San Onofre Nuke Waste Dump Info

#CSDSO II Directions & Live Stream

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:11:00 -0700

The Community Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre 2, with Dr Tom English, advisor to President Jimmy Carter on high-level nuclear waste and Joe Moross head Nuclear tech at Safecast, 3- 5:30 PM in San Clemente, free and open to the public, if you would like to attend remotely CLICK HERE FOR LIVESTREAM!

#CSDSO II Real facts about what’s in the “cans” and what could come out of them.

#SaveTrestles; Thick Casks Not Thin Cans; Hot Cell Onsite For Damaged Can Repair & Real Time Public Third Party Radiation Monitoring #CSDSO

To Attend #CSDSO II In Person CLICK HERE FOR DIRECTIONS
Address: 1201 Puerta Del Sol, San Clemente, CA 92673

Community Symposium On Decommissioning San Onofre II

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:11:00 -0700

2nd Nuclear Waste Symposium/Radiation Monitoring

ROSE, invites you to attend our upcoming 2nd event on Nuclear Waste with Tom English and Joe Moross. Real facts about what’s in the “cans” and what could come out of them. There will also be a discussion about Independent Real-Time Radiation Monitoring at San Onofre Nuclear Waste site with Joe Moross from Safecast on Oct 18, 2018, at 1201 Puerta Del Sol Suite 100 San Clemente, California 92673, 3 to 5:30 pm. We will also discuss the higher radiation readings Darin and I got on our last visit to San Onofre Nuclear Waste site.

We plan to stay on these two topics because of the time factor. Also, we want to have lots of time for a real back and forth discussion on both topics, so bring your questions. They will be answered with the best information we have.

SCE was invited to participate in this symposium, but they declined because they do not want to come out and speak in public until sometime in November when the NRC will hold a meeting with their findings from the September 10 inspection. Joe Moross from Safecast is only here until late October which is why we are going ahead with this symposium.

Sincerely,

Gene Stone
Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE)
On twitter @gene_stone
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/

Watch The 1st Community Symposium On Decommissioning San Onofre Streamed Oct 19, 2013

What Needs To Be Done For San Onofre Safety

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 04:11:00 -0700

Instead of protecting our safety Southern California Edison’s plan appears to be to hide radiation leaks and hide the fact they are out of compliance with their Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license. See Condition 8 of License, page 3 (ML16341B080). This handout with more details (No Plan for Cracking Cans) was presented to Southern California Edison at the August 9th, 2018 Community Engagement Panel meeting.

For More Critical Independant SONGS information please visit https://sanonofresafety.org/

& Thank you Donna Gilmore for all of your investigational activities into the debacle that is the San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump.

San Onofre Nuke Can Almost Dropped 18 Feet!

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Fri, 10 Aug 2018 04:11:00 -0700

A last nights Community Engagement Panel on the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating station a whistleblower named David Fitch stepped forward and said "I probably won't have a job tomorrow, but I am doing this for my daughter."

He reported that a Thin Holtec can slipped an almost fell 18 feet into its silo.

Gene Stone stepped up, silenced a freaked out David Victor with a Jedi Mind Trick, and made Tom Palmisano promise that they would not fire the guy!

Click Here To Support A Law Demanding Real Time Independent Radiation Monitoring all ALL California Nuclear Sites.

ACTION ALERT! Support Real Time Public Radiation Monitoring

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Thu, 5 Jul 2018 10:13:00 -0700

Gene Stone & Darin R. McClure on the top of the Nuke Dump with Our bGeigies

Dear Readers, here is our updated text for this extremely urgent Residents Organized for a Safe Environment action alert. Hope you have time to let the CEP here from you today. Please share with your friends. If we want to make this work every email counts. Thank you in advance.

CLICK HERE FOR >> Independent Real Time Radiation Monitoring at San Onofre

Below is an action alert that ROSE is sending to some members of the CEP. I hope you may want to join us in this action for our community. We need 1000 people to send an email to the CEP ASAP! If you are willing please send them a note, copy and paste or write your own text.

Then send it to these email addresses: david.victor@ucsd.edu,
manuel.camargo@sce.com, Tom.Palmisano@sce.com, danstetson@me.com,
garry@coastkeeper.org, marnimagda@gmail.com, genston@sbcglobal.net,

The subject line should read "Independent Rad Monitoring/Symposium on Radiation"

Community Engagement Panel members,

I am asking each of you as CEP members to support and to take action ASAP along with SCE for a public CEP meeting on "Independent Public Real-time Radiation Monitoring" for San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump, and a second CEP meeting for an "Educational Symposium on Radiation" with "independent" radiation experts along with experts from SCE and the NRC. This a necessary step for all the stakeholders to understand what is in and what could come out of these cans now or in the future. Thank you for your consideration of these two programs for the safety of our community.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Gene Stone
Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE)
On twitter @gene_stone
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/
http://partofthearth.blogspot.com/

"The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new." Socrates

Kevin Blanch: The History Of The San Onofre Nuke Shutdown

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:22:00 -0700

Acjachemen Wisdom Day: June 9th 2018 Honoring Our Ancestors

They'll Be Calling You A Radical!

Kevin drops some heavy history / backstory that you just wont get from the locally captured news media, this is not a left or a right thing, this is a right or a wrong thing. #NoPlanB@Sano You should watch this video . STAY UN-TUNA'd

Sounding The Alarm: San Onofre Nuclear Waste Storage

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:11:00 -0700

SHOWING UP IS ALSO NOT THAT COMPLICATED!

Who: Citizens concerned about nuclear waste safety at San Onofre
What: Edison’s quarterly Community Engagement Panel (CEP) Meeting - San Onofre
When: Wed, June 27, 2018 4:30pm - Meeting starts at 5:30pm
Where: Casino San Clemente, 140 West Avenida Pico, San Clemente, CA 92672
Why: Shocking revelations - Edison has no method in place to repair or replace defective canisters of nuclear waste. (they think it will take a few years to figure that out...)

Background on Nuclear Waste issues at San Onofre, just south of the world famous Trestles spot in San Clemente California AKA SURFING USA!
:
In Feb 2018, Edison began the year and a half long process of loading 73 more canisters of nuclear waste into the beachside concrete storage silo at San Onofre, adding to the 51 loaded canisters that have been on-site starting in 2003.

Public criticism ranges from outrage to disbelief as people realize the location of the nuclear waste storage is 100’ from the ocean, inches above the water-table, in an earthquake-tsunami zone, a few hundred yards from the I-5 freeway and Railroad, and…. on one of southern California’s most iconic beaches.

Details about the thin-walled canisters being used to contain the deadly radioactive waste cause even more alarm. Ongoing Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) studies show that these canisters are susceptible to corrosion which can lead to cracking. Loaded canisters cannot be inspected for cracks. And, as the President of Holtec, the manufacturer of the canisters, stated at a previous CEP meeting, even a microscopic through-wall crack will release millions of curies of radionuclides into the environment. https://youtu.be/euaFZt0YPi4

With each welded-shut 5/8” thick (thin) stainless steel canister containing roughly the radioactive equivalent of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, critics aptly refer to the loaded canisters as Chernobyl Cans.

Recent Shocking Revelations:
At the March 2018 CEP meeting, in his update on the nuclear waste loading process, Tom Palmisano, Edison’s Chief Nuclear Officer, stated that a defective canister was discovered. Workers found loose bolts in the bottom of an empty canister. The bolts hold the internal fuel basket structure in place, and allow passive helium flow inside the canister. This air flow is critical for cooling the thermally hot and highly radioactive waste. According to Palmisano, Holtec changed the interior design without notifying Edison or the NRC. Palmisano stated that all remaining canisters with the defective design were returned to Holtec, and loading resumed using canisters with the original ‘bolt-less’ design.

But what about the four - already loaded - defective canisters?
When asked if the four defective canisters will be unloaded, and reloaded into canisters with the original ‘bolt-less’ design, Palmisano explained that the technology does not currently exist to unload the waste from the canisters back into the spent fuel pools. He also mentioned this has been a known problem for years. https://youtu.be/mjgna2atn7Y. see video of entire March 2018 CEP meeting -
https://www.songscommunity.com/community-engagement/meetings/community-engagement-panel-meeting

AS YOU READ THIS LINE TODAY Edison has no method to repair or replace the defective canisters. LET THAT SINK IN FOR A MOMENT!!! NO PLAN B IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG!

At this next CEP meeting, in response to Edison’s inability to unload / reload canisters, Palmisano will presumably repeat what he has already stated at a number of CEP meetings, that defective or leaking canisters will be stored inside transport casks (like Russian dolls). But transport casks have not been approved by the NRC for storage of defective or leaking canisters. Transport casks were not designed for storing these extremely hot canisters.

Public awareness of Edison’s poor choice of both the storage canisters and the beach-side storage site is growing. At this point, people are particularly concerned about the 51 canisters (Chernobyl Cans) that could already have significant corrosion and cracking.

We are calling for Edison to build a Hot Cell, and reload the fuel waste into proven Thick-wall Casks (10" to 19.75" thick). A Hot Cell is a helium-filled, robotically-operated facility, and it is the only other NRC approved method to unload canisters.

