If you missed this excellent seminar, follow this website (enter email on right side of this screen), and we’ll update you when we post video and documentation from the seminar.

Here is Arnie Gundersen’s slide presentation, with compelling information about radiation from Fukushima and the scientific case as to why it would be a nuclear experiment to restart San Onofre with it’s defective steam generators.  Note: This is a large file, so please be patient while it loads.

_______________________________________________________________

Former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan visits San Diego on Tuesday, June 4th, to speak about his experiences in a seminar entitled, “The Fukushima Daiichi Disaster: Ongoing Lessons for California.”

He will be joined by former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chair Gregory Jaczko, who led the Commission during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown. Also included on the panel will be former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford, and world renown nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen.  Prime Minister Kan will be welcomed by San Diego County Supervisor Dave Roberts.

The panel discussion will be open to the public and media. It will be webcast live, worldwide at http://av4b.com/live/

Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Southern California, Friends of the Earth in cooperation with Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Samuel Lawrence Foundation, are honored to welcome Japan’s former Prime Minister Naoto Kan to San Diego to share his perspective on nuclear safety and the future of nuclear power. Kan was in office March, 2011, when an earthquake and tsunami triggered the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant catastrophe. He was confronted by three reactor meltdowns and a nuclear crisis that continues today.

The panel discussion provides Southern California with an opportunity to learn lessons from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichi disaster while awaiting a decision on the restart of San Diego’s crippled San Onofre nuclear reactors. Kan will discuss his concerns about the inherent dangers posed by nuclear reactors.

Naoto Kan, as Japan’s Prime Minister during the beginning of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, realized there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate. Mr. Kan declared the need for Japan to end its reliance on atomic power and promote renewable sources of energy, such as solar that have long taken a back seat in the resource-poor country’s energy mix. Mr. Kan resigned as Prime Minister in August 2011 and now serves the Democratic Party of Japan to garner support for alternative energy policies.

Former NRC Chair Gregory Jaczko, has emerged as a leading critic of safety at U.S. nuclear power plants. During the Fukushima crisis, Chairman Jaczko recommended that Americans evacuate 50 miles outside Fukushima. In February 2012 Mr. Jaczko cast the lone dissenting vote on plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years when the NRC voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co. to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. He cited safety concerns stemming from Japan’s 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, stating, “I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened.” His pro-safety stance caused much friction with the other commissioners, resulting in his departure from the NRC. He has since been appointed to a post on a Congressional panel overseeing the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Peter A. Bradford is an adjunct professor at the Vermont Law School, a former U.S. NRC Commissioner, and a former utility regulatory commission chair in New York and Maine.  Mr. Bradford was a member of the NRC during the Three Mile Island accident.  He taught at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and currently is an Adjunct Professor at Vermont Law School teaching “Nuclear Power and Public Policy”. A member of the China Sustainable Energy Policy Council, he served on a recent panel evaluating the reliability of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Panel advising how best to replace the remaining Chernobyl nuclear plants in Ukraine, a panel on the opening of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia, and the Keystone Center collaborative on nuclear power and climate change. He is the author of “Fragile Structures: A Story of Oil Refineries, National Securities and the Coast of Maine” and many articles. He is a graduate of Yale University and the Yale Law School and is Vice Chair of the board of The Union of Concerned Scientists.

Arnie Gundersen, is chief engineer of the energy consulting company Fairewinds Associates and a former nuclear power industry executive. Fairewinds has developed extensive reports on Fukushima, San Onofre, and other nuclear power plants. Arnie has 40-years of nuclear power engineering experience. He attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) where he earned his Bachelor Degree cum laude while also becoming the recipient of a prestigious Atomic Energy Commission Fellowship for his Masters Degree in nuclear engineering. Arnie holds a nuclear safety patent, was a licensed reactor operator, and is a former nuclear industry senior vice president. During his nuclear power industry career, Arnie also managed and coordinated projects at 70-nuclear power plants in the US.

Torgen Johnson, an urban planner from Solano Beach helped to organize Tuesday’s event. He said speakers were selected because they are authoritative voices with a critical outlook on the industry.  “They’re all independent,” he said. “They’ve taken risks with their own careers to put the public first.”

May 2, 2013

Dear Governor Brown,

Nearly a year ago I wrote a letter to you voicing my concerns about the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), and to humbly ask you to use the power of your office to investigate the plant’s ongoing declining performance and equipment conditions. During this past year the facility’s declining performance issues have been lost in the shadow of the much bigger problem with premature tube degradation in the recently installed Replacement Steam Generators, and concerns about the plant’s future operation.

