Home

Intergrain Stress Corrosion CrackingSign petition to STOP California from wasting $400 million on inferior nuclear waste storage canisters that may crack and leak within 30 years, and have no adequate method for inspection, repair or replacement; and no adequate monitoring until after a radiation leak occurs.

Reports

Issues

Used Nuclear Fuel U.S. 2013 NEI

3,240 metric tons California nuclear waste (2013)

San Onofre’s three nuclear reactors are shut down. However, we’re left with thousands of metric tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste that will remain in California for decades.  San Onofre’s spent fuel contains 89 times the amount of radiation (Cesium-137) released from Chernobyl.  The waste is not safely stored, putting us at risk for a major nuclear disaster. Please read these facts and share the information. The facts are from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and other government or scientific sources.  More…

Stress Corrosion Cracking NRC Slide2 07-14-2014

Spent fuel canisters may fail within 25-30 years.

The (1/2 – 5/8 inch) thin stainless steel canisters storing radioactive nuclear waste at U.S. nuclear power plants may fail within 30 years. There is no current remediation plan.  This waste may need to be stored at nuclear plants or interim storage sites for over 100 years. Once canisters are loaded with spent fuel, they are no longer inspected for aging issues or monitored for helium leaks. These are just some of the problems with U.S. dry storage cask/canister systems. More…

 

Chart SONGS Chernobyl Other Alvarez, Figure 4

San Onofre (SONGS): 89 times more radiation than Chernobyl

HIGH BURNUP FUEL: San Onofre and other U.S. reactors switched to the more dangerous high burnup nuclear fuel over a decade ago. High burnup fuel is low enriched uranium that has burned longer in the reactor than lower burnup fuel.

High burnup fuel is over twice as radioactive,  hotter than lower burnup fuel, and unpredictable and unstable in storage and transport. The protective fuel cladding is more likely to become brittle and shatter, risking release of radiation.  

Higher burnup = higher cladding failure

Higher burnup = higher cladding failure

The majority of spent nuclear fuel at San Onofre falls into the danger zone as shown by the yellow in this Waste at SONGS chart.

Burnup levels as low as 30 GWd/MTU show indications of damaging the protective Zirconium cladding.

Other U.S. nuclear plants have spent fuel that falls within the danger zone, including Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County.  More…

 

 

Years to Cool Chart

High burnup nuclear fuel: up to 20+ years to cool

There is no approved method to safely store high burnup fuel in dry casks for more than 20 years. And there is no approved method to safely transport high burnup fuel wasteThis fuel is so hot, it must cool in the spent fuel pools years longer than lower burnup fuel.  Edison plans to store high burnup fuel in a new model dry cask that would make it even more dangerous. More….


Safety Allegations Charts

Worst safety complaint record in the nation!

The San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant has the worst safety complaint record of all U.S. nuclear reactors according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety allegation data. See charts for details. Employees are retaliated against for reporting safety problems. See Safety Allegations Section for details on this and other safety complaints by employees and others. More…

.
Steam Generator Tubes Plugged Chart

Worst steam generators in the nation!

Southern California Edison wanted to restart the Unit 2 nuclear reactor without fixing the defective steam generators. Both reactors have been shut since 1/31/2012, when Unit 3 leaked radiation into the environment. All four poorly designed replacement steam generators show decades of tube wear after less than two years of installation — the worst in the nation.  

 

.

San Onofre Lemons

Artwork: Jessica deStefano, Laguna Beach

The NRC concluded Southern California Edison was at fault.  “…a significant design deficiency in replacement steam generators, resulting in rapid tube wear of a type never before seen in recirculating steam generators.”   In the NRC’s December 23, 2013 Notice of Violation, they stated: “…design control measures were not established to provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of certain designs.”

.

