Action Alert: Coastal Commission meeting Tuesday, October 6, 2015 12:00 p.m, Long Beach. Commission to vote on whether to approve installation of experimental unproven Holtec UMAX underground nuclear waste storage system at San Onofre. Please attend. This may be your only opportunity to speak against this.
- Email your comments prior to meeting to Joseph.Street@coastal.ca.gov
- Reference Coastal Application 9-15-0228, Southern California Edison Company, Construct and operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) to store spent nuclear fuel from SONGS Units 2 and 3.
- Coastal Commission Agenda and location Seaside Ballroom, 300 E Ocean Blvd.
- Letter To Coastal Commission – deny permit, October 5, 2015
- Coastal Commission staff report recommending conditional approval
- Coastal Commission March 19, 2015 staff letter asked Edison great questions. Where are the answers?
- Letter from former NRC Inspector to Coastal Commission – why application should be rejected
- Letter from former NRC Inspector (Scott Atwater) to NRC – why Holtec UMAX should not be approved for San Onofre
- Letter to Coastal Commission – Holtec UMAX not approved for San Onofre, D. Gilmore, September 17, 2015
- Holtec HI-STORM UMAX Dry Storage System details
- SCE alternatives site analysis, May 2015
- Recommends San Onofre sites that do not require public hearings
- Identifies major obstacles to relocating fuel off San Onofre and recognizes fuel may need to stay here indefinitely.
- Recommends San Onofre sites that do not require additional environmental and seismic analysis or review.
- Doesn’t mention that even though a NRC general license for the ISFSI site allows them to store fuel without a public hearing and NRC prior approval, they still need a licensed product and must following the technical specifications of that license and perform a site specific analysis. The proposed Holtec UMAX system does not meet NRC approved technical specifications. The NRC plans to inspect the system before fuel is loaded to ensure it complies with the technical specifications — however, this is AFTER it is built. See Holtec UMAX not approved for San Onofre.
Below is the proposed location for the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX thin “underground” spent fuel canister system at San Onofre. Half under ground, and close to the water table and about 100 feet from the ocean. Edison admits the Sea Wall hasn’t been maintained so can’t be counted on for protection. This plan doesn’t meet Coastal Act requirements, but Coastal Commission staff think there are no other options, but there are.
- The Coastal Commission should not approve vaperware (technology that doesn’t exist) nor make decisions based on unsubstantiated hope.
- Coastal Commission staff recommend kicking the can down the road and approving the permit with the condition that Edison will figure out how to inspect, repair and maintain this inferior system after 20 years.
- Would you buy a car that cannot be inspected, maintained, repaired and has no early warning system before the car fails? That is what the Coastal Commission is allowing if they approve this Coastal Development Permit.
- Edison claims they can relocate the system to another spot a few feet away if the coast erodes and the sea rises. That would cost hundreds of millions of dollars with the current Holtec system (it must be rebuilt) and we all know who will pay for that. Edison plans to spend all the Decommission Trust Fund money and they have not allocated any funds for this.
- The Coastal Commission should require Edison have a ready plan for existing canisters that may leak in as little as 5 years and not allow over 20 years before Edison must have an approved plan.
- Thick casks are the solution.
- Thick casks don’t crack and are up to 20″ thick compared to the Holtec thin (5/8″ thick) thin canisters. Edison can choose thick casks, if the Coastal Commission rejects their inadequate application.
- Thick casks are designed for longer term storage and transport and can be inspected, maintained and monitored and have proved reliable for over 40 years.
- Edison refused to allow bids from thick cask vendors. Vendors will not apply for an NRC license unless they have a customer. Edison needs to be that customer.
- Commission staff admit the tons of nuclear waste may be here for decades or longer.
- San Onofre fuel must cool for 25 to 45 years before it can be transported to a permanent repository.
- Proposed consolidated interim sites require federal legislation and funding and have many other obstacles, so it’s critical we have the best available storage technology until the waste can be moved.
- Read and share detailed comments submitted to Coastal Commission.
- Waste storage alternatives exist now that meet Coastal Act requirements DGilmore, October 6, 2015
Are California and other U.S. nuclear spent fuel waste canisters cracking?