My husband, James Chambers, is a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Licensed Nuclear Reactor Operator for San Onofre Units 2 and 3. He worked at SONGS from 1983 until 2010 when he left his job on medical leave because of work induced health problems. In 2010, my husband came under retaliation by Southern California Edison (SCE) for raising safety concerns and filing allegations of serious violations at the plant with the NRC. When my husband’s medical leave was abruptly terminated, SCE no longer had a job for him; so the company offered him a separation agreement with the stipulation that he not publically disclose any information which might be harmful to SCE or its subsidiaries. SCE is a public utility; the fact that they use their abundant financial resources to actively silence potential critics is a practice which I believe should concern you and all of the members of our state legislature.

It is my firm belief that there are multiple levels of corruption within SCE, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the Interjurisdictional Planning Committee which needs to be rooted out and exposed. Without complete transparency by our public utilities, and the agencies which oversee them; honest public debate about performance, equipment, and environmental issues pertaining to SONGS cannot occur and places the health and safety of the public in jeopardy. Without honesty and transparency, we run the risk of having a significant nuclear event comparable to Chernobyl or Fukushima in southern California. As I am sure you are well aware of, if there were ever a significant radiological release to the atmosphere at SONGS the area surrounding the plant could become uninhabitable for several decades or longer. It is no small task to clean up radioactive contamination from the environment. This is a serious topic which could impact the future of California.

Currently, SONGS Units 2 and 3 are both shut down because of tube failure and premature tube wear in the Replacement Steam Generators, and the situation is being investigated by the NRC. Last October, SCE proposed a plan to run Unit 2 at only 70% plant power, claiming that this change would eliminate the conditions which led to the Steam Generator Tube Rupture in Unit 3, and premature wear in both Units’ Steam Generators. However, a reduction in plant power, which is the measurement relating to how many megawatts the Turbine Generator produces, can never eliminate the threats to a Steam Generator Tube Rupture condition as SCE is claiming it will. SONGS Unit 2 is a Pressurized Water Reactor, and the conditions that have caused the failure of the Steam Generators are the normal operating pressure of the Reactor, and the flow rate of water into the Steam Generators. These are fixed pressures and flows that cannot be changed; therefore, any attempt to run the plant will result in exactly the same conditions which caused the premature tube wear and tube ruptures in the first year of service of the Replacement Steam Generators. Please bear in mind that the new metal alloy that was used and the tube failures that resulted from the first year of service was equivalent to 20-30 years of service in other plants using the original metal alloy. SCE, contrary to the NRC’s request for complete transparency, has implied that operating the plant at a reduced power level will reduce the threat of further Steam Generator tube ruptures and subsequent radioactive release to the environment, when in fact, the threat can never be removed because of the design of the plant and the weak alloy which the Replacement Steam Generators are constructed of.

I also believe that SCE’s proposed plan is irresponsible, and shows a serious lack of conservative decision making principles. “Conservative decision making” is a nuclear fundamental that means the safest decisions should always be made to protect the health and safety of the general public, the plant workers, and the environment. If the NRC approves SCE’s plan, workers in the Operations Department will be required to start up and run the reactor knowing that the Replacement Steam Generators have extensive design problems and significant wear which could lead to another tube rupture and radioactive release to the environment. As the wife of a reactor operator, I lived through many refueling outages and unit start-ups throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s; and I believe that I have a comprehensive understanding of the level of stress that reactor operators experience during normal work conditions. The fact that SCE wants its workers to operate defective equipment shows the flagrant disregard that SCE and SONGS senior management has for the health and safety of nuclear workers at the plant, as well as the people living in the surrounding communities.

According to the findings of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), San Onofre has been the worst rated nuclear plant in the nation. And according to the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), San Onofre has been the worst or near worst rated nuclear plant in the nation for industrial safety. And according to the NRC, San Onofre has had the longest running cross cutting issues in Human Performance in the history of U. S. nuclear power. “Cross cutting issues in Human Performance” means that in nearly every department significant errors are being made because workers do not follow required procedural steps. The length and breadth of these issues were so egregious it forced the NRC to revise their procedures because San Onofre was actually outside of all postulated conditions set forth in the NRC procedures governing Human Performance failures. This is very condemning evidence which shows that SONGS has been mismanaged for many years. How much more evidence do we need before an adjudicated public hearing is held to investigate the matter?