Typical Combustion Engineering Steam Generator

Combustion Engineering Steam Generator

Edison now admits the steam generators are lemons.  However, they were willing to restart Unit 2 without repairing them.  Edison and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) redesigned the steam generator tube anti-vibration system in order to increase profits. They removed the central stay cylinder in order to add about 400 extra tubes to each generator. Read Arnie Gundersen’s  Fairewind Associates Report San Onofre’s steam generators: significantly worse than all others nationwide.   More…

..

.

Excess Power without Nuclear Chart

Excess power without nuclear

California has excess power without California’s unreliable nuclear power plants, even during peak summer months, according to California government documents. There should be no power problems with San Onofre shut down, even during the summer. And the California ISO’s electricity grid  Transmission Plan says there will be no grid stability concerns with San Onofre shut down. More…

..
OTC NPP Highest Damage Chart

Worst marine life damage from OTC.

The San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants kill millions of fish and other marine life every year, due to their once-through cooling (OTC) systems. The Federal Clean Water Act §316(b) regulations declared OTC illegal. However, California is allowing both plants to continue OTC for years.  More…. .

.

.
San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant

San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant

The NRC lowers safety standards to keep old plants running. More…

“If the NRC does not do its job, the American people will demand the ultimate protection – the shutdown of old nuclear power plants…”, says Senator Barbara Boxer to NRC Commissioners
 

Four NRC Commissioners undermine safety. Rep. Darrell Issa appears to support them.

.
Earthquake Map

Red = earthquake fault lines

San Onofre is designed for a 7.0 earthquake, but sits next to a fault with an  8.0+ earthquake probability — 10 times larger, 32 times stronger, and long overdue. Ratepayers funding $64 million in new seismic studies, even though the USGS states no scientist can predict the size of any earthquake. Recent quakes > 7.0:

.

10 and 50 mile evacuation zones

Nuclear meltdown at San Onofre would poison the nation’s food supply, create permanent “dead zones” and create financial ruin around the nation. If you live within 50 miles of San Onofre, you are at even higher risk of losing everything you care about here.  Five counties are within the 50 mile zone: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego.

.

.

Children tested for radiation near Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan (Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters)

Fukushima USA Cesium-137 Fallout Map 2011 NADP

NADP sites where USGS measured Fukushima Cesium-137 in Mar-Apr 2011 precipitation samples. Dot size = relative amounts (0.8 – 240 Bq/m2).

There is no safe level of radiation, according to the National Academy of Sciences. Children, unborn babies and women are more susceptible to the effects of radiation. Ingesting radiation is extremely dangerous. More…

Tuna near San Diego was found to contain radiation from Japan. Kelp along the Orange County coast also  contained Fukushima radiationRadiation monitoring is inadequate. Government resources and priorities for radiation monitoring are too low to protect us.  More…

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster continues and radiation from Fukushima has traveled to the U.S., yet limited radiation data is available to the public. See NRC Fukushima Lesson’s Learned for status of what the NRC and U.S. reactors are doing [or not doing] to avoid similar problems.

Actions  

Without public awareness and involvement this nuclear energy experiment will continue. Our government will only stop approving high burnup nuclear fuel if our elected officials know they will not be reelected if they support this nuclear energy experiment.  We need better nuclear waste storage containers that are designed for safety over cost. We don’t need to live with these serious risks for energy we don’t need.  See Energy Options.

  • Share this information and website with others today.
  • See How to Help for other actions you can take.

About San Onofre Safety (SOS)

This website is a self-funded public resource for creditable information about San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant safety issues, cost issues and related information. Much of the information is relevant to other nuclear power plants and their nuclear waste. The information was extensively research and fact checked by local citizens and organizations concerned about the risks from San Onofre and other nuclear power plants. By improving  public awareness, our goal is to reduce the likelihood of a nuclear disaster in California and elsewhere. The San Onofre nuclear reactors and highly toxic radioactive waste storage facilities are located just south of San Clemente, California. Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is located in San Luis Obispo county. California’s Humboldt and Rancho Seco nuclear reactors are shut down, but their highly toxic radioactive waste is stored on-site — indefinitely.

