NUCLEAR WASTE ACTION ALERT

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

A Little EcoShaming – Powerful Motivation

    

For years my wife and I put off that Solar Array for our roof.  We’d checked into it several times, but the cost always seemed too great to pull the trigger.  Then 3/11/11 brought massive destruction and unthinkable death and suffering for the people of Japan.  It was a wakeup call to me, seeing the Fukushima Daiichi plant in a state of complete disarray.  The earthquake and tsunami left them completely crippled and unable to stop hydrogen explosions in the containment, and unprecidented, three separate reactor core meltdowns.  I immediately started looking for how I could learn more about our local nuclear plant.  I found people who had been actively concerned about the safety of nuclear power for more than 35 years.  As I attended activism rallies and NRC meetings, there were a few voices who seemed to be a little off message at first.  That message was, “If you live in Southern California, and you don’t have solar on your rooftop, then you are part of the problem.  You need to get solar!”  As that sunk in over the next few months, I also was reflecting on the fact that shutting down our unsafe plant would create a new void in our local grid.  After all, one seemingly strong argument Southern California Edison kept making was, “Like it or not, you need our nuclear plant to keep your lights on.”  So 14 months after the Japanese disaster and following the surprise SCRAMming of San Onofre, an act that would eventually become a permanent shutdown, we switched on our 36 panel, 11.5 kW system for the first time.

How did we make the numbers work?  We’re lucky to be pretty well off, but very few of us have $35-$70,000 set aside for ecological feel good renovations.  The truth is, in addition to San Onofre activists encouraging us, there was a solar wave hitting our coast.  Our electric bill had been rising alarmingly for years, now accentuated with 4th tier penalty rates.  Having a koi pond and a swimming pool meant no amount of cutting back on air conditioning on our inland home in Fallbrook was putting a dent in our excessive $400/month bill.  The economy is still pretty weak, and an entire generation of children is asking the question, “What’s an interest rate on a savings account?”  I saw the immense rebates being offered that assured a 30% return on our investment, via a federal solar credit, plus $2500 from California.  Viewed from that perspective, solar was a great initial investment and also one we knew would keep paying us back.  Top it off with the knowledge that we’re now part of the climate change solution, rather than continuing to be part of the problem, and the EcoShaming that a few folks planted in my mind was now a blessing in disguise.  We withdrew a big portion of our rainy day money and took the plunge.

In two and a half years, we’ve generated 44 MegaWatt hours, an average of around 48kWh per day.  Last year, we replaced our original pool pump with a high efficiency variable speed run four times as long at 1/4 the flow rate, resulting in ~75% electric savings on that electric pig.  With that electricity freed up, and because we overbuilt our system as much as we could, we hope to buy an electric vehicle soon, and really start helping to solve climate change, and a whole host of other problems oil dependance has caused.  Notice we put the solar first and the EV car next, making sure that we don’t increase electricity demand from power companies who seem unable to ride the solar wave thus far.  Their loss.  It’s my dream that rooftop solar is adopted by every homeowner and every business nationwide.  Power companies will still be needed to maintain the grid.  They will also need to build and operate hydraulic pump storage to meet our nighttime power needs, including charging electric vehicles.  If you research it a little, you’ll see that pump-storage hydro is now excess power is stored for later usage the world over, even at Helms east of Fresno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations).  I hope our personal story might help encourage you, or someone you know, to ride the solar wave, perhaps with a productive bit of EcoShaming.  Now about that Diablo Canyon…

By Karl Aldinger

Fallbrook, CA

Premature Failure of U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Canisters

In a nutshell all we are saying is that this process should be slowed down to ensure the best possible choice of dry cask canisters is made, spend the money wisely “once” to avert another steam generator type disaster and ensure the safety of California’s future. Gene Stone &  Donna Gilmore.

Premature Failure of U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Canisters

The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) should delay funding the new San Onofre dry cask storage system until Southern California Edison provides written substantiation that the major problems identified below are resolved. 

San Onofre’s Chief Nuclear Officer, Tom Palmisano, told the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee on August 12th that Edison plans to decide in August or September on a dry cask system vendor. The dry casks systems Edison is considering may fail within 30 years or possibly sooner, based on information provided by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) technical staff. And there is no technology to adequately inspect canisters and no system in place to mitigate a failed canister.

Edison created an artificial date of June 2019 to have all the spent fuel assemblies loaded into canisters. We don’t need to rush into another “steam generator” like boondoggle.  Edison’s Tom Palmisano told the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communication Committee on August 12th that issues regarding high burnup fuel and dry cask storage have been addressed. However, these issues have not been resolved.

Canisters may need to be replaced within 30-42 years or sooner. 

Recent information provided by the NRC technical staff indicates dry storage canisters may need to be replaced within 30-42 years or sooner, due to stress corrosion cracking of the thin (1/2 to 5/8 inch) stainless steel canisters (due to our coastal environment). Similar stainless steel materials at nuclear plants have failed within 16 to 33 years.  The concrete overpacks also have aging issues that are accelerated in coastal environments.                                          

Southern California Edison has budgeted $400 million dollars for the dry storage system. As Commissioner Florio stated after the recent CPUC meeting in Costa Mesa, “We don’t want to have to buy these again.”