The design problems and the conditions which led to the first Steam Generator tube failure in Unit 3 have already been investigated and a root cause analysis has been performed by several industry experts. These analyses confirm that future Steam Generator tube wear and tube ruptures with a resultant radioactive release to the environment are inevitable. Why does SCE need to do a 5 month experimental test run with Unit 2; just to see if the conclusions of the root cause analyses are correct? At what point in time did we decide that doing an experiment with a full scale commercial nuclear reactor was a good idea? What SCE is proposing is unprecedented in the history of U.S. nuclear power. It was an equipment test experiment which led to the nuclear event at Chernobyl in 1986. Didn’t we learn anything from that tragedy?

Public distrust, and nuclear worker distrust of SCE’s management of SONGS has been growing significantly over the past year, and I believe it has reached a boiling point. The electric ratepayers of southern California do not believe they should be held financially responsible for SCE’s engineering mistakes in the design of the Replacement Steam Generators, or for the cost of running a shutdown nuclear facility which has not produced a single megawatt in over a year. As Governor of the state, I believe you have a responsibility to take action on this matter and not leave it to the sole discretion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide the fate and future of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The NRC’s biggest flaw is that they are neither omnipresent nor omniscient; and they cannot regulate the nuclear power industry as everyone assumes they do. In 2010, when my husband filed serious allegations regarding blatant procedural violations and retaliation against himself for raising safety concerns at the plant, he conveyed to me his experience that after all was said and done the NRC would never actually do anything; and nothing has changed in three years.

I would greatly appreciate a response to this letter. I did not receive a response a year ago when I wrote to your office the first time expressing my concerns about SONGS. Thank you for your time and your dedication to keeping California free from preventable nuclear accidents. In conclusion let me say; the only thing necessary for a nuclear disaster to occur in California is for a good Governor to do nothing.

Sincerely,

• Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene can still be filed by June 17, 2013.
• Thousands of comments have been received. Thanks to all those who submitted comments!
• All public comments are not yet posted to government websites.  View public comments at:
  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NRC-2013-0070 or
  • NRC’s Adams website. Search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0070. (More comments are currently available on this website than on the www.regulations.gov website.)

___________________________________________________________

San Onofre may be approved for restart WITHOUT repair or replacement of defective parts.  Deadline for public comments is May 16, 2013 BEFORE 9 pm Pacific Daylight Time.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced plans to approve SoCal Edison’s request to lower San Onofre safety standards and may do so in less than 30 days – removing obstacles to the early restart of the defective San Onofre Unit 2 nuclear reactor.

San Onofre does NOT meet current NRC operating requirements. Both Unit 2 and 3 reactors show decades of wear in critical steam generator tubes after less than two years of operation. Unit 3 leaked radiation in less than one year. Edison said these steam generators would last 40 to 60 years. Instead, thousands of defective tubes needed plugging to avoid radiation leaks — unprecedented in NRC history. See Plugged Tubes Chart and summary of steam generator problems.

NRC Inspector, Greg Werner, said no technology exists to detect operating steam generator radiation leaks until AFTER they occur. Therefore, we will be part of a nuclear experiment.

The NRC ignored Senator Barbara Boxer’s and Rep. Ed Markey’s request to complete the safety investigation before taking action that could lead to restart. Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued the following statement:

“The NRC staff proposal, which could pave the way for the restart of the San Onofre nuclear power plant before the investigations of the crippled plant are completed, is dangerous and premature. It makes absolutely no sense to even consider taking any steps to reopen San Onofre until these investigations look at every aspect of reopening the plant given the failure of the tubes that carry radioactive water. In addition, the damaged plant is located in an area at risk of earthquake and tsunami. With eight million people living within 50 miles of this plant, the staff proposal is beyond irresponsible.”

To meet NRC’s structural integrity standard, San Onofre must be able to operate at 100% Rated Thermal Power for two years before it is considered safe to operate. Now the NRC plans to approve Edison’s license amendment request to lower this to 70% thermal power during Cycle 17. If approved, it would make it easier for Edison to restart their defective Unit 2 nuclear reactor.

On May 13th, the Federal Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) ruled that Edison’s restart plan is experimental and they must grant Friends of the Earth’s petition asking the NRC to require Edison to undergo a trial-like license amendment process before a judge, which includes public hearings, sworn testimony from expert witnesses and rules of evidence. However, this ruling does not affect this 70% power license amendment request. Also, the NRC Commissioners can overrule the ASLB decision.