Thanks

Southern California Edison decided to decommission the San Onofre nuclear reactors on June 7th, 2013, after the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board said restarting the Unit 2 reactor would be a nuclear experiment.  

Thanks to Kendra UlrichShaun BernieDamon Moglen and S. David Freeman with Friends of the EarthArnie and Maggie Gundersen, Fairewinds AssociatesDan Hirsch, Committee to Bridge the GapSenator Barbara Boxer; and California concerned citizens, elected officials and others who vigilantly fought Southern California Edison and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow the truth to prevail.  And a special thanks to the concerned citizens who contributed millions of dollars to help keep Southern California safe from a nuclear disaster.

 

33 Responses to Home

  1. Julie Tully says:

    This is an essential web site. I have shared it with friends and have asked them to forward it to their friends. This site will be a powerful tool in getting the job done — closing the doors on SanO and creating a safe haven within all of Southern California. Julie Tully

  2. Statement of Concern:
    ROSE believes that the NRC’s stated alternative to Change the Waste Confidence away from the small step approach to the long-term Waste Confidence program for 200 years to make nuclear power plant sites into nuclear waste dumps for 200 years is shortsighted and completely without regard for the safety of the millions of citizens who populate the areas around these power plants.
    This type of decision by the NRC, demands that the public take action to secure its own safety from the hazards of such a nuclear waste dump in their vicinity wherever it is located. It calls into question the very mandate itself of the NRC “Protecting People and the Environment” and leads us to the conclusion that the NRC is no longer capable of Protecting the People and the Environment. This may mean it is time to consider disbanding the NRC and forming a new protective agency led by the citizens themselves who have no vested interest in protecting the nuclear industry.

    NRC Draft Report for Comment Dec 2011 Waste storage policy. Background and Preliminary Assumptions For an Environmental Impact Statement.—Long-Term Waste Confidence Update. States
    6. Alternatives Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    “The proposed action is a change to the Commission.’s current Waste Confidence decision and rule, which requires the Commission to revisit the issue of Waste Confidence every five to ten years. As part of this process, the Commission has revised Waste Confidence twice since 1984, and each time has expanded the temporal scope of its analysis by a few decades. This long-term Waste Confidence update would move away from this small-step approach, and would extend the temporal scope of Waste Confidence by as many as 200 years. The EIS will include an analysis of the impacts of four storage scenarios in order to assess the magnitude and range of impacts and the safety of extended storage. Section 8 of this report discusses these scenarios. As with the current Waste Confidence rule and decision, the Waste Confidence EIS will generically describe the potential impacts of extended storage and will assume that the storage of spent nuclear fuel will continue to be a regulated activity in the future. Unlike the current Waste Confidence rule and decision, this long-term Waste Confidence EIS will not require reconsideration of a possible update to the rule and decision every five to ten years.

  3. Whatever my husband & I can do to shut san onofre down-let us know -please!
    Thank you – K.Stewart

  4. 1captd says:

    We now are being ruled by those in Nuclear Denial*; instead of by Leaders that demand an end to the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disast­er RISK that Nuclear poses to mankind! The nuclear industry is fighting tooth and nail to maintain it’s market share; yet NOW Solar (of all flavors) is far less costly to construct, faster to construct and carries with it N☢ Nuclear radioactiv­e baggage that can kill a Countries economy and or those living nearby!
    Ask The Japanese!

    *Nuclear Denial

    http://is.­gd/XPjMd0

    The illogical belief that Nature cannot destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!

  5. 1captd says:

    Many, many more would install Solar if the Utility paid those that installed Solar for the energy they put INTO the grid, at the very same rate that the Utility charges for that same Energy to folks that take Energy OUT of the Grid! By not paying the same amount, the Utility shareholders receive additional money they do not deserve and the folks that have installed solar end up with a much longer payback period!