No remediation plan to repair or replace failed canisters.

The NRC stated that if one of the canisters becomes defective (e.g. 75% through-wall stress corrosion cracks), there is no way to repair or replace the canister; especially if the spent fuel storage and transfer pools are demolished, as Edison plans to do. And before a canister can be transported (inside a transport cask), the canister must not have cracks.

No technology to adequately inspect canisters for stress corrosion cracking.

The NRC states technology does not exist to adequately inspect steel canisters for stress corrosion cracks or to measure how or when the cracks will go through the wall of the canister. They plan to allow the nuclear industry 5 years to try to develop technology. And then they only plan to require inspection of one canister at each nuclear plant.  

No license renewals until aging management issued addressed.

The NRC is in the process of developing an aging management plan due to the new requirement that dry storage systems need to last 100 to 300+ years. They are delaying license renewals until unresolved aging management issues can be addressed. However, they plan to allow the NUHOMS 32PTH2 canister that Edison may procure to be included in an existing license. The NRC is evaluating how long dry storage systems will last. Previously, they only needed to last 20+ years with the assumption there would be a permanent repository.

No canisters approved for high burnup fuel for more than the initial 20 years.

The NRC has not extended licenses past the initial 20 years for storage of high burnup fuel (>45GWd/MTU) due to unknowns about high burnup fuel in storage and transport. This fuel is over twice as radioactive and hotter than lower burnup fuel.  The NRC has allowed nuclear plants to burn fuel longer, without the research to show that it is safe in storage and transport. The protective fuel cladding can become brittle and crack; resulting is higher risk for radiation exposure, if the canisters fail.

NUHOMS dry canister license certification expires in less than nine years.

The NUHOMS DSC-32PTH2 canisters that Edison wants to procure are not yet licensed by the NRC. If approved, the license will expire in less than nine years (February 5, 2023), since Areva-TN decided to avoid a new license certification and include it in their existing license for the DSC-24PT series, which has a different design.

New design of the NUMHOMS DSC-32PTH2 eliminates failed fuel cans.  

Unlike the existing 24 fuel assembly canisters, the new 32 fuel assembly canisters have no provision for Failed Fuel Cans. This means damaged fuel assemblies (of which San Onofre has many) cannot be used in the DSC-32PTH2 canisters. The NRC and DOE require fuel assemblies to be retrievable so they can be transferred to other containers. The Failed Fuel Cans met this requirement.

Background

On July 14th, 15th and August 5th the NRC had public meetings to address aging management issues with dry cask storage system. Their goal is to require an aging management plan before relicensing or issuing new licenses, now that the NRC knows on-site or interim dry cask storage will be needed for up to 300 years or more. The NRC stated the earliest date for a permanent repository is 2048 and that is optimistic. They are researching on-site and interim dry cask storage requirements for 40,100, 150 and 300+ years. No NRC canisters are certified for extended storage or for geological repository storage. Canister licenses for the more dangerous and unstable high burnup (>45GWd/MTU) spent fuel have not been renewed for more than the initial 20 year license, even for expired licenses. And the NRC’s Bob Einziger states there are still transportation problems with high burnup fuel. NRC staff plan to have a draft for public comment regarding dry cask storage relicensing by the end of 2014, according to Mark Lombard, Director, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation. However, this will not address our current issues.

Stainless Steel Dry Canister Problems

Darrell Dunn, an NRC materials engineer, stated stainless steel dry storage canisters are vulnerable to failure within about 25 – 42 years. If any of the fuel cladding in the canister fails, there is no protective barrier and we could have a serious radiation release. The NRC said they have no current mitigation plan for that consequence.  They suggested we MIGHT be able to put the fuel back in the spent fuel pool.  However, Edison plans to destroy the spent fuel and transfer pools. And there is no technology to repair the canisters. The NRC said they HOPE there will be a solution for mitigation in the future. Even an NRC May 2nd High Burnup Fuel letter admits there are mitigation problems.

No Inspections of Stainless Steel Canisters

To make matters worse, these stainless steel canisters are not inspected after they are loaded into the unsealed concrete overpacks (Areva NUHOMS) or concrete casks (Holtec and NAC Magnastor).  The NRC proposed having each nuclear plant inspect the outside of only ONE stainless steel canister before they receive a license renewal and then do that once every 5 years.  The industry balked at having to even check one canister at every plant. The problem with the stainless steel canisters is they do not protect against gamma rays; so it’s not a simple task to remove a canister from the concrete overpack/cask to examine the exterior for corrosion or other degradation. And since welded canisters do not have monitoring for helium leaks, we may not have any warning of an impending radiation release. 

Concrete Overpack Corrosion Problems

Darrell Dunn discussed serious corrosion problems with the concrete overpacks/casks, especially in coastal environments.   