Thick-wall Casks, unlike the Thin-wall Cans, can be inspected, maintained and monitored to PREVENT major radioactive releases into the environment. Thick-wall Casks withstood the Fukushima disaster.

Further implications of recent revelations:its not just our backyard.

These problems with the canisters at San Onofre apply to numerous sites across the country where over 2400 loaded thin-walled canisters are currently stored.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board December 2017 report to Congress states
spent nuclear fuel and its containment must be retrievable, maintained and monitored to prevent hydrogen gas explosions in both short and long term storage and transport. Edison has clearly indicated this cannot be done with the on-site spent fuel pools.
NWTRB DOE Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel December 2017
http://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/nwtrb-mngmntanddisposal-dec2017-508a.pdf?sfvrsn=12

Edison's NRC license requires the ability to unload canisters back into the pool. It appears Edison is out of compliance with their NRC San Onofre dry storage licenses. RESCIND THOSE LICENSES!

Edison needs to build a Hot Cell (asap) to address the
Chernobyl Can - Ticking Time Bombs - at San Onofre.

Community Engagement Panel Meeting June 27, 5-8:30 pm

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:31:00 -0700

Gene Stone & Darin R. McClure with our bGeigies

Come learn about our recent trip to SONGS and our plan for public real time radiation monitoring on location at the San Onofre Nuclear Waste Site at So Cal Edison's next Community Engagement Panel meeting,

June 27, 5-8:30 pm Casino San Clemente

140 West Avenida Pico,San Clemente, CA 92672

"Is a First Alert System at San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump Possible? YES!" ~ Gene Stone former CEP member

San Onofre Hot Cell Demolition Video 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 09:11:00 -0700

Plan B RIP OCT 2007

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Test Area North (TAN) hot shop (hot cell) was destroyed in 2007. It was the only hot cell identified large enough for unloading San Onofre's thin cans. The MPR Associates white paper “SONGS Used Fuel Management – Defense in Depth” (September 2017), page 20, incredulously states it is feasible to use this TAN hot shop (hot cell) for San Onofre's thin cans. Their reference for this claim (Reference #21) actually states the opposite — it states the TAN facility was demolished in 2007. Viability of Existing INL Facilities for Dry Storage Cask Handling, USDOE Report, INL/EXT-13-29035, April 2013, Page v, Executive Summary. This appears to be a significant criminal comprehension error with the MPR authors.

Edison knew the TAN Hot Cell facility was demolished, yet did not catch this major error in the MPR San Onofre report. Closure of the TAN facility was discussed at the California Public Utilities Commission San Onofre decommissioning proceeding during August 2015 evidentiary hearings.

Every permit since 2007 needs to be rescinded,

for the criminal lie that anyone ever had a "Plan B"

Let's Start With A NEW Plan B.

On Site Hot Cell
Thick Casks
Real Time Radiation Monitoring

Click Here To Become A Stakeholder

Acjachemen Wisdom Day: Honoring Our Ancestors June 9 2018 RSVP

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:55:00 -0700

One Vision. One People. One World

Join us. June 9th, as we join together and send a message to the world.

RSVP HERE https://bit.ly/2GmK5ou

Remember, We belong to Mother Earth.

Date: Saturday | June 9
Time: 10:30am - 2pm*

*Allow ample time to park and walk to site (30-40 minutes).

Location: Trail 6, San Onofre State Park
Parking: $15 in lot (limited parking; ridesharing encouraged!)
Bring: Rattles, 2 wood sticks or clappersticks, water container & sunscreen

* Please no signs or drums

The Acjachemen Nation is a native California tribe who has stewarded, revered and inhabited territory in what is now known as Orange County for more than 12,000 years.

For more information, contact:

Adelia Sandoval, Acjachemen Nation
Info at juaneno.com

For disability accommodation requests, contact:
Carry Kim

tsomoyog at gmail.com

STAKEHOLDERS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND!

Safecast Community Engagement Panel Announcement

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:11:00 -0700

Gene Stone former CEP Member, invites current members to view a Safecast

I went to last nights Community Engagement Panel Meeting, a panel purposely set up with no power by the local utility so that they could mark off a check box for some bureaucrat someplace that says yep, they talked to the locals, move onto the next step.

At this meeting Top Palisano informed everyone in attendance that they have dropped five cans on the beach at Sano, 4 of the 5 cans had experimental pins helping to cool the waste that some how are now "questionably"doing their jobs, and that, from now on SCE will return to using the old design.

When asked by the panel why SCE didn't just go in and fix them? Open the cans, replace the pins? You know, do the job right. Toms answer sent shudders down the backs of those that do not drink So Cal Edison's expensive experimental kool aid.

"No one has ever opened up one of these cans before, we believe it will take 1-3 years to figure out how to do that, we will get back to you..." - TP

Yet Another Example Of SCE's Corporate Responsibility Standard

Where have we heard this before?

This is coming from the same corporation that brought you leaking steam generators, years of missed fire inspections, they no longer have the trust of any thinking member of the local population.

Lucky for use we have people like Gene Stone and Sean Bonner. Science is about FACTS not TRUST, and the people at Safecast are building a world of citizen scientists, that are out collecting the facts and making that information publicly accessible in real time http://safecast.org/tilemap/

With all of the backroom dealings and other untoward shenanigans transparency and clarity are a breath of fresh air, Data without collaboration is information without knowledge.

SONGS Employees In An Alternate Reality Far Far Away

It is time for the adults to come together in agreement that publicly measuring radiation around nuclear sites is something that needs to be set up before an accident not after one.

We also need to demand THICK WALLED CASKS and that So Cal Edison stop filling these Thin Walled cans, with a Chernobal worth of radiation EACH, until they have a way to inspect and repair and replace procedure in place and ready to go, (READ HOT CELL!)

How can you help do that? If you would like to sponsor or help build one of these Safecast devices please fill out this form, or make a direct donation to the effort here https://publicwatchdogs.org/donate/ (please note radiation monitor network with your donation)

Remembering The Ongoing Fukushima Tragedy 7 Years On

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:11:00 -0700

San Clemente Real Time Radiation Monitoring Now Active!

SanOnofre.Com/Radiation

Why Is Publicly Available Radiation Monitoring So Important
To All Residents Of Southern California?

San Onofre Shut Down 1/31/2012 - from SanOnofreSafety.org

Edison did not admit to the radioactivity of the leaks into the environment from San Onofre for over 17 days until they were forced to disclose this information by the Nuclear Regulatory Administration! When Edison issued a press release February 17, 2012 admitting to these radiation leaks into the our community .- Donna Gilmore

A common denominator, in every single nuclear accident is that before the specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, 'There's no danger to the public.' They do this before they themselves know what has happened because they are terrified that the public might react violently, either by panic or by revolt. ~ Jacques Cousteau

Doveryai, No Proveryai ~ President Ronald Reagan

Trust but Verify > Visit SanOnofre.com/Radiation to view Real Time Radiation Levels in San Clemente California, especially as So Cal Edison continues its fools errand of placing 3,600,000 lbs of nuke waste, in fragely thin cans, in a tsunami zone, on an earthquake fault.

Remember The Ongoing Global Tragedy of Fukushima

Because Saving Trestles Is Not Just About A Toll Road

click to support radiation monitoring in your town

FACTS On San Onofre For Surfrider Members

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Sat, 3 Mar 2018 15:33:00 -0800

Call Surfrider Today! (949) 492-8170

Southern California Edison’s (SCE) has not included many important facts in their responses to Surfrider Foundations questions regarding the nuke dump at San Onofre See “FACTS” below SCE’s responses. A Printable PDF Version of this post is found at SanOnofreSafety.org.

Timeline Inquiries & Comments (Julia Chunn‐Heer, San Diego Policy Manager)

1) Has the timeline for starting the movement into dry storage changed, or is it still slated to start in Dec 2017/Jan 2018?

SCE Response: No, the timeline has not changed. Fuel transfer from wet to dry storage could start as early as December 2017 following on‐site NRC reviews.

FACTS ON SAN ONOFRE THAT ALL SURFRIDER MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW:

a) SCE’s answer implies the Holtec 37-fuel assembly thin-wall canisters are safe. However, the NRC has approved a relatively new unproven design that they know cannot be adequately inspected, maintained, monitored or repaired to PREVENT radioactive leaks and that they know are vulnerable to short-term cracking. SCE has no approved plan in place to stop leaks or replace canisters.