    It is time to STOP THE SOLAR ENERGY RIPOFF! http://is.gd/eQog1d

    • Annette Trisler says:

      1catpd –

      We’ve had a solar system for 6 years now, and we’re connected into the grid. Essentially we use the grid, instead of batteries. Feeding our excess in and drawing our shortfall. On an annual basis we about break even.

      I wanted to let you know though, that we have a net metering agreement with SCE and we are paid the same $amount/kwh for our production and usage. That’s why we opted for our grid-tie in. Which utility does not pay the same amount that they charge?

      • Annette Trisler says:

        Incidentally, we financed our system (when home equity loans were still available) so that our monthly payment equalled our average electricity bill. That way, we ensured that so long as our consumption levels did not increase, neither would our electricity cost. It’s worked out great for us.

        Incidentally, when we designed our system we were advised to underproduce, just a bit. This is because the utilities would not reimburse for our overproduction. However, Schwarzenegger changed this on his way out with a program to provide payment for net surplus generation.

        Contrary to all the bad press, solar has actually been a great investment on many levels for this middle-income family.

        Check out the California net metering details at: http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/solar_basics/net_metering.php

      • Joe Holtzman says:

        SCE charges approx $.14 per KWH, but only pays you approx $.04 per KWH for your excess [solar] energy provided to the grid over your needs. This is just another example of the customer by SCE !

      • Annette Trisler says:

        http://hollywood.patch.com/articles/mayor-authorizes-dwp-to-buy-solar-power-from-l-a-homes-businesses-4093bcc2

        Hey John – I’m not sure about that. Essentially our meter spins backward or forward depending upon our usage. We’re charged the kwh rate for our annual consumption (production is already deducted out on a kwh basis, so I don’t think a distinction is made for pricing consumption/production… the net amount is simply billed at the tier rate where it falls. I will call SCE net metering and ask for confirmation though.

        Regardless, it’s saved us a ton of money over the 7 years since we’ve had it installed. Our electricity cost has not increased, while we’ve watched our neighbors’ electricity bills skyrocket.

        Specific to your concern though, check out the article linked above – looks like LADWP solar customers have got some good news coming their way.

      • Joe Holtzman says:

        Yes, you are right in that you offset your use. However any excess energy that exists at your Tru Up Period, once a year is only paid in cash to you at a rate of approx. .037 cents per kwh. Typically SCE bills first tier customers 4 plus times that value.

      • Annette Trisler says:

        Joe – That may very well be the pricing structure for the annual net production surplus. However, the pricing is equal for the production/consumption throughout the year, which is absolutely the primary concern for a residential application. We installed our solar photovoltaic system in order to reduce our consumption of electricity from polluting sources and to reduce our electricity cost. We have accomplished both, and that really should be the message to people who are considering installing solar panels at their residences. To restate an earlier post, when we installed the system 7 years ago the utilities were not mandated to reimburse us for any annual surplus electricity fed into the grid… and we installed the system anyway because selling annual surplus electricity was not an income producing goal of ours. Even without that “gravy,” we have come out ahead.

        I’ve got to say, I don’t begrudge SCE for not voluntarily paying us their retail rate for our annual overproduction, because it would be a bit like expecting Vons to pay me the retail rate they charge for oranges for all the oranges I bring to them off my backyard tree.

      • Joe Holtzman says:

        Agree, my solar provides all my needs–plus excess I supply to the grid.

        My point is fair compensation for excess was suppressed by SCE, SD&GE, ahd PG&E with complicity from the CPUC. If you look at the German model fair compensation is paid for excess energy thus promoting the installation of solar—not nuclear sources.

      • Annette Trisler says:

        Got it, thanks.

  6. 1captd says:

    I believe that once California consumers and especially California property owners realize that they are NOT covered for any type of fallout, leakage or contamination caused by radioactivity, they will begin to reexamine their “trust” in nuclear because of their financial liability!