No one knows because there is no technology to inspect or repair cracks in thin stainless steel canisters filled with spent nuclear fuel waste. (Share handout)
San Onofre canisters could start leaking radiation in 5 years (2020), if San Onofre canisters have a failure similar to a Koeberg nuclear power plant component. San Onofre started loading canisters with spent fuel in 2003.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reported a similar component at the Koeberg Nuclear Plant cracked and leaked in 17 years. The crack was deeper than the thickness of most U.S. thin canisters. Other factors can also cause canisters to crack and leak. More…
Koeberg is located in a similar corrosive marine environment as San Onofre and Diablo Canyon: on-shore winds, surf and frequent fog. The Koeberg container had cracks up to a depth of 0.61″. The San Onofre canisters are only 0.625″ thick. The canisters at other California locations, such as Diablo Canyon, are even thinner (0.50″). There are over 2000 loaded canisters in the U.S. Most are 1/2″ (0.50″). More…
The President of Holtec says it’s not feasible to repair thin steel canisters. He states even a microscopic crack will release millions of curies of radiation into the environment. In addition, the NRC and their concrete experts state the concrete base of underground storage system are at higher risk of failure (due to moisture and soil chemistry) and are challenging to inspect.
Southern California Edison, PG&E and other U.S. utilities have no adequate plans to replace cracked canisters and monitoring system only alerts us after canisters leak radiation into the environment. The only proposed “solution” is to put the cracked canister into a thick cask, with no plan of what to do with it next. There is no NRC approved cask design or procedure for this purpose. It would not solve the problem of needing to replace canisters in case of failure or to meet current Department of Energy (DOE) and Nuclear Regulatory requirements. Cracked canisters are not approved for transport.
Edison plan to spend almost $1.3 billion of ratepayer funds to store and manage 1680 metric tons of San Onofre nuclear waste in thin 5/8” steel canisters that may crack within 20 years after loading. Their $1.3 billion plan assumes no canister will fail. And they want us to buy vaporware — a product with a vendor promise of a future solution for finding and measuring cracks. Even if they manage to find a solution, there is still no repair solution and nothing to stop them from cracking.
The NRC’s plan is to allow up to a 75% crack in these thin canisters. even though the vendors have no way to locate and measure cracks and there is no seismic rating for cracked canisters. The NRC assumes nothing will go wrong in the first 20 years, and consider “out of scope” anything that may happen after that when they approve the first license. They assume the vendors will eventually solve these problems before these canisters fail. They approved a license renewal for Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility (ISFSI) with the assumption the technology to inspect loaded canisters will be available within 5 years after license approval. See August 21, 2015 comments submitted to the NRC on their proposed aging management plan in (NUREG-1927 Rev. 1). The NRC has hidden comments from public view (Docket ID NRC-2015-0106).
The unproven experimental Holtec UMAX underground storage system Edison plans to buy has never been used or tested anywhere in the world and has not yet been approved for high seismic areas. Missouri Callaway nuclear power plant installed the underground system recently. Tentative first spent fuel loading is July 2015. The thin welded canisters are to be inserted in steel lined concrete holes. The unsealed thick top lids have air vents, so the thin canisters and spent nuclear fuel waste do not overheat.
The NRC approved a Holtec license amendment to use the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX system in high seismic risk areas effective September 8, 2015. However, it is not approved for any specific site, including San Onofre; that requires additional approvals. And they are only certified safe for 20 years. Any issues that may occur after 20 years are not considered by the NRC, even though they know they must last for decades and they do not have aging issues resolved. See more details below and on Nuclear Waste page.
- Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 1 Direct Final Rule, Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 173, pp 53691 – 53694, effective September 8, 2015
- Letter To Coastal Commission regarding Holtec UMAX NRC approval, September 18, 2015, outlines the limitations of the approval:
- Excludes site approval, such as San Onofre. This requires additional approvals.
- Certified safe for only the initial 20 years. Ignores aging management issues.
- Excludes any plan for storing failed (cracking) canisters. No vendor casks have been approved for storing or transporting failed canisters and no vendor has submitted an application for this purpose.
- Approved for 0.5” thick canisters – not the 0.625” thickness San Onofre proposes. The NRC has not received a License Amendment Request from Holtec for the 1/8″ thicker canister design. This process can take up to 18 months.
- The underground system design certified is different than the system design proposed for San Onofre. The San Onofre design is only partially underground.
.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed the Holtec UMAX system effective April 6, 2015, for low seismic areas, for 20 years, by ignoring known aging problems that may occur after 20 years. The NRC required additional seismic analysis and conditions before approving the License Amendment for high seismic risk areas. The NRC has a history of approving nuclear power plants and storage canisters in high seismic areas, such as Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County. And the NRC only requires evaluation of seismic risk on intact canisters, not canisters that may be cracking. More…
Conditions for cracking were found on a Diablo Canyon canister in service for only two years. No one knows if it is cracking due to the inability to inspect for cracks, but they know it has all the conditions to initiate cracks. The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is located near the Pacific Ocean in San Luis Obispo County. Salt in marine environments can corrode these stainless steel canisters and leads to “chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking.” Numerous other environmental factors can corrode thin steel canisters and their concrete overpacks, but the NRC has not fully evaluated these yet. More…
The thin canister vendors, nuclear industry and utilities, and others ignore the Diablo Canyon and Koeberg data when they make unsubstantiated claims these canisters will last. They will claim they are not aware of any cracking problems. That’s because they do not have technology available to inspect for cracks or to measure crack depth. More…
Other countries use casks up to 20″ thick that don’t crack and that are transportable without the need to buy an additional transport cask, which the thin canisters require.