The NRC and SCE know there is no seismic/earthquake rating for partially cracked canisters, yet refuse to address this issue.
The existing 51 Areva NUHOMS 24-fuel assembly thin-wall canisters are up to 15 years old. SCE has no idea how many cracks they have or how deep the cracks may be, yet SCE continues to use thin-wall canisters and the NRC continues to approve inferior thin-wall canister technology, knowing that once cracks starts they can grow through the wall in only 16 years.
Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) was approved for an additional 40 years. Their Aging Management Plan does not require adequate inspections to find cracks or resolve cracking problems. Calvert Cliffs thin-wall canisters are similar to San Onofre thin-wall canisters.
SCE knows better quality dry storage systems are available that can be inspected, maintained, monitored and repaired (inside and out), but refused to require these minimum safety requirements in their Requests for Proposals and the NRC refuses to enforce minimum safety standards for containers they know need to be maintained for decades, if not centuries.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reported it would be over 80 years before San Onofre canisters would leak. However, their report cherry picked data to reach that conclusion. They ignored conditions of the San Onofre marine environment (frequent fog, on shore surf and wind) and evidence that a 2-year old Diablo Canyon canister (also located near the Pacific Ocean) had a low enough temperature for moisture to dissolve corrosive salts (also found at Diablo). Salt corrosion is one of the major triggers to initiate cracking of these canisters.
The NRC claims we don’t have enough moisture at San Onofre to trigger “chloride induced stress corrosion cracking” from salt. They ignore the fact we have frequent fog along the coast and ignore that other comparable components at San Onofre have cracked and leaked from moist salt air.
The NRC and SCE are ignoring all the other conditions that can cause thin-wall canisters to start cracking, such as acid rain, and critters making microscopic scratches on the canister surface.

b) The NRC approved record high temperatures for the Holtec thin-wall canisters (almost double those previously allowed). Previous maximum canister heat load at San Onofre was 15.29 Kw, with an average much lower than that. SCE is loading the Holtec canisters at just under 30 Kw. This allows SCE to expedite fuel from the pools to dry storage. Expediting fuel into dry storage is a major cost savings to SCE. Maintaining the pools is a high overhead cost.

NRC engineers said Holtec did not justify the high heat loads. They are concerned about damaging the fuel assemblies. However, NRC management approved this anyway, putting industry profits over our safety.
The NRC is no longer requiring SCE to verify that the convection cooling system is performing adequately (for heat loads under 30Kw). This is a major change from previous canister approvals that required verification of adequate cooling after the canisters were loaded inside the concrete overpack. SCE is loading canisters at just under 30Kw. This allows SCE to avoid reporting effectiveness of the cooling system, since only canisters loaded at 30Kw or above must be reported.
The NRC is approving hotter canisters because that is what the nuclear energy corporations want – not because they have assurances fuel will not become damaged. Spent fuel pools are filling up with higher burnup fuel and must be unloaded in order to keep reactors running. The only other option to build an additional spent fuel pool for the additional fuel, but that is very expensive. Therefore, the NRC is approving much higher heat loads, even above 30kW.

c) Since canisters are welded shut, they have no way to verify the condition of the fuel assemblies for storage or transport

2) According to the settlement agreement, there is a commitment to investigate a monitoring plan by 2020:

Q) When will the monitoring plan be completed?

SCE Response: The Coastal Development Permit approved by the Coastal Commission in 2015 includes a condition requiring SCE to develop an Inspection & Maintenance (I&M) Program by October 2022. As part of the settlement agreement, SCE agreed to expedite preparation of that program by two years, to 2020.

It is important to note, all dry cask storage facilities at U.S. nuclear plants are monitored once the system is in use. This activity is separate from the I&M Program discussed above.
Routine monitoring includes:

24/7 Monitoring by Highly Trained Operations and Security Force
Continuous Temperature Monitoring
Daily Walkdowns of ISFSI
Radiation Surveys
Periodic Inspections

In addition, the NRC requires an Aging Management Plan (AMP) to be in place after the system has been licensed for 20 years.

Q) When will the monitoring plan be implemented?

SCE Response: As noted in the prior question, routine monitoring of the UMAX system will commence immediately upon installation of the first canister, as required by the NRC. This monitoring, which includes temperature surveillance and operator visual inspections, is consistent with the system technical specifications and final safety analysis report, and was not impacted by the settlement agreement.

Q) To truly promote SCE’s principles of “safety, stewardship, and engagement”, we feel this plan should be fully developed before more spent fuel is moved into dry storage. Why not go above and beyond the bare minimum requirements of the NRC?

SCE Response: Under NRC regulations, the AMP is not required until 2035. Therefore, SCE has gone above and beyond NRC requirements by agreeing to develop an I&M Program by 2020, which will provide for more formal monitoring at an earlier stage. In addition, as mentioned earlier, routine monitoring of dry cask storage facilities is performed as soon as the fuel is moved into dry storage.

FACTS:

SCE avoided the real answer to the Surfrider excellent recommendation. SCE doesn’t have the ability to adequately inspect, let alone the ability to repair, and likely will never have those capabilities with the thin-wall canister design. Their goal is to expedite the fuel out of the pools to save money. The only option to meet those conditions is to use thick-wall casks, but SCE refuses to do this.
The purpose of any monitoring plan is to prevent leaks or quickly stop leaks after they happen. Existing SCE “Routine monitoring” mentioned above does not meet either of those goals. The SCE Inspection & Maintenance (I&M) Program will not meet those goals, either.
The NRC, SCE and thin-wall canister vendors have not provided evidence that SCE’s thin-wall Areva NUHOMS canisters and thin-wall Holtec canisters can be adequately inspected or repaired and there is sufficient evidence to show otherwise.
No thin-wall canisters loaded with spent nuclear fuel waste have been adequately inspected and none have been repaired.
Holtec President, Dr. Kris Singh, admitted at an SCE public CEP meeting that even if you could find a crack, even a microscopic through-wall crack will release millions of curies of radionuclides into the environment. And even if you could find the cracks and a way to repair them, it’s not practical to repair them without introducing another condition for cracking. Tom Palmisano (SCE) disagrees with Singh, but has provided no evidence.
The Calvert Cliffs ISFSI has an approved NRC Aging Management Plan, but it is inadequate. It does not require adequate inspections to find or measure cracks and does not outline any method to repair or replace canisters. The renewal license states: The licensee shall perform inspections of DSC [dry storage cans] external surfaces using proven technology reasonably available at the time the inspection is conducted which is capable of meeting the physical access and environmental constraints of the HSM (concrete overpack) interior.”
There is no technology available to meet those conditions and the nuclear industry has not proven it will ever exist. Information provided by EPRI and SCE regarding this is very misleading, giving the impression that it actually exists and can be used to adequate inspect to find cracks and measure depth of cracks.
The NRC only requires visual inspection of one canister at each site, so even if they did have inspection technology that could find and measure cracks, the NRC regulations are extremely weak.
The nuclear industry promises future solutions for finding and repairing cracks. Believing nuclear industry promises of waste solutions is what got us into this mess.

3) Is SCE looking into other options for offsite storage since Palo Verde has said publicly they do not want San Onofre’s waste?

SCE Response: SCE is closely monitoring, in particular, the proposed consolidated interim storage facilities in West Texas and East New Mexico. SCE will be submitting a formal request to Palo Verde to store the San Onofre used nuclear fuel.

FACTS:

HR3053 proposed interim storage legislation has major flaws, making this a non-viable, unsafe and underfunded option.
The proposed CIS facilities in Texas and New Mexico are flawed designs, proposing to transport existing aging canisters by rail, with no plan to deal with leaking or cracking canisters. SCE only wants to consider options that remove their financial liability.
SCE, the NRC, DOE and the owners of the proposed CIS sites have not evaluated transport routes. SCE fuel would likely need to go by rail through Los Angeles.
Transport risk are significant and there is no plan to effectively handle accidents.
The NRC is still studying whether high burnup fuel (like that at San Onofre) will become damaged from train vibrations.
Moving existing thin-wall canisters that have been aging for decades may not make it across the freeway, let alone on a longer route. No one knows the conditions of the canisters or the fuel rods.
NRC transport regulations require intact canisters for transporting high burnup fuel. Contents must be inspected to ensure fuel is not damaged. The thin-wall canisters are not designed to be opened.
The citizens at the proposed sites do not want San Onofre (or any other) nuclear waste. Lawsuits will put a halt or at least slow down the process. Thin-wall canisters will likely start leaking before another site can be found. That is why the most important thing to do is move the fuel to thick-wall transportable storage casks that can be inspected, maintained, repaired and monitored to prevent radioactive leaks.
Fuel will go critical if exposed to unborated water. The NRC ignores this by claiming it will never happen.
High burnup fuel generates hydrides, that if exposed to air can cause hydrogen explosions. The NRC has not addressed this and just assumes it will never happen.
Palo Verde doesn’t want our fuel assemblies. Since SCE will still have liability, they do not want that option. Tom Palmisano said this in an email.

4) We ask SCE to please provide our communities with more certainty that canisters will remain intact and safe, prior to burying nuclear waste so close to the ocean, on a dynamic coastline and bluff face, exposed to impacts from sea level rise.

We urge SCE to continually and thoroughly monitor all canisters onsite due to the significant risks if a leak were to occur, and the amount of unknowns and unintended consequences that could arise.

SCE Response: Used nuclear fuel has been safely stored in dry storage facilities for more than three decades in the United States. The canisters are licensed by the NRC. In addition, state regulatory review was performed to ensure the dry storage facility complies with the California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Commission found that the project would be consistent with the hazards, marine resources, water quality and view protection policies of the Coastal Act. These federal and state regulatory processes included a thorough evaluation of radiological and environmental concerns, and provide confidence that the fuel can be safely stored at San Onofre.

