start our economy, we cannot allow the CPUC to short circuit our states bidding process by not putting this job out for bid!
Decommissioning Costs as of 1/1/2012
SONGS 1 $ Million
SONGS 2 $ Million
SONGS 3 $ Million
Fuel Storage (Including ISFSI Decommissioning)
Estimated Total Budget 2009 (See Note 2)
Total Collected 10/31/12 (See Note 1)
Total Projection 1/1/2012
Estimated Loss Due To Poor RSG Design/Operation
86.2 Previously Overbilled
The purpose of the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Funds is to mitigate for ratepayers the high cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants at the end of their lives by collecting reasonable fees over a long period of time. The CPUC directs the investor owned utilities to collect a regular Decommissioning fee on customers’ monthly electric bills for Edison and SDG&E’s San Onofre Plant (30 years old) and PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Plant (28 years old). The expected life of a nuclear power plant is 40 years.
$5.2 billion of ratepayer collection is currently invested with the Trust Funds.
At current liquidation value, combined Decommissioning Trust Funds are ~90% funded. The Trust Funds are currently invested in equities (60%) and investment grade fixed income securities (40%). D.87-05-062 established nuclear decommissioning trusts for funding future decommissioning of the utilities’ nuclear units. Each nuclear plant has decommissioning trusts and a committee that oversees the trust fund; Under Public Utilities Code § 8326, SCE is required to provide a decommissioning cost estimate that includes, among other things,
an estimate of the costs of decommissioning, and
a description of changes in regulation, technology, and economics affecting the estimate of costs.
As SCE explains, and as TURN’s witness Lacy acknowledges, the costs to decommission a nuclear facility include the costs to
store the spent fuel onsite or offsite until it is removed by the DOE;
remove residual radioactivity from the site, including from the spent fuel storage facility, to levels required to terminate the NRC license and to release the site for unrestricted use; and
remove non-radiological structures, systems, and components as required to leave the site in a safe condition, or as otherwise mandated by the state or the site owner.
The Utilities project that they will perform the actual decommissioning in three phases.
During Phase I, the Utilities will decontaminate, dismantle, and dispose of the units and the site common facilities. The Utilities will also continue to maintain the integrity and safety of the spent fuel while it remains on the SONGS site. The Utilities will maintain spent fuel in wet storage in spent fuel pools until it can be safely transferred to the SONGS 2 & 3 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) or removed from the site by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). To safely store fuel in wet storage, the Utilities must maintain each plant system required for spent fuel pool operation until the fuel is removed. The Utilities will drain, de-energize, and secure all other plant systems. After the SONGS 2 & 3 spent fuel pools are empty, the Utilities will decommission the pools and their associated support structures and systems. The Utilities assume that by the time the SONGS 2 & 3 fuel has cooled sufficiently to be removed from the spent fuel pools, the DOE will have removed enough SONGS 2 & 3 fuel from the SONGS site that it will not be necessary to further expand the ISFSI pads or to construct additional Advanced Horizontal Storage Modules (ASHM) to accommodate that fuel.
During Phase II, the Utilities will monitor the ISFSI until the DOE removes the last spent fuel from the site, which is assumed to occur by 2051 based on studies developed from the DOE Acceptance Priority Ranking & Annual Capacity Report (DOE/RW-0567), dated July 2004.
During Phase III, the Utilities will dismantle and dispose of the ISFSI, all remaining site common facilities, and the remaining structural foundations; terminate the NRC licenses; and complete the final site restoration work.
Note: The Utilities do not own the site upon which the SONGS facility is located. Instead, they are authorized to use the site under several lease contracts and grants of easement from the U.S. Department of the Navy and the California State Lands Commission. To terminate these agreements, the Utilities are required to remove all improvements they installed or constructed on the site, except as agreed by the lessors/grantors, return the site to a condition satisfactory to the grantor, and return the site to the lessors/grantors.
“Oh no, it wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast.”Via Ace Hoffman’s Nuclear Failures ReportsThe glitter of gold attracted the operators of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. It did them in.Faced with the need to upgrade…Continue reading
Unless someone like YOU cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not. – The LoraxTonight in Lantern Bay Park, located at 25111 Park Lantern Dana Point California.Free popcorn and refreshments available to purchase, with the p…Continue reading
Leadership; doing things that ought to be done with hopes that others will see what you have done and will follow some of the examples you have set. & Just Three Of The Reasons Why We Do This. Meet the activists that Decommissioned&n…Continue reading
Join us tomorrow June 12th for Saint Onuphrius Magnus’s day – for whom the San Onofre surf beach and reactors were named!