URGENT: Please submit your public comments to the NRC before 9:00 pm (PDT) May 16, 2013.

• Click here to send comments directly to the NRC.
• Click here to send comments via Friends of the Earth automated process.

Tell the NRC:

• Reject Edison’s request to lower San Onofre safety standards to 70% thermal power.
• Do not lower safety standards that make it easier to restart defective nuclear reactors.
• Support Friends of the Earth’s petition to require a thorough license amendment process and hearing on San Onofre safety issues.

Contact your local, state and Congressional representatives. Urge them to submit similar comments to the NRC. Find your state and Congressional representatives at: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_r.htm.

Share this information via email or print Handout. Share this video from nuclear expert, Arnie Gundersen, explaining why San Onofre should not be restarted with severely defective steam generators.

Please attend Tuesday’s April 23rd 10 a.m. Los Angeles City Council meeting to support the proposed San Onofre Safety Resolution. Southern California Edison is doing everything it can to restart their defective Reactor Unit 2 by June 1st — without fixing it first!  We need a large crowd at this meeting to encourage the City Council to pass the resolution. The resolution unanimously passed the Energy and Environment Committee, and we need swift passage by the full council on Tuesday.

.

Proposed San Onofre Resolution:

See full resolution…

Other things you can do:

• Email and call the following four Council members and tell them to support the LA City Council Resolution on San Onofre safety:

• Email and call your council member.
  • Find your Council member on this map
    
  • See list of all City Council members
    
  • Tell your council members:

I support this resolution strongly, as it calls for meaningful and transparent opportunities for the public and independent experts to weigh in and for repairs that guarantee short and long term safety to be completed before a decision on restart is made. I want you to support this resolution for safety, too.

• Share handout San Onofre Nuclear Reactor may restart WITHOUT repair or replacement defective parts.
• Please share this information with others.

Email public comments to Shuka Rastegarpour: srastegarpour@waterboards.ca.gov or phone (916) 341-5576.

The San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors kill millions of fish and other aquatic life every year, due to their once-through cooling (OTC) systems. They do not meet Federal Clean Water Act §316(b) regulations.  Numerous state agencies have jurisdiction over this issue. If they do not grant permits to operate, the nuclear plants would be shut down.  See Once-through Cooling Issues section of the SanOnofreSafety.org website to learn why.  NOTE: New Jersey’s Oyster Creek nuclear plant is closing due to the expense of complying with their once-through cooling rules.

Contact the WRCB, your elected officials and the Governor. Tell them:

• The WRCB should not allow Once-through Cooling exceptions or mitigation for California’s two nuclear power plants. The plants have had years to mitigate the damage to the marine life and have failed.
• The Brown Administration’s plan to shut down the OTC gas plants before shutdown of the two OTC nuclear power plants is unacceptable. This should be reversed.
• The impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish from the two nuclear plants are particularly significant, as they withdraw more water than all of the other once-through cooled plants combined.
• Neither nuclear plant is necessary for the electric power grid.  We have over a 40% surplus of power in California WITHOUT nuclear and the California Independent System Operator has plans to get us through another hot summer without San Onofre. They are also making plans for a future without San Onofre.
• San Onofre has been shut down since January 2012 due to severely defective steam generators. Edison wants to restart the Unit 2 nuclear reactor in May or June 2013.  Keep the OTC San Onofre nuclear power plant shut down. We don’t need it for power and it’s proven unreliable, so there is no justification to continue the severe damage to our marine life.
• We support Friends of the Earth’s Comments on Bechtel Power’s Final Phase I SONGS Report (submitted to WRCB January 27, 2013).

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, issued the following statements.

Senator Boxer said:

“The NRC staff proposal, which could pave the way for the restart of the San Onofre nuclear power plant before the investigations of the crippled plant are completed, is dangerous and premature. It makes absolutely no sense to even consider taking any steps to reopen San Onofre until these investigations look at every aspect of reopening the plant given the failure of the tubes that carry radioactive water. In addition, the damaged plant is located in an area at risk of earthquake and tsunami. With eight million people living within 50 miles of this plant, the staff proposal is beyond irresponsible.”

Rep. Markey said:

“Today, the NRC showed blatant disregard for the safety of tens of millions of people who live near the San Onofre nuclear plant. It is absurd for NRC to say that Southern California Edison’s license amendment is entirely unrelated to a future decision to allow the restart of the reactor; it is like saying that giving someone a driver’s license has nothing to do with allowing them to drive a car.”