Even in the unlikely event that a leak were to occur, this would not give rise to significant risks or consequences. There would be minimal to no impact to the site or public, where the following is anticipated:

Inert helium release
Any fission gases that did escape would diffuse into the air, and have minimal to no impact to the public
No high‐pressure forces in canister to cause a release
Solid fission products would remain in fuel rods in canister

To address potential flaws, SCE is working with vendors/industry to develop mitigation techniques. Techniques under development include:

1. Remote weld repair
2. Canister‐in‐canister encapsulation
3. Transport cask to store/contain compromised canister

Safety is our core principle. SCE has and will continue to monitor the dry cask systems and safeguard the used nuclear fuel until government approved long‐term storage options are available in order to protect the people and environment surrounding San Onofre.

FACTS

SCE has no idea how safe the existing canisters are. Most canisters are around 10 years old. A few are over 30 years old. Since they cannot inspect for cracks they have no idea the condition of the canisters. However, we are increasing our probability of leaks as the years increase. No one can predict when a crack will start. The NRC only knows they are vulnerable to cracking. Once a crack starts it can grow through the wall in 16 years.
Areva (the NUHOMS canister vendor) is asking the NRC to weaken their dry storage safety requirements – at SCE’s request.
Eliminate the spent fuel pools after all fuel is move to dry storage (eliminating the only on-site method to replace canisters).
Exclude reporting radiation levels at the outlet air vents. This is where the highest radiation levels will from through wall cracks. It appears SCE’s plan is to hide leaks rather that stop them. (When the steam generators leaked radiation 1/31/2012, we were not told until 2/17/2012 that the radionuclides were released into the atmosphere. SCE initially claimed the radiation was contained in the domes.) How can we trust a company that already attempted to hide leaks?
The Coastal Commission added Special Conditions to the Coastal Permit, requiring the canisters be maintainable and transportable. This is hardly an endorsement. The Commission knows of the flaws of these canisters. That is the reason for the special conditions.
The Coastal Commission and other state and local agencies have no jurisdiction over radiological impact, so their approval is not an endorsement of radiological risk.
The NRC assumption of nothing can go wrong in dry storage is based on false assumptions, as outlined in the Sierra Club Comments to the NRC on Decommissioning, March 2016. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1608/ML16082A004.pdf
Claims of minor leaks are not based on evidence with high burnup fuels.
Would you buy a car that could not be inspected, repaired, maintained and had no warning system that helped prevent problems? Would you buy a car that the vendor promised to add all these features at some time in the future, with unknown solutions? Would you take your family on a trip in this car? Well, SCE and the NRC are “taking us for a ride” in this car. It’s up to us to stop them.
There are no long-term storage options in the wings. SCE knows that. We know that. SCE doesn’t even have a short-term safe storage plan and the NRC should be renamed the Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission.
SCE has the worst safety complaint record in the nation from their own employees. And the highest rate of retaliating against their employees for reporting safety problems. Their priority is short-term profits at our expense.
It’s time to educate others, including elected officials about how they are being mislead by these nuclear energy entities. It would help if we were all on the same page with a united message and mobilizing our volunteers and others in this effort – before it’s too late.

Canister Integrity Inquiries (Katie Day, Staff Scientist at Surfrider Headquarters)

5) The UMAX Safety Evaluation Report was designed for an underground system (hence the U in UMAX). Since SONGS is planning on using a partially buried approach to account for the water table’s proximity:

Do these safety assurances apply?

SCE Response: Yes, since the SONGS system is not fully underground, an additional analysis was conducted for the UMAX system based on the SONGS configuration using the berm design.

Is there an approved updated safety evaluation report specific to the model and design used at SONGS?

SCE Response: Yes, the dry storage system at SONGS is approved by the NRC for storage (as well as transportation). An NRC approved cask is one that has undergone a technical review of its safety aspects and been found to be adequate to store used fuel at a site that has been evaluated by the licensee to meet all of the NRC's requirements in 10 CFR Part 72.

FACTS:

Where is the updated safety evaluation report that addresses the configuration at San Onofre? It appears SCE is stating they have approval for the site and are being allows to use it without an updated Safety Evaluation Report.
The NRC knows that system is too close to the ocean and half buried in soggy water.
The NRC knows the ground and air contain corrosive elements and significant moisture – all enemies of metal and concrete.
They do not require enclosing these system in a building for additional environmental or security protection.
If the NRC approved the nuclear power plant at that site, why would anyone think they wouldn’t also approve the nuclear waste at this site. The NRC employee nickname for the NRC is “Nobody Really Cares”.
The NRC knows the below ground concrete system cannot adequately be inspected, but approved it anyway.

6) The “CEC is meant to further resist corrosion” yet Holtec and SCE have noted that vents could allow rainwater to enter the CEC. They have been designed to capture that water between the CEC and the sealed canister to prevent that water from escaping into the natural environment:

Q) Since rain in coastal environments has a higher salt content, how can you be so positive that corrosion will not be exacerbated?

SCE Response: The stainless steel material (Type 316L) used in the SONGS dry cask storage system is resistant to corrosion and degradation. Currently there are over 2,000 stainless steel canisters loaded with used fuel in the U.S. – some in marine environments similar to San Onofre, such as Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, located on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. Calvert Cliffs has stainless steel canisters that have been in service for over 20 years. See “SONGS Used Fuel Management – Defense in Depth Report, September 8, 2017”

Regarding rain water, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report, the HI‐STORM UMAX is designed to direct storm water and snow/ice melt‐off away from the Cavity Enclosure Container (CEC) Flange and the Closure Lid where the air passages are located. Additionally, storm water intrusion tests found no water collected inside the module. In the unlikely event that rainwater enters the inlet vents, it would remain within the space between the CEC and the divider shell and therefore have little potential contact with the Multi‐Purpose Canister (MPC) (what you refer to as the “sealed canister”) which contains the used nuclear fuel. If the CEC experiences any degradation, a local repair would be performed and would not affect the overall integrity of the ISFSI.

Q) How will water be removed and handled when canisters get moved or transferred offsite?

SCE Response: If water is detected within the CEC, it would be pumped out.

Q) Since the CEC has vents, does that mean that there is only one completely sealed barrier between HLRW and the environment, workers, and nearby communities?

SCE Response: There are two barriers between the used fuel pellets and the outside environment: the zirconium fuel‐pin cladding and the stainless steel MPC. Uranium fuel pellets are placed within zirconium tubes during manufacturing, which are sealed shut, and the Uranium and all of the fission products created during operation remain within the sealed tubes during normal operation and thereafter. In the UMAX dry storage system, the assemblies of fuel pins (“fuel assemblies”) are placed inside the 5/8” thick stainless steel MPC.

FACTS:

The NRC material engineers and other material engineers state 304/304L and 316/316L stainless steel are all susceptible to chloride induced stress corrosion cracking. SCE knows this.
Fog, rain and debris can enter the air vents and sit at the bottom of the Holtec hole. The only method to remove this is to pump it out.
SCE isn’t even required to inspect the holes unless the air vent temperature is elevated. In the past with other systems, air vents were required to be checked every 24 hours. And above ground systems have drains.
Humboldt Bay has a below ground Holtec system with no air vents. Fuel was already cool enough and no high burnup fuel existed. Holtec promised there would never be water leaks into the below ground holes. However, water leaked in.
Now is not the time to take SCE, Holtec or NRC promises without proof. They do not have the proof for this unproven system.
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power company refused to use the Holtec below ground system, stating it was too expensive, too complicated and unproven.
There is also a concern that the vent pipe that is open near the bottom could become blocked, which would stop the cooling system.

7) Edison has mentioned that it is possible to transport a cracked canister because Hi‐STAR transport casks do not take credit for internal canisters:

Q) How would a cracked canister be placed in the transport cask without causing exposure to staff and the surrounding environment ie SanO, Trestles, San Clemente, home of Surfrider Foundations World HQ?

SCE Response: We first want to clarify that your initial statement may misunderstand SCE’s prior comments on transporting casks. SCE has been asked if it’s possible to transport a cracked SONGS canister. We’ve responded by saying, it is possible, but with conditions. Some transport casks may accept a canister with defects, and others may require modification or additional evaluation. These types of transport may require additional license evaluation at the time of shipment. Additional evaluation will need to be done should a cracked canister in the US be identified. No leaks have been identified in the 2000 welded steel canisters in the U.S.

Understanding that these discussions are hypothetical, the cracking of concern would be microscopic in nature. Some relatively benign fission product gases may be released initially through microscopic cracks; the particulate will be retained within the canister. Microscopic cracking will not result in a tangible decrease in shielding effectiveness and does not impact canister integrity for transportation or dose to workers. Also note that the transportation cask provides the majority of radiation shielding during handling and transportation.

Q) The plan of moving a cracked canister into a larger intact canister as a safety precaution sounds great, except again, how would a cracked canister get transferred without exposing staff and the environment to radioactive gases?
SCE Response: See response above.