Come on down, bring your surfboards for a big old celebratory bonfire at the San Onofre Surfing Beach 5…Continue reading
Solar power generation in California reached an all-time high Friday, with enough energy to power more than 1.5 million homes, replacing what was lost by the closure of the leaky old San Onofre nuke state officials said Sunday.
The record of 2,071…Continue reading
Southern California Edison Announces Plans to Retire San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre RIP
Southern California Edison Announces Plans to Retire San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
Southern California Edison is…
Anti-Nuclear Activists hold a press conference in response to Southern California Edison announcing plans to retire the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. Rate payers have contributed over $3 BILLION to the San Onofre Decommission fund, That’s what we…Continue reading
‘The Fukushima Nuclear Accident –
Lessons for California from then Prime Minister Kan and other distinguished speakers.’
In this segment, Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer, Fairewinds Associates, gives his analysis of the lessons learned from Fukush…Continue reading
Team 10 obtained an internal video showing senior management at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) dress as Star Trek characters inside the plant’s training simulator.
Southern California Edison (SCE), owners of the plant, confirm t…Continue reading
Lessons From Fukushima For San Onofre
Two public figures who led the response in Japan and the United States to the Fukushima reactor crisis will appear together Tuesday for the first time to outline the lessons of Fukushima for Southern Calif…Continue reading
In this segment the Former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, shares his views on nuclear safety issues in the U.S. in the light of the on-going Fukushima disaster, and his view that San Onofre should not be restarted.
The public forum, held June 4, 2013 in the San Diego City Council chambers, was organized by Torgen Johnson.
In addition to Prime Minister Kan (ably translated by Cathy Iwane) speakers included:
Gregory Jaczko, Former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Peter A. Bradford, former member of the NRC; and Kendra Ulrich, Friends of the Earth.
Captured by EON and reposted here as a public service.
|Nuclear Accidents Do Happen. ~ Gregory Jaczko
Lessons for California from the former Prime Minister of Japan at the start of the Fukushima crisis Naoto Kan.
In this segment, Mr. Kan relates his experiences and conclusions regarding the on-going Fukushima disaster and shares his views on the dangers of nuclear power.
The public forum, held June 4, 2013 in the San Diego City Council chambers, was organized by Torgen Johnson
Captured by EON and re-posted here as a public service.
|Former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan warned today that the worst-case nuclear accident at Fukushima would have required evacuating a 190-mile radius from from the disaster.|
Scripps Research Institute Department of Immunology scientist and Del Mar, Ca. City Council Member Prof. Donald Mosier, M.D. explains the serious risks of San Onofre nuclear plant operation from both a scientific and a public policy point of view.
In light of yesterday’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board action on behalf of the NRC it is important to remember that the five NRC commissioners can reverse that decision, and they have a record of doing so.
I believe it is time to s…Continue reading
California Congressman Henry Waxman responds to questions from Myla Reson and Roger Johnson about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) handling of Southern California Edison’s push to fasttrack the restart of one of San Onofre’s faulty reactors…Continue reading
Bags, Tape, Broomsticks, San Onofre & Repair, words you don’t want to hear in the same sentence.
From Tonights 5pm @10News.
Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fukushimas… Any Questions?
A seaweed clump lying directly in front of San Onofre Nuke has a high reading.
By Yoichi Shimatsu
For the first time, a source from inside the San Onofre nuclear power plant has come forward to warn that restarting the power plant is too dangerous.
“There is something grossly wrong,” said the inside source, a safety engineer who worked at San On…Continue reading
The guests for Beachside Chat Friday will include members of San Clemente’s Community Emergency Response Team, as well as city emergency planning officer Jen Tucker. They will discuss the CERT program and emergency response plans for the city.
Beachside Chat is held the first and third Fridays of each month at Café Calypso.
|Don’t Let San Clemente California Become Fukushima USA|
Just give me the warm power of the sun
Give me the steady flow of a waterfall
Give me the spirit of living things as they return to clay.
Just give me the restless power of the wind
Give me the comforting glow of a wood fire
Miki Day, concerned Japanese mother living in California, tells of the contaminated food in Japan and the sad situation for children in Fukushima. She speaks out against the dangerous plan to restart California’s San Onofre nuclear reactor without f…Continue reading
Urban Planner and father of three talks about the devastating effect a nuclear accident at the leaky San Onofre nukes would have on the ‘built environment,’ the real estate, industry, agriculture and infrastructure of Southern California.
Do you…Continue reading
Gary & Lauri Headrick, founders of SanClementeGreen.org tell why they are devoting their lives to seeing that the crippled San Onofre nuclear power plant is shutdown for good.
Aging Nuke Plants On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones = Fu…Continue reading