Take action now
- Share handouts
- Propose City Council Resolutions (see samples and handouts)
- Contact us to become more active
- Make presentations or host presentations
- Sign petition to STOP California from wasting million on inferior thin nuclear waste storage canisters that may crack within 30 years, and have no adequate method for inspection, repair or replacement. NOTE: Edison’s revised estimate to the CPUC for spent fuel storage and management is almost $1.3 billion dollars ($1,276,196,000). This assumes the Department of Energy will start taking the waste in 2024. However, Edison has provided no data to support this unlikely date. It also assumes the canisters will never crack and will never need to be replaced even though the NRC says the waste may be here indefinitely.
Current Regulatory Actions
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- Edison submitted an NRC License Amendment Request on August 20, 2015 to lower safety standards for spent fuel pool cooling.
- San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 – Review of Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (TAC NOS. MF4892 AND MF4893), ML15204A383, August 20, 2015
- The NRC staff finds that the schedule for decommissioning activities is adequate to achieve SONGS, Units 2 and 3, license termination within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations (June 2013), as required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3). However, the NRC considers out of scope of this review “questions or comments about the performance, design requirements, and the availability of inspection and repair methods of spent fuel storage casks previously certified or under review by the NRC (Note: these issues are addressed during NRC’s licensing of the spent fuel storage casks, or during cask license renewal).”
- San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 – Review and Approval of the Irradiated Fuel Management Plan (TAC NOS. MF4894 AND MF4895), ML15182A256, August 19, 2015
- The NRC staff finds the SONGS IFMP estimates to be reasonable, based on a cost comparison with similar decommissioning reactors, while acknowledging that there are large uncertainties and potential site-specific variances that may impact these cost estimates in the future.
- The NRC staff has determined that storing fuel in either the spent fuel pool or ISFSI represents an acceptable means for storing irradiated fuel. The licensee’s plan contains both storage methods, with irradiated fuel being taken out of the spent fuel pool and fully transitioned to the ISFSI within 5 years, followed by complete dry storage.
- The anticipated date to transfer fuel to DOE and subsequent decommissioning of the ISFSls are scheduled to be completed in 2051. This supports the requirement to complete decommissioning within the 60-year timeframe, as required by 10 CFR 50.82. [This schedule assumes there will be a place to start sending this fuel by 2024, which Edison’s own witness said was “unknowable” and unlikely]. It also assumes fuel assemblies will not need to be reloaded into DOE approved casks. Current DOE standard contract requires this.
- Holtec HI–STORM UMAX Canister Storage System Amendment No. 1 provides a
seismically enhanced version of the HI–STORM UMAX Canister Storage
System. Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040. Amendment No. 1 will be effective September 8, 2015 unless significant adverse comments are received by July 23, 2015. Comments after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so. Reference Docket ID NRC–2015–0067. See comments submitted by SanOnofreSafety
- Make comments to the NRC on Edison’s decommissioning plan Docket NRC-2014-0223 via email to email@example.com. Include Docket No. NRC-2014-0223 in subject line. For sample comments, see Comments submitted by SanOnofreSafety.org
- ML14269A033 – San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR). (36 pages), 9/23/2014
- ML14269A034 – San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Site Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate. (93 pages), 9/23/2014
- ML14269A032 – San Onofre Unit 2 and 3 Irradiated Fuel Management Plan (IFMP), (12 pages), 9/23/2014
- Comments submitted by SanOnofreSafety.org, December 22, 2014
California Public Utility Commission (approves funds)
- Read testimony, and transcripts of August 25 – 27, 2015 evidentiary hearings.
- CPUC Scoping decision by Commissioner Florio, April 22, 2015
- Specifically, the Commission must determine if the applicants have
justified the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Estimate, the proposed adjustments
to contributions to the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust, and processes for annual
review of decommissioning cost expenditures.
- Edison must also justify its proposed balancing account for unanticipated decommissioning costs, and SDG&E its share of the decommissioning costs and proposed revenue requirement.