FACTS:

SCE is finally admitting here that there are additional requirements other than just an approved transport cask. Partially cracked canisters (let alone leaking ones) are not approved by NRC transport regulations. The fuel assemblies also need to be confirmed as intact.
The high burnup Holtec transport cask is not approved for unloading. The NRC, SCE and others have not addressed unloading. They don’t have a plan for a canister that arrives leaking or with significant cracks that could affect the ability to unload the canister.
The oldest dry storage systems are thick-wall casks. They do not have the cracking issues or the inability to inspect them. Most thin-wall canisters are too new to leak. However, SCE and all the others have no idea how many cracks they have or how deep the cracks are. Just because they are claiming no leaks so far, doesn’t meet they know when they will start leaking. They are just hoping they don’t leak, because they have no plan in place, if they do.
Their report claiming minor impacts did not address high burnup fuel or criticality from water intrusion.
The NRC has not approved a container to store leaking canisters, let alone one to transport leaking canisters. They have no NRC approved safety evaluation of this scenario or how they would relocate a leaking canister.
Lots of promises. No evidence.

Q) If a crack, or initial pitting is identified during routine monitoring, will Edison notify the public?

SCE Response: As with all issues important to the public, SCE intends to keep the public updated, such as through the Community Engagement Panel. (let us not forget they waited DAYS to inform the public that they had leaked radiation into our community, our ocean, waves and beaches)

FACTS:

SCE has no method to find cracks or pits in their routine monitoring. That explains the vague answer.
SCE sites the need to only need to examine one canister per site.
SCE has no plan even if they could find cracks.

Q) Is there an NDE in development that would not require moving a canister?

SCE Response: Yes. For example, see the eddy current array inspection probe described in EPRI’s September 14, 2017, CEP presentation. In general, the industry’s goal is to employ in‐situ NDE equipment.

FACTS:

Eddy current is useful for measuring cracks, but not finding them.
The methods being investigated will not be adequate to find all cracks. The best option for finding cracks is with a fluid dye. This method cannot be used in canisters loaded with fuel assemblies.
The question after inspection is, “what will they do if they find cracks?”. Without that answer, nothing else matters. They do not have that answer. Only promises of future solutions.
The fact SCE plans to destroy empty pools, shows their intention of assuming they do not need to ever repair canisters or find cracks. They likely will just try to hide the leaks and hope the canisters don’t go critical or explode.

Settlement Inquiries (Denise Erkeneff, South Orange County Chapter Manager)

Q) What is the significance of the settlement agreement in the decommissioning process?

SCE Response: The Settlement Agreement does not directly pertain to the decommissioning process. The Settlement Agreement specifically addresses SCE’s onsite ISFSIs and steps SCE will take to assess the feasibility of relocating SONGS spent fuel to an offsite storage facility. In exchange for SCE’s commitments made as part of the Settlement, Plaintiffs dismissed their legal challenge. This allows for SCE to complete the ISFSI and to transfer all spent fuel to dry storage pending the availability of an offsite storage facility. The timely transfer of fuel to dry storage will help ensure that SCE can promptly proceed with decommissioning the facility.

Please see attached Settlement Agreement and Press Release/Settlement Agreement summary.

FACTS:

Another excuse for expediting fuel out of the pools. “…help ensure that SCE can promptly proceed with decommissioning the facility”. Does this mean destroy the pools? Yes.
The Settlement Agreement doesn’t change anything. SCE only has to do what is “commercially viable” and they are in charge of the entire process, so nothing has changed. They paid the attorneys to drop the lawsuit.

Q) How has the settlement agreement made SCE change their plans and operating procedures for the SONGS waste storage issue?

SCE Response: SCE’s plans for offloading spent fuel to the ISFSI have not changed. In addition, SCE’s operating procedures are in accordance with NRC requirements and those are not impacted by the Settlement Agreement. In terms of SCE’s long‐term plans, the Settlement Agreement requires SCE to use commercially reasonable efforts to relocate the spent fuel to an offsite storage facility. In furtherance of that objective, the settlement identifies specific steps SCE will take, including the following:

Maintain an “Experts Team” to advise SCE on any proposed relocation of spent fuel;
Develop a conceptual plan for the offsite transportation of spent fuel;
Develop a strategic plan to support the development of a commercially reasonable offsite storage facility;
Make a formal, written request to the owners of Palo Verde regarding the development of an expanded ISFSI to store spent fuel

These commitments could result in the transfer of fuel offsite in a shorter timeframe than SCE originally contemplated. SCE’s plans anticipated that SONGS spent fuel would be transferred to a government‐owned federal repository, which would result in fuel remaining onsite until 2049. In fulfilling its settlement commitments, SCE may be successful in improving this schedule. Pending availability of an offsite storage facility, SCE will continue to safely store the spent fuel in the onsite ISFSIs.

FACTS:

SCE picks the experts and makes the plan. Nothing new here.
They know Palo Verde doesn’t want our waste, so this is just a formality.
SCE will continue to unsafely store the waste unless we find a way to stop them or one or more canisters explodes or goes critical.
SCE’s own witness at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) admitted the 2049 date for a permanent repository is “unlikely”, yet SCE has made no other plans.
SCE’s plan to the NRC, CPUC and the Coastal Commission assumes nothing will go wrong.

Q) Are there any updates on the timeline for securing offsite transport?

SCE Response: No, not at this time. SCE is diligently working to satisfy its commitments under the Settlement Agreement, which includes the development of a conceptual transportation plan.

FACTS:

What does a “conceptual transportation plan mean? A transportation plan to where? Who pays for the rail and road upgrades?
First responders are state and local agencies. In the case of a radioactive release, the FEMA instruction say, if the radiation levels are unsafe, get the heck out of there and don’t let anyone near it. That’s it. No other plan after that.
SCE has no authority to move waste anywhere. It’s the receiver that has the authority and no one wants it.
The Governor of New Mexico wrote a letter to the DOE stating she would have no problem taking the waste if one of her communities wanted it, since it is safely stored. It’s not safely and others in her state do not want it and will fight any attempts to move it there.
The DOE handout on their tour to discuss consent-based siting, claims the waste is safety stored. At the time they wrote this they did not know about the cracking issue. However, they know now and have not corrected this brochure.

Q0 Will monthly progress reports, those SCE is required to provide to plaintiffs, be publicly available?

SCE Response: Yes. SCE plans to make these reports available through the Community Engagement Panel.

FACT:

I’m sure these SCE reports will be just as helpful and informative as the rest of SCE’s information. - Donna Gilmore

Raising Our Conciousness Rally #SaveTrestles

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:02:00 -0800

Join us in prayer and meditation as we lift our consciousness up and over the current movement of nuclear waster into thin Chernobyl cans on the beach at San Onofre.

Occurred Saturday February 3rd
Center For Spiritual Living
1201 Puerta Del Sol
San Clemente CA 92672

Storing Nuclear Waste At San Onofre: It's Only Complicated If You Are Confused About The Issues

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:41:00 -0700

Storing nuclear waste at San Onofre: it's only complicated if you can’t tell the difference between a shortboard and a longboard, and where each should be paddled out.

The Shortboard "Thin Can" VS Longboard "Thick Cask" Debate

Or let me put it to you this way so as to be perfectly clear.

YOU DON’T WANT NUCLEAR WASTE STORED IN THIN CANS ON THE BEACH AT SANO!

A “canister” OR “can” is like the ½ to ⅝ of an inch steel cans Edison has a permit for at San Onofre. A “cask” is a thick radwaste metal container up to 19 inches thick, this is an important distinction to make if we want to discuss safety at San Onofre from a factual point of view.

The Nuke Waste At Sano

The Issues From A Factual Point Of View

This waste is onsite now, 3,600,000lbs of it.
This waste has nowhere to go in the foreseeable future
Edison has chosen thin walled cans over thick walled casks to store this radwaste, the NRC expects the waste to be here for 300 years.
Each can would hold as much radiation as was released from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, each can is only warrantied for 20 years.
Edison promises these “Chernobyl Cans” won't leak. Do you forget the 40 year rating of the replacement steam generators? They lasted less than one year before leaking radiation, Edison lied about that radiation leak into our community for days after the event.
Each can would have no internal monitoring.
A can would have no "defense in depth" or “multiple layers of failure”
Cans crack from exposure to salt air and engine exhaust
There is no approved way to test or repair cracks in these cans.
A cracked can, can have no seismic rating and cannot be transported
Each can would be on the beach, straddling an earthquake fault, in a tsunami zone,
Surrounded by millions of people, and thousands of surfers.
Why are you still reading this? Toss these cans in the trash.

Rescind the Coastal permit for this badly planned nuke dump on the beach at San Onofre.

Demand Thick Walled Metal Casks, Not Cans
Make anything purchased for San Onofre Nuclear Waste match the location that we find ourselves in, using the best thick-wall cask technology available in the world. Let this become the standard of waste management.

Safety should be our only concern.

UPDATE the April 14th 2PM hearing has been CANCELLED.