    Question: How many in Southern California (for example) could afford to just walk away from their homes if one of the reactors in California had a meltdown for any reason; without even considering the health implications later? The answer of course is NOT MANY! We have only to see what has happened in Japan to get a good idea; in short America cannot afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster any better than Japan.

    Remember most of the “rest” of America is downwind from the West Coast! Japan has been “lucky” in that regard ,since most of its radioactivity has move toward eastward North America and the rest of the planet; yet most of Northern Japan is now contaminated!

  7. CaptD says:

    Forget all the talk about “NEEDING SAN ONOFRE”
    It is just Nuclear Baloney (NB) and not factual or actual “Load Demand”!

    San Onofre is now off the grid and guess what:
    California is still getting along quite nicely without them!

    Bye Bye San Onofre…

  8. CaptD says:

    I too have been watching since 3/11 and Japans Trillion Dollar Eco-Disast­er has also affected many of us globally!

    I have considered myself a supporter of Japan and Japanese products for a very long time but 3/11 has fundamenta­lly changed my opinion of the Japanese Gov’t !

    I never considered that the Japanese Gov’t. would allow global radioactiv­e pollution to “be made in Japan” yet after 11 months it still continues, PLUS the ongoing radioactiv­e pollution continues to be covered up and or SPUN by TEPCO, with the Gov’t.’s approval!

    What I now understand is that the Japanese culture is lacking something very basic, which is the ability to just say NO! By not being able to say NO, the Japanese people have no way to guide their Leaders or change their Countries Policy! Japan is doomed to additional suffering because Man cannot control Nature, despite what all nuclear engineers say… Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!

    Please Respect Nature

    It’s OK to just say N☢

    The World is watching

  9. F. Williamson says:

    BE AFRAID — BE *VERY* AFRAID!

    What Mrs. Chambers wrote is SPOT ON!!

    I was there and I could tell you tales that would curl your hair. She is 100% correct.

    The plant is only as safe as the people who operate it. For DECADES the place has been diseased with an epidemic of autocratic egomaniacs, ‘rank and file’, ‘good old boy’ entitlement mentality. Juvenile politics rules that place. Not ethics or morals.

    For decades every independent audit has concluded that the plant is way too top heavy (too many supervisors and managers). And every time to ‘counter’ the findings, they play name games and staffing roulette to shuffle everyone around until they ‘make everything look right.’

  10. neubarth says:

    I have pointed out to many people but few have heard me. San Clemente Island (to the lower left of the map up above) has a fault line running right along the eastern side of the island. That side of the island is sheer as it if broke away and slid off to the right of the island in two large movements like this <. Look at the chart and you can see the underwater mounds of what obviously was the northern and southern end of what used to be the eastern half of San Clemente. Once you see it, pay attention. I have been on the island. There is a fault clearly visible on the northern half of the island. It is hard to see on the southern half, but it looks like it is trying to split San Clemente in half again from North to South. If even one half of the northern eastern part of the island fell into the ocean, it would generate a tsunami like wave that could be sixty or seventy feet high. Now, look at the underwater topography of the ocean floor and you will see that THAT WAVE would have a clear shot at the coast right were San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant is located. Now, I know a geologist will tell you that THAT will not happen for 10,000 years and he will probably be right, but I would feel a lot more safer if that Nuclear Fuel was not there in the first place.

  11. stephen Crane says:

    GREAT WEBSITE. I HOPE WE WILL BEcome more involved SOON.

  12. MajorTom says:

    Houston, we have a problem!!!
    Can you hear me Houston?
    Houston?

  13. Eric says:

    Keep it closed and shut it down for good. The risks are not worth the rewards with San-O.