- The reasonableness of the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Estimates does
not include operational decisions, such as vendor selection or equipment
specifications, but does include the soundness of cost assumptions and
- Schedule for San Onofre Decommissioning Proceeding (A1412007)
- Applicants serve supplemental testimony – May 11, 2015
- Intervenor Testimony served – July 15, 2015
- Rebuttal Testimony served – August 3, 2015
- Evidentiary Hearings – August 25, 26, and 27, 2015
- Opening Briefs – October 15, 2015
- Edison response to Gilmore brief – October 20, 2015
- Reply Briefs – November 5, 2015
- Specifically, the Commission must determine if the applicants have
- CPUC Pre-hearing conference video, April 2, 2015 [Gilmore comments start at 40:25]
- Donna Gilmore’s Pre-Hearing Conference Statement (A1412007), March 20, 2015
- Joint Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) and
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902-E) for 2014 SONGS Units 2 & 3
Decommissioning Cost Estimate and Related Decommissioning Issues, December 10, 2014 (A1412007)
- SCE Testimony on the Nuclear Decommission of SONGS 2 & 3, December 10, 2014 (A1412007)
- Response to CPUC regarding San Onofre Decommissioning Plan and Costs (A1412007), January 9, 2015, submitted by SanOnofreSafety.org
- CPUC San Onofre decommissioning proceeding information. Enter A1412007
California Energy Commission (CEC) (sets energy policy)
- California’s Nuclear Waste Problems and Solutions slides, D. Gilmore, April 27, 2015
- Notice to Consider Adoption of Final 2014 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update Docket No. 14-1EP-1 February 25, 2015 10 a.m., Sacramento.
- Comments submitted to the CEC by SanOnofreSafety.org, February 6, 2015
- 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report – make comments by 5/11/2015
- Suggested comments: Recommendations to CEC Docket 15-IEPR-12 Nuclear Power Plants
California Coastal Commission (enforces Coastal Act)
- Edison submitted an NRC License Amendment Request on August 20, 2015 to lower safety standards for spent fuel pool cooling so they can install a air-chiller system that doesn’t meet nuclear grade standards, including earthquake standards. At the August 13, 2015 Coastal Commission meeting, the Coastal Commission approved a permit for this cooling system. However, it was based on assurances from Commission staff and Edison that it met high seismic standards. Therefore, this decision should be reversed.
- August 13, 2015 Coastal Commission meeting, 9 am, 276 Fourth Ave, Chula Vista, CA
- Hearing Notice – Application No. 9-15-0162 Southern California Edison application to install independent cooling system, known as “Spent Fuel Pool Island” (SFPI) and replace existing once-through ocean water cooling system serving Units 2 & 3 spent nuclear fuel pools at San Onofre
- Staff Report and Recommendation for use of experimental air chillers (similar to fish aquarium chillers) to cool the spent fuel pool water. Air chillers have never been used for this demanding application.
- Addendum to Staff Report 9-15-0162 – SCE SONGS (large file)
- Provides correspondence on the above-referenced staff report, ex parte communications, proposed revisions to the staff report, and staff’s response to comments.
- Spent Fuel Pool Island Project
- SanOnofreSafety Comments on CCC SFPI Staff Recommendation
- SCE Comments on CCC Staff Recommendations
- Video: Why Coastal Commission should deny permits for Holtec dry cask storage system and for use of air chillers to cool spent fuel pools, May 14, 2015
- Videos: May 14, 2015 and other Coastal Commission meetings
- Letter opposing Coastal Permit Waiver to Convert Spent Fuel Cooling System to chillers, May 14, 2015
- Proposed Coastal Permit Waiver to Convert Spent Fuel Cooling System to chillers (No. 9-15-0162-W), April 27, 2015
- Proposed Coastal Permit Waiver to replace SONGS current salt water cooling pumps with smaller dilution pumps, install 2 chillers that are not dependent on ocean water cooling, and reroute an effluent discharge pipe (No. 9-15-0417-W), May 4, 2015
- Reasons to buy thick nuclear waste dry storage casks and myths about nuclear waste storage, January 30, 2015
- San Onofre’s Decommissioning Plan is not what it’s cracked up to be, October 27, 2014
- Diablo Canyon: conditions for stress corrosion cracking in 2 years, October 23, 2014 Implications for San Onofre and other nuclear plants.