________________________

Southern California Edison wants the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to approve lowering San Onofre safety standards in May 2013 in order to expedite a restart of their defective Unit 2 nuclear reactor by June 1, 2013.  Currently, San Onofre must be able to run at 100% power for two years before it is considered safe to operate.  Edison wants their operating license amended to lower this to 70% percent power during Cycle 17.

If approved by the NRC, Edison would be able to restart their defective Unit 2 nuclear reactor without the rigors of a thorough license amendment and public adjudicatory hearing on the San Onofre safety issues.  Contact Senator Barbara Boxer and NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane and tell them to stop the NRC from lowering safety standards at San Onofre. 

Friends of the Earth (FOE) held a telephone briefing April 2nd with John Large, a London-based expert on nuclear reactors. He provided an excellent detailed analysis of Edison’s request, explaining why Unit 2 should not be restarted. And Edison knew there were problems with the steam generator design, but had them built anyway. See John Large’s 3/27/2013 report: Review of Tube Wear Identified in the San Onofre Replacement Steam Generators – Mitsubishi Reports UES-20120254 Rev.0 (3/64) and L5-04GA588(0) together with Other Relevant Information, R3218-A2. See also FOE’s 4/1/2013 press release and 4/1/2013 letter to Senator Boxer and Rep. Waxman.

Both Unit 2 and 3 show decades of wear in critical steam generator tubes after less than two years of operation. Edison only discovered this after a radiation leak in Unit 3 (less than one year of operation).  Edison’s nuclear “experts” had promised these replacement steam generators would last decades.  Instead, thousands of defective tubes needed plugging — unprecedented in NRC history (see Plugged Tubes Chart with NRC data and summary of steam generator problems).

NRC SONGS Lead Inspector, Greg Werner, said no technology exists to detect steam generator tube radiation leaks until AFTER they occurs, and there is no way to test an operating steam generator (only computer simulations are done).  

Edison implies San Onofre may be needed before this summer, so wants approval for restart in May 2013.  However, California’s electric grid operator has plans to avoid blackouts this summer just as they did last summer (one of the hottest summers on record).

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT

April 3rd pre-application NRC meeting to discuss Edison’s plan to submit a license amendment request (LAR) claiming “no significant hazard” for Unit 2. The proposed LAR would address compliance with the San Onofre Unit 2, Technical Specifications, discussed in the NRC staff’s request for additional information (RAI), question number 32, transmitted to SCE on December 26, 2012.  Edison has not been able to adequately address NRC RAI question 32 regarding the ability to successfully operate Unit 2 at all ranges of power.

…All in-service steam generator tubes shall retain structural integrity over the full range of normal operating conditions (including startup, operation in the power range, hot standby, cool down and all anticipated transients­ included in the design specification) and design basis accidents…

This is a Category 1 meeting. The public is invited to participate in this meeting and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portion, but before the meeting is adjourned. Proprietary information may be discussed at certain times during the meeting. These portions of the meeting will be closed to members of the public who have not been granted access to the information by the owner of the information.  Participants from the NRC include staff members from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

Interested members of the public can participate in this meeting via Webcast link or toll-free audio teleconference.

• Webcast link: http://video.nrc.gov. This link to the NRC webcast page will permit the user to select the meeting to be viewed and the viewing speed. The meeting link will become active approximately one hour prior to meeting start.
• Teleconference bridge number: 888-677-3916; passcode 2670631. [approximately 400 caller maximum]. Callers will initially be placed in a “listen only” status. At the designated point in the agenda, two-way calling will be enabled, so that the public may ask questions of the NRC staff regarding the meeting discussions.

Individuals interested in attending the meeting in person are requested to contact one of the meeting contacts listed below in advance of the meeting, as seating may be limited. [Note: requests to have NRC hold all San Onofre public meetings in Southern California have been denied.]

