San Onofre nuclear reactors have been shutdown since January 31, 2012 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concluded Southern California Edison was at fault. 


Holtec UMAX storage system has air vents. Thin-walled canister (green cylinder) can leak radiation into the environment.

Edison plans to make another bad decision by unsafely storing over 1600 metric tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Other nuclear plants in the country are doing the same thing.

The San Onofre shutdown resulted from decades of excessive wear in both reactors’ (Units 2 and 3) new steam generator tubes, which resulted in a steam generator radiation tube leak on Unit 3 on January 31, 2012.  The NRC concluded 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 NRC Notice of Violation to Edison, the NRC stated: “…design control measures were not established to provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of certain designs.”

The failed steam generator multi-billion dollar boondoggle is about to be repeated with Edison’s decision to purchase the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX inferior thin canister storage system that may crack within a few years.

It is up to the public to stop this. Learn more and get involved. On this website you will find government and scientific sourced documents that can be used to inform others. Whether you live in California or in other states with nuclear power plants, this affects you, your family and your community.

The California Coastal Commission voted to approve a 20-year permit to install the experimental unproven Holtec UMAX underground nuclear waste thin canister storage system at San Onofre with critical “special conditions” that do not need to be met for years.  

  • Request Coastal Commission REVOKE Nuclear Storage Permit (handout)
  • Location of Holtec system. SCE

    Nuclear waste dry storage area circled.

    The Commission acknowledged the Holtec system cannot be inspected or maintained. The system is subject to cracking. Cracked canisters cannot be transported. Rather than requiring a system that does not have these critical flaws, they are accepting promises from Edison that these issues will be resolved sometime in the future

  • The Coastal Commission should only approve a permit for a spent nuclear fuel storage system that can be inspected, maintained, monitored and transported.
    • If they have the authority to require these conditions in 20 years, they can require them now.
    • The Coastal Commission should not lower their standards just because Edison chose an inferior thin canister system that does not meet these critical requirements.
    • Thick metal cask storage options are available that meet Coastal Commission requirements now and can be deployed in a reasonable time frame. This is proven technology used throughout the world and in the U.S.
  • Summary of Special Conditions: 
    • Special Condition 2, which authorizes the proposed development for a period of twenty years and requires SCE to return for a CDP Amendment to retain, remove or relocate the ISFSI facility, supported by:
      • (i) an alternatives analysis, including locations within the decommissioned Units 2 and 3 area;
      • (ii) assessment of coastal hazards and managed retreat;
      • (iii) information on the physical condition of the fuel storage casks and a maintenance and monitoring program; and
      • (iv) proposed measures to avoid/minimize visual resource impacts.
    • Special Condition 7, which requires SCE to submit, as soon as technologically feasible and no later than October 6, 2022, a maintenance and inspection program designed to ensure that the fuel storage casks will remain in a physical condition sufficient to allow both on-site transfer and off-site transport, for the term of the project as authorized under Special Condition 2.
    • Special Condition 3, which requires SCE to agree to not enlarge or replace the existing NIA seawall for purposes of protecting the proposed project from coastal hazards.
    • Special Conditions 1, 4, 5, and 6 which require evidence of the Applicant’s legal ability to undertake the development as conditioned by the Commission, assumption of risk, liability for attorney’s fees, and restrictions on future development.
  • Coastal Commission Final Approval Documents

Take Action:

  • Email Joseph.Street@coastal.ca.gov to request the permit be revoked.
  • The Coastal Commission granted a 20-year permit for a system that cannot be inspected for cracks, cannot be repaired, may crack in 20 years (or sooner for existing thin canisters) and cannot be transported with cracks.  
  • Tell your local and state elected officials to urge the Governor, the Coastal Commission and the CPUC to NOT allow a nuclear waste storage system to be installed that can crack, that cannot be inspected for cracks, cannot be repaired or maintained and cannot be transported. Tell them to:
    • not approve a system based on vaporware — capabilities that do not exist. It is against state government regulations to procure vaporware, so why are we allowing Edison to do this? We’ve had enough broken promises from Edison, the federal government and the nuclear industry, so we should not continue to rely on their promises of future solutions.
    • Other options are available now, but Edison refuses to consider them.
    • The NRC approves systems for 20 years even though they don’t meet these requirements.  However, it is within the states jurisdiction to require a system that is guaranteed to last decades and won’t affect our coastal resources and communities. The NRC would approve such a system, but Edison needs to ask for it.
    • Edison should be required to prove they can meet the special conditions prior to the installation of the system, not 20 year later. 
      • The Coastal Commission included “special conditions” that must be met AFTER 20 years, including ability to inspect, repair, maintain and transport.  If they have the authority to include these special conditions now, then they should require them NOW not in 20 years when it’s too late.
      • The CPUC will be making a decision on whether to give Edison the almost $1.3 billion of our limited ratepayer trust fund to install and manage this inferior system. Edison’s Tom Palmisano said Edison has no money allocated to relocate this system to higher ground as required by one of the special conditions.
    • NRC Director of Spent Fuel Management, Mark Lombard, admitted to the Commissioners there is no technology to inspect or repair these systems now and only offered promises they would figure it out in the future.

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.

Holtec Side View

Presentation to the Coastal Commission on why they should deny the Coastal Permit, Donna Gilmore, October 6, 2015

Slides from Donna Gilmore October 6, 2015 Coastal Commission presentation

  • 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.
  • Read and share detailed comments submitted to Coastal Commission.
  • Waste storage alternatives exist now that meet Coastal Act requirements DGilmore, October 6, 2015

Why when the Coastal Commissioners know these canisters cannot be inspected and are subject to cracking would they approve a Coastal Permit? Listen to Commissioner Shallenberger grill NRC Director Lombard:


Are California and other U.S. nuclear spent fuel waste canisters cracking?

Intergrain Stress Corrosion Cracking

Microscopic stress corrosion cracks can release radiation

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, Kris Singh, 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.

NUHOMS Canister 24 fuel assembly

Thin (1/2″ to 5/8″) steel canister

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.


Holtec UMAX storage system has air vents. Canister (green cylinder in drawing) can leak radiation into the environment.

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.

.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…

Diablo Collecting Dust Samples

Conditions for cracking found in 2-year old Diablo Canyon canister

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.

Reasons To Buy Thick Casks

Take action now

Current Regulatory Actions

Other Handouts

 Reports and other Documents


Chart SONGS Chernobyl Other Alvarez Figure 4

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

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…

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 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…

1/24/2015 San Luis Obispo presentation slides

11/19/2014 NRC presentation slides

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.  

Slides from presentation

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.

Link to the full November 19-20, 2014 NRC Regulatory Conference

Used Nuclear Fuel U.S. 2013 NEI

Over 3240 tons of nuclear waste in California

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.  

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 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.”


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 and 10/2/2014 NRC Office of Inspector General report where former NRC directors say the steam generators should never have been licensedMore…


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, 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:  


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.

California Fallout Fukushima Happened 2011-03-11-12 NRDCWhat 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.  

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.

34 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
    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:


        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:


    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?

  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:

    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”

  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.

  22. Carol Krupp says:

    real issues California faces.

    “Re: Scientist claims radiation found in Pacific Ocean from Fukushima waste”

    scorpiorockmoney, Seattle, United States, 2 months ago (Nov 2014)

    LIES! The radiation leak is coming from much much closer. Don’t let the media lie to you. The leak started before Aug 7th, 2013. My father was killed for his knowledge on the leak. The leak is located at S.O.N.G.S. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and is leaking right next to the most popular beaches in California. My father was Scientist #3 / Attorney Jeffery Thornton Allen. They told us he hung himself in his closet, but he was the Attorney on the lawsuit against Mitsubishi for 42 Billion dollars. He knew of all mistakes made by the plant and all precautions involved. He knew too much and was completely against any cover up. Which is why they ended his life. Their intention is to pass the buck onto Japan and blame it on a tsunami, when in fact both plants started leaking at the same time and no tsunami ever hit Orange County. My father knew that Mitsubishi was in charge of the containment of both nuclear plants, and I can’t wait for the day my family sees restitution. Truth.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2837603/Fukushima-radiation-detected-California-coast-Low-levels-isotope-2011-nuclear-disaster-found.html#ixzz3QMAMbruv
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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