Superior Court Central Courthouse, Dept C68
220 W Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
Google Maps Link https://goo.gl/maps/V9szQGEb9Sr

Storing Nuclear Waste At San Onofre: It's only complicated if you are confused about the issues and don't want to think about the facts. #SaveTrestles our very own #StandingRock

NUCLEAR WASTE ACTION ALERT

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:13:00 -0700

NUCLEAR WASTE ACTION ALERT:

By Jerry Collamer

Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) and San Onofre High Level Nuke Dump are encouraging environmental activists to organize their members to visit/contact all of their state and federal elected officials to demand they take action on our nation's critical nuclear waste issues, “what and where to put America’s growing stockpiles of waste?” Many of us working on this think that now is the time for a big push. With 14 nuke plants decommissioning and more to come soon we cannot wait any longer for strong action to be taken. Let’s get organized across the country!

We all know that in the beginning of the nuclear madness, it was promised that in 40 years the solution to nuclear waste would be figured out by the time it was needed. This did not come true, it has not been figured out. Instead, in August 2014 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission turned all NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS into NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPS for a minimum of 200 years. US taxpayers over these past years have now subsidized the nuclear industry with over 14 trillion dollars. Also, the Department of Energy is paying these nuclear plants MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE EACH YEAR TO STORE THEIR NUCLEAR WASTE ONSITE IN YOUR BACKYARD! WE MUST STOP MAKING MORE NUCLEAR WASTE NOW. We also know that it is no longer satisfactory to let our elected officials keep kicking this nuclear canister down the road. We must demand action from our government and the nuclear industry to find the solutions that are needed, and our anti-nuclear activists must have a seat at this table. Our generation of activists cannot be the one that lets this INACTION continue for another 200 years! Yes, of course,I know some of us have been working on this for years, but few have been listening to us, but now the “times they are a changin.” More people are now listening to us and WE MUST ACT NOW!

Listen to former chairperson of the NRC, Allison MacFarlane's talk at the June 22nd CEP meeting. This nuclear waste information is very important if you want to get the DOE and the government moving on the waste issue. Video 1, start the video at 1:55:30 to hear the entire talk at: http://www.songscommunity.com/cep-events/062216_event.asp

Please take action by using this link to contact your elected officials:

Please take action by using the links below to contact your elected officials:

US Senate http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?state=me
House of Representative http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

As a reminder, the Invitation for Public Comment closes on Sunday July 31st at 11:59 PM ET. Please email your comments to consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov or submit them using the options listed in the Federal Register notice before the closing date to have them considered in the draft summary report. Additionally, we are posting comments received to our website, and the first batch reflecting public input through July 1st is provided below. Comments received from July 1st - 31st will be posted in a similar manner after July 31st. Link to the document: http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/invitation-public-comment-inform-design-consent-based-siting-process

Nuke Dump Outlet Mall San Clemente

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:59:00 -0800

Nothing says Welcome To Town like a Nuke Dump and an Outlet Mall.

No Nuke Dump At San Onofre #SaveTrestles

It's a beautiful day in San Clemente, California, and you are here, discovering treasure, never mind the 3,600,000 lbs of high grade nuclear waste a few miles south. So Cal Edison would like to bury it in the sand, a few feet from the ocean in thin steal canisters that can crack thru in our lifetime. They will tell you they have no way to test for these cracks, or even have a way to fix them. If something were to go wrong there real time radiation monitoring of the nuclear dump at San Onofre is not avalable to you. With Edisions past track record of first denying and then admitting there was a radiation release beg for more transparency? With radiation you can't see it, you can't smell it and we may never know, wink, if it affects its neighbors, read you and me, thanks to the Nuclear Regulatory Commision cancelling the cancer study.

Traffic along the I-5 has been a nightmare with the widening of the freeway, and since La Pata, the only other potential way out of town, is not completed, someone thought it would be a good idea to have the Outlet at San Clemente Grand Opening Ribbon Cutting Ceremony today at 10:30!

Now the good news, the nuke dump is in the planning stages, if you live in California you want to support candidates that will fight the notion that a nuke dump at Trestles is somehow a good idea. If they think that this is not a problem they need to be replaced before that sign is set in stone.

When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk http://t.co/vsQN7EfWyo
— Tim Brown (@timthebrown) September 22, 2015

The real risk is apathy. No Nuke Dump At San Onofre. #SaveTrestles

San Onofre Cancer Study Cancelled?

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:00:00 -0700

#NRC cancels health study around nuclear plants, including #SanOnofre - The Orange County Register http://t.co/QhVMFNKlRv
— AA Clearinghouse (@AAClearinghouse) September 18, 2015

San Onofre Operators Exposed on #NBC: Massive Contamination at Pristine Beach http://t.co/TcxQu7J2dB #nonukes #climate #security #sec #law
— Cecalli Helper (@Cecalli_Helper) September 22, 2015

Report: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station very very sloppy, very very careless in handling radioactive material.

The most common wind direction for most of the year was North (Orange County) except in the spring (April-June) when it was to the south (San Diego County).

In 2012, there were 29 incidents of effluent monitoring instruments being out of service for more than 30 days. In 2013 there were 22 such incidents.

It is interesting to examine NRC documents on batch releases after the reactors were shut down (Jan., 2012) compared to when they were in full operation. There were 3 batch releases of gaseous effluents in when Units 2 and 3 were in operation in 2011 (total 44.2 hours). In 2012 (after it was shut down) there were 6 such releases totaling 43.1 hours.

Liquid radioactive batch releases in 2011 totaled 518 hours at 740,000 gal per minute. In 2012 after operation ceased, releases went on for 335 hours at 612,000 gal per minute.

The NRC claims that it cannot afford the $8 million to carry out the cancer study proposed by the National Academy of Sciences. For 2016, the NRC has requested $1.032 billion of which 90% will be paid for by the nuclear industry it is supposed to be regulating. The NRC spends $25 million/year on travel expenses. In 2015, the nuclear industry gave the NRC $43 million for "outreach" and "policy support."

Ask your local representative to tell the NRC,
BRING BACK THE CANCER STUDY!
&

"NO effluent releases at any time in cases of effluent monitoring instrument failure"

THE POWER TO CHANGE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:54:00 -0700

“If the ideas that rule our culture are stopping us from saving ourselves, then it is within our power to change those ideas.” Naomi Klein

We humans are adept at fighting for what we are against. Can we fight as hard for what we are for? Socrates reminds us “The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new.”

Many people, including ninety seven percent of climate scientists, agree that climate warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Some of the results of global warming, according to “Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet” are: global sea levels are rising, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass and the thickness of the Arctic Sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed in the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by approximately 2 billion tons per year. James Hansen, adjunct professor of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, believes that carbon pollution is set to end the era of stable climate.

Solar for Seals project 2014

With these facts pointing to the devastation of life on Earth as we know it, what actions are we willing to take to assure the continuation of life on our beautiful planet? We must join together now to do what we can do to make the necessary changes to reverse these trends. Human beings have the capacity to learn and adapt quickly. We are able to change old thinking and patterns of behavior and create change in positive ways. There are political and economic forces that sometimes stand in the way of progress, but we do not have to allow these forces to prevent us from doing what we must. Many individuals are moving forward with ideas to save our planet and creating supportive communities to make effective change.

One of the ways to avert this climate change crisis is to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. To this end, it is possible to switch to renewable energy. People all over the world are creating wind farms, working with tidal power, wave power, solar power, hydroelectricity, and geothermal power. Our organization, Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) and Planet Earth Solar (PES) of San Clemente, CA. have successfully completed two solar projects: Oso Lake Boy Scout Camp Solar project, 2013 and the Pacific Marine Mammal Center Laguna Beach “Solar for Seals”, 2014. ROSE and PES are currently working on a third solar project, “Solar for Non Profits” project for 2015. We are committed to bringing people together in a community effort to provide solar power to non -profit organizations. These organizations are already helping our social and environmental communities in various ways. By assisting them with conversion to solar power, this adds another layer of depth to their commitment to bettering our world.

Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) and Planet Earth Solar (PES) have selected The Center for Spiritual Living Capistrano Valley (CSLCV) in San Clemente, CA. for our 3rd Solar Project 2015. A 60 kW system consisting of 197 solar panels to provide clean, sustainable and environmentally safe energy will be built for the Center’s facility. As PES and ROSE and CSLCV donate our time and labor for this project, please join us in taking this environmental action as a citizen of the world. Be a part of the solution for our world’s clean and renewable energy future by donating today. The total cost of this project will be $135,000.00. The money the Center saves on energy costs will go to community projects. Your donation to this solar project will be greatly appreciated.

To help us, please use our Razoo fundraising site at: https://www.razoo.com/story/Center-For-Spiritual-Living-Capistrano-Valley for your “tax deductible” donation.

“We are all flowers in the Great Spirit’s garden. We share a common root, and the root is Mother Earth.” Hopi Prophecy

“The environment isn’t over here. The environment isn’t over there. You are the environment.” Chief Oren Lyons

It will take all of us working together now if we are to make a positive change for future generations.