• Application and Amendment to San Onofre Operating License 4/10/2013
• NRC Official Meeting Notice and Agenda
• Facts Edison doesn’t want you to know: Why San Onofre should not be restarted/Plugged Tubes Chart
• NRC San Onofre Steam Generator Tube Degradation website
• Citizens’ 4/1/2013 letter to Senator Barbara Boxer and Rep. Henry Waxman
• SAN ONOFRE: Edison’s restart request reduces safety to a footnote - Friends of the Earth, 4/1/2013
• Large Associates 3-27-2013 Review of Tube Wear Identified in the San Onofre Replacement Steam Generators – Mitsubishi Reports UES-20120254 Rev.0 (3/64) and L5-04GA588(0) together with Other Relevant Information, R3218-A2
• Edison Draft License Amendment Request

by Wladimir Tchertkoff, 51 min, 2004

In 1995, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, tried to inform on Chernobyl by organizing in Geneva an international conference with 700 experts and physicians. This tentative was blocked. The International Agency for Atomic Energy (IAAE) blocked the proceedings, which were never published. The truth on the consequences of Chernobyl would have been a disaster for the promotion of the atomic industry.

This film shows the discussions at the following WHO congress in Kiev in 2001, that lead to the fatal disregarding of internal radiation consequences throughout the nuclear world.

Read the 9/12/2012 San Onofre Report referenced in the above video.

An exhaustive analysis of data from nuclear plants nationwide reveals that critical safety components in both reactors at the San Onofre nuclear power plant — the damaged replacement steam generators — are in far worse shape compared to typical U.S. reactors than previously admitted by federal regulators and the plant’s operator.

• San Onofre’s Unit 2 reactor has about 400 times as many damaged steam generator tubes as the median number at comparable plants over the same operational period, and Unit 3 has more than 450 times as many.
• Each San Onofre reactor has greater than 1,000 times as many indications of wear on the tubes than the typical reactor in its first cycle of operation.
• Each San Onofre unit has had to plug more tubes than all replacement steam generators nationwide combined.

Your presence will send a strong message to the Commission and California’s elected officials and state regulators. Please attend even if you can only attend part of the meeting.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to rule as early as April on Edison’s proposal to restart the defective Unit 2 nuclear reactor. The CPUC can prevent this using the cost and reliability authority they have.  However, they are currently not willing to take the necessary action to do so.

.

Bring this List of urgent demands to the CPUC meeting and make copies to share with others.  If the CPUC continues to ignore us, we need to take these demands to the Governor and state elected officials as well as ask our local officials to represent our interest in these critical matters.

List of Demands

1. The CPUC should immediately refund and stop forcing ratepayers to pay billions of dollars for Edison’s mistakes and stop all future ratepayer funding of San Onofre.
2. It’s time to take Governor Brown’s goal of clean renewable energy and energy efficiency seriously. We can accelerate the effort and make California the world’s clean energy leader by eliminating the money pit of California nuclear power.
3. Any cost benefit analysis of whether to restart San Onofre must include the economic impact of a major disaster at San Onofre.
4. San Onofre should be decommissioned.
5. CPUC should prevent Edison from spreading misinformation.

Written comments may be submitted to the CPUC Public Advisor’s Office, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102 or via email to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov. Please refer to proceeding number I.12-10-013 on any written or email correspondence. All public comments received are provided to the CPUC’s Commissioners and the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case.

The CPUC did not webcast either audio or video of this meeting. We should insist this never happen again!

Both Unit 2 and 3 reactors have the most defective replacement steam generators in U.S. history.  Edison’s flawed redesign of these critical steam generators resulted in decades of wear in less than two years and a radiation leak in less than one year of operation.  Now Edison wants to restart the Unit 2 reactor without repairing or replacing the defective and worn steam generators. See handout of why the San Onofre Nuclear Reactors should not be restarted.

Please attend this NRC meeting and share this information with others.

This is a Category 3 meeting. Members of the public will be able to ask questions and provide comments concerning the inspection and technical evaluation activities throughout the meeting. The NRC staff will discuss the status of its inspection and technical evaluation of Southern California Edison’s October 3, 2012, response for Unit 2 to the March 27, 2012, NRC Confirmatory Action Letter. The NRC will respond to questions about their current inspection and evaluation activities associated with the replacement steam generators at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

.

WEBCAST: This meeting will be available via public webcast at http://video.nrc.gov. The video stream will be active for approximately 1 hour prior to the start of the meeting.

TELECONFERENCE: To listen to the meeting, call via the following toll-free number: 1-888-790-2038; Passcode 47018. The audio stream will be available once the meeting begins.

The webcast and phone bridge will be one-way only.

Questions or comments regarding San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station can be submitted at any time to OPA4@nrc.gov.

• NRC 2/12/2013 Public Meeting Notice
• Special NRC Oversite: San Onofre Steam Generator Tube Degradation – NRC website