  14. neubarth says:

    Let’s get San Onofre shut down! I figure that the San Onofre plant over the past 40 years has killed close to a million people with radioactive particulate discharge. Remember, Radioactive Particulate gets discharged to the environment when Uranium is dug up from the ground, and when it is shipped, and when it is processed, and when the nuclear plant is in operation, and when waste products are stored, and when the fuel is stored and when it is reprocessed and shipped elsewhere and so on. It is just a never ending nightmare of constant pollution of the environment. Most of that pollution ends up in the soil, and then in our food (both animal and vegetable) and then inside us. Once that radioactive particulate decays in our body it is 400 to 500 times more likely to cause cancer than just an ordinary Cosmic Radiation strike coming from outside the body. As I keep on telling people, the horrific Eight Fold increase in Cancer in the past century is largely do to radioactive particulate in the enviroment and in our bodies. The three largest sources of that radioactive particulate have been the Nuclear Industry, the Coal Industry and the Tobacco Industry (radioactive Lead and Polonium is in tobacco smoke. Thank God, people have cut back in smoking and the lung cancer rate has fallen proportionately.)

  15. neubarth says:

    Even if we were to shut down the entire nuclear industry today, the pollution of the environment will remain for thousands of years continuing to kill and cause DNA damage for thousands of years, as well. Not only have we had an 8 fold increase in Cancer in the past century, we have had a tremendous increase in DNA damage related illnesses. Every year the medical industry is discovering new illnesses that are caused by radiation strikes in developing ovas and sperm cells. Once a child is created with one of those defective ovas or sperm, it can develop the new genetic illness or it can be a carrier of a new genetic illness and can pass it on to future generations. Having these new genetic illnesses is not a curse from God. IT IS A CURSE FROM MAN, and it will continue to curse man for thousands of years and endless generations as long as people carrying those DNA defects continue passing those defective genes on to their offspring.

  16. JL Sener says:

    Great job of educating the public. This is a battle by the PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.

  17. Arlen Tackett says:

    Alternative energy. Wind and solar. Especially in Calif. Put the money there, not into nuclear.

  18. Tor Nerheim says:

    Energy made $$$$, getting rid of a plus 20,000 year problem is deadly & will cost the hole planet $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ & death of a planet. Can terrorists use nuke waste for a dirty bomb?
    For now we can use it in tooth paste!

  19. MajorTom says:

    I found this article yesterday which should be of interest to all readers here:
    http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/harvey-wasserman/49598/san-onofre-at-the-no-nukes-brink

    We still need to keep fighting this battle until the job at hand is finished.
    Contact Senator Boxer and tell her that you are relying on her, and the NRC oversight committee she chairs in Congress, to take appropriate measures to protect southern California from a potential nuclear disaster.

  20. Deeann says:

    Congratulations and sincere thanks to Donna and all of those who worked tirelessly and selflessly to bring attention to the San Onofre safety issues.

    “Edison will shut down the San Onofre nuclear plant for good”

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-edison-closing-san-onofre-nuclear-plant-20130607,0,7920425.story

  21. rsauerheber says:

    Thanks Donna Gilmore for being faithful in fighting against the disastrous problem of using filthy nuclear fission reactions on earth and even near population centers like San Clemente. The created plutonium should never have existed in the first place and now we are forced to somehow figure out what to do with it. There has never been an answer and “nuclear engineers” would never be stopped from developing these facilities while they assumed “someone” would “someday” have an answer. The lethal filth they have created, they themselves are powerless to remedy. Hiding the solid filth in caverns in New Mexico is the method used by the military for nuclear bomb waste. But the gaseous emissions that have gone on at an San Onofre and other locations like it have already occurred. It is a misuse of the term “science” to claim these are “nuclear power plants,” as though they can simply be switched off when they become useless.
    We are opposed to Iran building these plants and the U.S. needs to oppose them here as well. The direct dumping of radiation waste from these plants into the Atlantic Ocean by nuclear “scientists” in France is an international travesty. Accidents are one thing, but intentional disbursement is a complete lack of understanding of physiology on the part of the perpetrators. France is one of my favorite countries due to Joan of Arc, Normandie, etc., so this hurts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s