Love, Gene and Joyce

ROSE and Planet Earth Solar 3rd Solar project 2015. Join with us.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:24:00 -0700

Hello everyone,

Thinking back, we have not forgotten your kind help with our 2014 “Solar for Seals” project for Pacific Marine Mammal Center of Laguna Beach where we put 87 solar panels on their small roof. It went so well we looked for a much bigger roof for 2015, and we found it.

We are happy to announce that Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) and Planet Earth Solar has selected The Center for Spiritual Living Capistrano Valley (CSLCV) in San Clemente, CA. for our 3rd Solar Project 2015. A 60 kW system consisting of 197 solar panels to provide clean, sustainable and environmentally safe energy will be built for the Center’s facility. As Planet Earth Solar and ROSE and CSLCV donate our time and labor for this project, please join us in taking this environmental action as a citizen of the world. Be a part of the solution for our world’s clean and renewable energy future by donating today. The total cost of this project will be $135,000.00, saving the Center over $150,000.00 over other bids. You may donate to this Solar project in one of two ways.

1. Make your “tax deductible” check payable to “Center for Spiritual Living Capistrano Valley” please mail check to Gene Stone 1203 Via Presa San Clemente 92672, so I can make sure to get your check into the Solar account at the center. Please note in the bottom left memo area of your check “Rose Solar project.” The check payment method will insure that 100% of your donation will go to the solar project, using the fundraising site we will lose 5% of your donation to Razoo.

2. Or use our Razoo funding raising site at for you “tax deductible” donation:

https://www.razoo.com/story/Center-For-Spiritual-Living-Capistrano-Valley

The Center’s Environmental statement:

“The Centers for Spiritual Living are committed to our vision of a world that works for everyone– a world in which resources are valued, cared for, and grown, and where there is generous and continuous sharing of these resources. A big part of that world is sustainable safe energy. At the Center for Spiritual Living Capistrano Valley in San Clemente California, we are contributing to this vision by installing a solar system to provide clean, sustainable and environmentally safe energy for our Center’s facility. We know that other spiritually minded people and organizations will want join us in taking this action for the betterment of all future generations. Not only will this new solar energy system provide our Center with safe sustainable energy, the cost savings recognized by lower energy bills will allow the Center to pursue numerous projects that will benefit our community.”

P.S. Please remember that it was this Center in San Clemente that gave ROSE such a great deal and made it so easy to do the Nuclear Symposium in October 2013. They are willing and excited to help us with future events. We could not have done it with them.

The Center for Spiritual Living Capistrano Valley in San Clemente California, Planet Earth Solar and Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) thank you for your kind and generous donation towards our solar project.
With your action today, you join us in being part of a clean energy future and take a step towards helping manage climate change. You are now part of the growing number of people around the world who are “being” the change. We are honored and happy to walk down this path with you.

Sincerely,

Gene Stone
Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE)

ACTION ALERT Request San Onofre Agenda Items Be Moved To Newport Beach Coastal Commision Meeting

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Mon, 11 May 2015 09:48:00 -0700

SAVE TRESTLES!

The California Coastal Commission meeting on changing the San Onofre spent fuel pool cooling system is still scheduled for Santa Barbara on May 14th.

Please request the Coastal Commission to change it to the Newport Beach meeting.
The Coastal Commission needs to hear from more of you.
They are getting pressure from Edison to speed up yet another experiment in nuclear waste dump managment.

Send request for meeting change to joseph.street@coastal.ca.gov

Subject: Request to move Southern California Edison San Onofre agenda items to Newport Beach meeting

These waivers are for major changes to the San Onofre spent fuel cooling systems, air cooling systems and the ocean discharge systems. These are very significant issues.

Please move the decision on the Southern California Edison Coastal Development Permit Waivers (9-15-0417-W and 9-15-0162-W) from the May 14 Santa Barbara meeting to the June Newport Beach meeting.

It will take over 4 hours to drive to Santa Barbara from San Diego and over 3 hours from South Orange county. Given the length of time and starting time of the meeting, this is an undue hardship for the people most impacted by these decisions. There doesn't appear to be any significant reason or legal deadline to justify this hardship.

The Coastal Commission website states:
The Commission meets once a month in different locations of the State in order to facilitate public participation. Staff attempts, whenever possible, to schedule matters for hearings that will be relatively close to the location of a proposed development. However, legal deadlines for action may require that the hearing on an item take place in a different area than the proposed project.

We don't know which day in June the waivers will be addressed. They do not list them on the agenda. I do know they will be under the section labeled as:

ENERGY, OCEAN RESOURCES and FEDERAL CONSISTENCY.

Report by the Deputy Director on permit waivers, emergency permits, immaterial amendments & extensions, negative determinations, matters not requiring public hearings, and status report on offshore oil & gas exploration & development. For specific information contact the Commission’s Energy, Ocean Resources, and Federal Consistency Division office at (415) 904-5240.

Even if you don't plan to speak at the meeting, we need you to show up or at least write for the delay of the meeting. The Coastal Commission is our friend, but not if we don't express an interest.

Here's the link to meeting rules.
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html#meetingRules

It doesn't appear the chillers Edison proposes are "nuclear grade chillers". The Coastal Commission was told they are "commercial grade chillers". And as usual, the NRC is not doing their job. They don't plan to inspect until after the new systems are installed, so we cannot count of them to even review this new method of cooling spent fuel pools filled with hot fuel that can boil the water out, if the pools are not kept cool.

Using water chillers to cool spent pools appears to be another Edison experiment. In fact, We have found only one that used chillers and it had fuel that didn't need cooling. Edison told the Coastal Commission that "chillers are commonly used in commercial industries" and that "spent fuel pool islands" have been used at nuclear plants. However, these misleading statements don't mean that chillers are used for spent fuel pool island cooling. We have asked both the NRC and Edison to provide me a list of nuclear spent fuel pools cooled with chillers. We do not have a response from either of them, even though we have requested this at the last CEP meeting. We've followed up with Edison via email, but do not have a response yet.

Here's a document that talks about methods of cooling spent fuel pools as well as how to save water use at nuclear plants. It does not list water chillers for cooling spent fuel pools, even for decommissioned plants. It even has information about Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde cooling systems and water use.

IAEA Technical Reports: Efficient Water Management in Water Cooled Reactors, No. NP-T-2.6, November 5, 2012

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1569_web.pdf

Join The San Onofre Cancer Study

noreply@blogger.com (Darin R. McClure) — Tue, 5 May 2015 10:14:00 -0700

Calling All San Onofre Surfers

While many of us have been busy focusing on the host of problems we face because of San Onofre, there is one very important issue we are neglecting: the immanent pending decision of the NRC on whether to fund the Natioinal Academy of Sciences (NAS) cancer streak study in this area. The NAS sent their Phase 2 proposal to the NRC back in January and the NRC is dragging its feet on whether to approve it. Many think that the NRC does not want this study done because of the possibility of revealing that the radioactive releases Edison has been doing into the ocean and into our atmosphere for the last half century may have a significant toll on our health.

The NAS study will focus particularly on women and children who are the most vulnerable. If you have lived within 31 miles (50 km) of the plant and had children since the 1980s, you will be part of the study. As you know, nuclear power plants are known emitters of beta and gamma radiation which can easily penetrate your home and your body and rearrange cell DNA which might result in cancer after years or decades of exposure.

There is Congressional oversight on this, but the NRC has played down this investigation and more public pressure is needed to get this study funded. Even though San Onofre is “closed,” we know that considerable emissions will continue to take place during the coming decades of decommissioning. They will continue to be discharging up to 36 radionuclides into the giant 18 ft pipes into the ocean (at a rate up to a million gallons per minutes with some discharges lasting 25 hours). Since 1990, the NRC has relied totally on an old and now discredited study by the National Cancer Institute which performed a heavily flawed study that failed to find a cancer effect. The NRC and the nuclear industry like this study and they routinely (and mistakenly) say it proves that radiation is harmless to people living near NPP.

There are two key people in Congress who are actively concerned about this. They are in a position to put pressure on the NRC to fund the study. They are our own Sen. Boxer and Massachusetts Senator Markey. Please write to both of them, perhaps both a written letter and an email (and call them). It is not necessary to sound like a nuclear physicist and cite the details. Just express your concern as a resident, and ask them to please contact the NRC and help get this study funded.

Many thanks!