- San Onofre Dry Cask Storage Issues, September 23, 2014
- Petition on Dry Cask Storage for CPUC Action
- San Onofre Dry Cask Storage Recommendations Summary, September 14, 2014
- Presentation: Dry cask storage – We cannot kick this can down the road, D. Gilmore, January 2015,
Reports and other Documents
- Response to CPUC regarding San Onofre Decommissioning Plan and Costs (A1412007), January 9, 2015
- San Onofre Dry Cask Storage Issues, D. Gilmore, September 23, 2014
- Myths about Continued Storage of San Onofre Used Nuclear Fuel, D.Gilmore, January 2, 2015
- Premature failure of U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Canisters, CPUC action needed, August 20, 2014
- Letter to Edison regarding dry cask storage system decision, August 24, 2014
- Dry Cask Storage Recommendations to Edison’s Community Engagement Panel (CEP), July 17, 2014
- High Burnup Nuclear Fuel — Pushing the Safety Envelope, January 2014
- NRC Press Release: August 26, 2014, NRC Approves Final Rule on Spent Fuel Storage and Ends Suspension of Final Licensing Actions for Nuclear Plants and Renewals
- NRC decision for indefinite on-site continued storage of nuclear waste
San Onofre’s nuclear reactors are shut down. However, thousands of metric tons of radioactive nuclear waste, such as Cesium-137 will remain in California for decades. San Onofre’s spent fuel contains 89 times the amount of 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 and scientific sources. More…
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 replacement plan. Waste may need to be stored at nuclear plants sites for over 100 years. Once canisters are loaded with waste, they are no longer inspected for aging or monitored for helium leaks. These are just some of the problems with U.S. dry storage systems. More…
This is SanOnofreSafety.org founder Donna Gilmore’s presentation to the NRC on dry cask nuclear waste storage issues, delivered by invitation as part of an NRC Regulatory Conference held Nov. 19-20, 2014 in Rockville, Maryland. Why are the NRC and Southern California Edison favoring inferior, short-lived, thin-walled, unsafe stainless steel canisters to store San Onofre’s tons of nuclear waste in a corrosive seaside environment instead of the long-lasting, thick-walled, top-of-the-line technology available?
Gilmore presents a strong case for regulators and utilities to take the lead in setting the highest possible standards for America’s growing inventory of radioactive waste that will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years longer than human civilization has yet existed. With no safe long-term storage sites having been found despite over half a century of attempts to find them, Gilmore urges officials not to ‘play bureaucratic roulette’ with the future of California and the rest of the nation.
Thanks to EON3 for producing this video. EON3 is a non-profit organization that can use your help to support producing more videos like these. Please donate to EON3 here.
Nuclear industry vendor, Areva, admits to having no answer to replacing failed nuclear waste storage canisters once spent fuel pools are destroyed. NRC admits to no current method to inspect for cracks in nuclear waste canisters.
More questions than answers regarding critical dry storage issues at the NRC November regulatory conference on nuclear waste.
Dr. Wolfgang Steinwarz, Executive Vice President of the German dry cask manufacturer Siempelkamp – whose highly robust nuclear waste storage containers are in use around the world (with only limited use in the U.S.) – explains how his company’s technology is setting a high international bar for safe, long-term radioactive waste containment. Dr. Steinwarz is an internationally renown expert in ductile cast iron technology. This is his presentation from the November 19-20, 2014 NRC Annual Regulatory Conference, held in Rockville, Maryland.
HIGH BURNUP FUEL: San Onofre and other U.S. reactors switched to 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.
It’s hotter and over twice as radioactive as lower burnup fuel and unpredictable and unstable in storage and transport. The protective Zirconium fuel cladding is more likely to become brittle and shatter.
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…
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 waste. This 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….
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…
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.
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 12/23/2013 NRC Notice of Violation, they stated: “…design control measures were not established to provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of certain designs.”
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 and 10/2/2014 NRC Office of Inspector General report where former NRC directors say the steam generators should never have been licensed. More…
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…
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…. .
.Senator Barbara Boxer to NRC Commissioners
Four NRC Commissioners undermine safety. Rep. Darrell Issa appears to support them.
San Onofre, designed for a 7.0 earthquake, but has 8.0+ earthquake probability — 10x larger, 32x stronger, & overdue. Ratepayers funding $64 million in new seismic studies, even though the USGS states no scientist can predict the size of any earthquake. Some recent large quakes:
- Chile 4/1/2014 8.2 – 63x stronger
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.
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 radiation. Radiation 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.
What if the Fukushima nuclear fallout crisis had happened in California? These radioactive plumes from severe nuclear accidents were calculated by NRDC based on the actual weather patterns of March 11-12, 2011. The result on any given day will vary according to the type of reactor accident and on the prevailing weather patterns at the time. These plumes artificially extend only to 50 feet. Winds can carry them further. See NRDC interactive U.S. map.
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.
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.