Roger Johnson

Senator Barbara Boxer

312 N. Spring St., Suite #1748

Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-5000

Senator Barbara Boxer

112 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510 202-224-3553

senator@boxer.senate.gov

copy: caridad_sanchez@boxer.senate.gov and tony_cruz@boxer.senate.gov

Senator Edward Markey

255 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510 202-224-2742

Senator Edward Markey

975 JFK Federal Building

15 New Sudbury Street

Boston, MA 02203 Phone: 617-565-8519

Edward.markey@markey.senate.gov

Also copy: sarah_butler@markey.senate.gov and Michal_Freedhoff@market.senate.gov (she is a director of policy)

Link to Analysis of Cancer Risks Among Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Jan. 2015:

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Analysis-Cancer-Risks-Populations/18968?bname=nrsb

What are you doing for your Mother on EARTH DAY 2015?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:53:00 -0700

“The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new.” Socrates

Earth Day is a day that is intended to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's natural environment. Earth Day was founded by Gaylord Nelson as an environmental teach-in first held on April 22, 1970. While this first Earth Day was focused on the United States, an organization launched by Denis Hayes, who was the original national coordinator in 1970, took it international in 1990 and organized events in 141 nations.It is celebrated in more than 175 countries.” Wikipedia reference

Just as we humans need to protect, nurture, and feed ourselves, we can offer to the planet, our Mother Earth, respect, protection, and nurturance. “Given the present rate of planetary pollution and destruction, we need to negotiate a detente with nature and ourselves.” Paul Hawken. There are many positive actions taking place all over the world. For instance, there are over six thousand different women’s groups in Africa planting trees and four thousand organizations in North America have adopted a river, creek, or stream. Organic agriculture is the fastest growing sector of farming in North America, Japan, Mexico and Europe. There are three thousand organizations that educate farmers, customers and legislators about sustainable and biological agriculture. The world is now understanding the need to move away from the dirty carbon based energies of the past 150 years into the clean and renewable energy future. Solar, wind and wave energy technologies are just a few of the bright stars this future will be based on.

Our indigenous first peoples of the Americas have given the long held wisdom that we should always be thinking of the next seven generations to come in our interactions with Mother Earth. It is said that we do not own the earth, we borrow it from our children. Many of us are just now coming to understand that the earth is taking care of us and not the other way around. Our actions have far reaching effects and consequences on our planet, climate, oceans and air. Droughts, flooding, super storms, melting of the glaciers and the ice caps in the north and south poles are just some indications of severe climate change.

“Great Spirit, whose dry lands thirst, help us to find the way to refresh your lands.
We pray for the power to refresh your lands.

Great Spirit, whose waters are choked with debris and pollution, help us to find the way to cleanse your waters.
We pray for your knowledge to find a way to cleanse the waters.

Great Spirit, whose beautiful earth grows ugly with misuse, help us to find the way to restore beauty to your handiwork.
We pray for your strength to restore the beauty of your handiwork.

Great Spirit, whose great creatures are being destroyed, help us to find a way to replenish them.
We pray for your power to replenish the earth.

Great Spirit, whose gifts to us are being lost in selfishness and corruption, help us to find the way to restore our humanity.
We pray for the wisdom to find the way to restore our humanity.” UN Environmental Sabbath Program

It was our honor yesterday to help the Cub Scouts of troop 714 of San Clemente Las Palmas school to plant eight California Laurel Bay trees for their Earth Day celebration in their new camping area at Oso Lake. This was the first experience planting trees for this troop. They worked hard digging the holes, preparing the soil and placing the trees in the ground. As we worked together, we had the opportunity to share the value of planting trees and how this action helps the future of the planet. The scouts were amazed to learn that trees breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. As the work continued, their understanding of the cycle of life deepened. As we finished placing the last tree in the ground, a red tail hawk flew directly over our heads making her voice known to all of us. It was clear that this sign was a good one and the spirit of the hawk was saying thank you.

How can we help to make Earth Day everyday? Here are some ideas:

Plant trees
Conserve water
Walk or ride your bike to school or work
Use public transportation
Recycle
Compost
Make your home energy efficient

To learn more visit the websites below:

http://www.wattlesswednesday.org/

http://www.earthday.org/2015?gclid=Cj0KEQjwpM2pBRChsZCzm_CU0t4BEiQAxDVFmlR83yiKujlmwwxzuClFLM_WXxTekrzZFZDkx5nj7ScaAnXj8P8HAQ

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/save-earth-top-ten.htm

http://www.plant-for-the-planet-billiontreecampaign.org/

Remember, on Earth Day and everyday, we are all part of the earth.

Love, Joyce and Gene

Possible dates for the next SCE/CEP meeting & workshop on Nuclear Waste may be Jan 27 or the 28

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:34:00 -0800

A number of CEP members have expressed a strong interest in returning to the matter of long-term spent fuel storage early in 2015. We are fortunate to have been approached by the Washington DC-based Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) to organize a joint meeting with the CEP in January as part of an 18-month effort to generate action on the movement of used nuclear fuel in the U.S. With the short timeframe, we will need to finalize the event very quickly.

BPC is working on an initiative, “America’s Nuclear Future: Taking Action to Address Nuclear Waste,” to reinvigorate and expand the discussion on nuclear waste, identify barriers inhibiting progress on nuclear waste, and explore options to break through the barriers. The effort is being run by Tim Frazier who previously ran the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. I am mindful that a joint program with the BPC will be far more impactful than a program that we might endeavor to execute on our own.

Important to the BPC effort are regional meetings to identify and discuss the barriers to moving forward on nuclear waste and potential actions to remove the barriers. BPC has hosted meetings in the Northeast at MIT in June, in the Southeast at Georgia Tech in Atlanta in September, and in the Midwest in Chicago in November. A joint BPC/CEP meeting for Southern California is planned for the evening of Tuesday, 27 January, or Wednesday the 28th.

Meeting Overview

Plans include two panel discussions. The intent is to present a range of viewpoints and panelists are to be announced. The first panel will focus on federal issues as facilitated by Tim Frazier. David Victor will chair a second panel discussion with a focus on San Onofre and state issues. The second panel discussion will include the full CEP, a facilitated public comment period, and serve as our Regular Meeting for 1Q 2015.

The doors are opening wider on our discussion of Nuclear Waste at San Onofre. Once again we have the opportunity to bring this topic forward on to the national stage. The question is will you join us? Only you can make your voice heard.

What’s up with the #SCECEP

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:44:00 -0800

In my opinion, I’m very concerned about the way the SCE/CEP was set up and the direction the leadership of SCE/CEP is now taking us. Instead of taking the neutral position and uncovering and observing the evidence as presented they consistently and obviously put a positive spin on it. Everything is fine and SCE is doing the best job possible.

We must ask ourselves does this repeated positive spin serve the public interest? In my opinion No.
Is this Community Engagement Panel doing the best job possible to protect the safety of our communities and California? In my opinion we are not.
Can or will the SCE/CEP make the changes necessary in its charter to become an effective and strong safety advocate for the decommissioning and safe storage of nuclear waste at San Onofre that the people of California deserve until such time as the DOE takes possession of this long-term problem? In my opinion that is still up in the air.

To this point SCE’s attempt to be inclusive and transparent clearly has it’s limits. While asking me and others to bring up the safety concerns of the local citizens, SCE and the SCE/CEP leadership has then glossed over them, seeing these concerns only to be checked off their list one by one. Example; Tim Brown told the CA Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee on Aug 12, 2014 that local concerns have be heard and addressed. Implying some sort of conclusion or satisfaction by all with SCE’s predestined decommissioning plan. Link for Senate hearing http://youtu.be/_q6YulhHpcU?t=1h2m9s starting time for Tim Brown 1:02:10 to 1:17:45. Nothing of course could be further from the truth for many in our local communities. SCE, Inclusiveness is not just a tool to be used on the “Yellow Brick Road to decommissioning”, we are not in the Land of Oz after all. We are however in the backyards of over 8.4 million Californians. SCE and its CEP leadership now have a consistent record of spinning information to fit the SCE agenda. For example, regarding “defense in depth”, the chairman, after being concerned at first at the lack of defense in depth for dry cask long-term storage, concluded after his ‘”careful research”, that citizen activists had not asked about ” defense in depth” for waste storage before and that the nuclear industry and the NRC has done a poor job in defining and getting the word out about “defense in depth” for nuclear waste and dry cask storage. Citing “defense in depth” as cladding on fuel rods, ceramics on the fuel pellets , even the 5/8″ thickness of the canister itself and concrete overpack of the casks as if these were “defense in depth” that were unspoken of in the past. And he was right they were not spoken of in the past as “defense in depth” because they were not considered nor should we consider them today as “defense in depth”. While these have some small measure of defense, they are not in anyway sufficient or adequate for long-term storage of nuclear waste within a heavily populated area like Southern California, and everyone in this nuclear industry knows the calculated risk they are betting on with California’s future.

David Victor’s report Safety of Long-term storage in casks: Issues For San Onofre Dec 9, 2014 does have some items we do agree on: “It is likely that spent fuel will be stored in dry casks at the San Onofre nuclear site for very long periods of time—most likely well beyond the 20-‐year period for initial licensing of the casks.” page 2 of report. “Some elements of what will be needed for “defense in depth” are not yet fully in existence—for example, actual equipment that would allow removal of fuel from a cask without an onsite pool has been designed and a prototype was demonstrated in the 1990s, but no such full scale commercial system currently exists. Similarly, full-‐blown procedures for repairing all forms of cask cracking are not yet fully certified” page 4 of report. Other than these items there is not much here other than “pro nuclear industry spin.” Read full report at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/13DurWxC8l3l_VCNEGXz5bg0V4FJteepR7LVuUjPz4Xk/edit?usp=sharing