Ductile Cast Iron Casks may be a better solution

Asked if San Onofre would be better off using ductile cast iron casks like the CASTOR, due to our coastal environment, Aladar (Al) Csontos, NRC Branch Chief in the Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation (SFST), said that might be a better option near the ocean. Casks, such as CASTOR, may eventually have aging issues with bolts and seals. The CASTOR has double sealed lids, so even if one fails, we’ll still have a sealed canister. And Edison would be able to easily monitor for cask material degradation with all the casks.

The NRC licensed the CASTOR V/21 ductile cast iron cask years ago and the cask is still in use. In fact, a CASTOR V/21 was used to prove low burnup fuel is safe to store for over 15 years. However, none of the current U.S. cask designs have been tested even though they use a different storage technology.  The U.S. industry chose a different technology (stainless steel/concrete overpack/cask) mainly due to the cost of ductile cast iron at the time and with the assumption that the canisters would only be needed until Yucca Mountain opened. The CASTOR V/21 was considered the “Cadillac” of the industry and the CASTOR line is still very popular in other parts of the world for BOTH storage and transport (including high burnup fuel). The CASTOR canisters have multiple certifications for quality manufacturing, unlike the U.S. stainless steel canisters that are allowed exceptions to ASME and other standards. Material prices for stainless and cast iron have changed, so the price point should be lower.

The CASTOR has pressurized lid monitoring to detect helium leaks and temperature changes. The welded U.S. canisters do not have this capability, but the NRC and Department of Energy (DOE) state this is a high priority issue to resolve.

The inside of the CASTOR cask, including the sealing surface, has a nickel coating for corrosion protection. On the outside, the cask is protected by an epoxy resin coating in the fin area and nickel coating elsewhere.  And unlike the U.S. stainless steel canisters, it does not have stress corrosion cracking issues and does not require a concrete overpack/cask.

The original CASTOR V/21 is almost 15″ thick as opposed to the 1/2″ to 5/8″ stainless steel canisters.  The newer model CASTOR V/19 is almost 20″ thick. There are other ductile cast iron canister brands that are used in other countries. However, the U.S. emphasis on cost rather than longer term safety discourages competition from better quality casks vendors. With new U.S. needs for longer term onsite and interim dry cask storage, this should change.

Forged Steel Casks (AREVA TN Series)

Areva makes thick walled forged steel casks (TN series), which were approved for limited use years ago by the NRC. The TN cask is much thicker than the stainless steel canisters and doesn’t require a cement overpack/cask.  Its specifications are not as robust as the CASTOR, but better than the Areva NUHOMS system that Edison may procure.  Fukushima Daiichi and Germany use some TN casks. Germany mainly uses the CASTOR casks. 

Enclose Casks in Buildings

Both Japan and Germany enclose their casks in buildings for protection from the environment and other external forces. This is something Edison should consider.

Action Needed

No dry cask solution is even close to perfect, but we need to buy ourselves as much time as possible. Given the issues with stress corrosion cracking, concrete degradation, lack of monitoring, and lack of external inspection of stainless steel canisters, we can do better. Spent fuel pools are dangerous. However, the spent fuel needs to cool in the pools for a number of years, so we have time to do a better job selecting a dry cask storage system. Edison’s artificial deadline of June 2019 to have all canisters loaded should not be the driving factor for the future of California.

The NRC does not proactively research dry storage system designs. They only respond to vendor requests for licensing. Vendors will only do this if they think they have a customer lined up for their product. California needs to be that customer. 

Edison should reopen the bidding to include vendors with other cask technology. Edison’s Community Engagement Panel (CEP) had a presentation from Areva, but from no other dry cask storage vendors. Edison only solicited bids from three canister system manufacturers who all have the problems mentioned in this document. Edison requested the NRC approve the NUHOMS 32PTH2 design – it was not licensed when they decided to use it. That license amendment (Docket No. 72-1029, Certificate of Compliance No. 1029 Amendment No. 3) may be approved in August.  However, the CPUC should not approve funding for this canister system.

Edison has not shared with us the documents they used to solicit bids (Request for Proposal), so we have no idea what the requirements are in that bid package.  That would be useful information and the public should have access to this information.

If you have questions about sources for any information, contact Donna Gilmore. There are also detailed references on the SanOnofreSafety.org website.  A link to the NRC July and August presentations as well as other documents discussed here are on the following pages.

Donna Gilmore                                            
SanOnofreSafety.org                                  
949-204-7794, dgilmore@cox.net 

Gene Stone
Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE)                              
Member, SONGS Community Engagement Panel
949-233-7724, genston@sbcglobal.net

References

High Burnup Fuel

High Burnup Nuclear Fuel −Pushing the Safety Envelope, M. Resnikoff, D. Gilmore, Jan 2014  http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hbffactsheet01-09-2014.pdf

Letter from Chairman Macfarlane regarding high burnup fuel, May 2, 2014http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/05-02-14-ltr-to-priscilla-star-fm-chairman-macfarlane.pdf

Response from Donna Gilmore to NRC regarding May 2, 2014 request for NRC high burnup fuel technical basis, June 25, 2014

http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/responsetonrc-hbf-recommendations2014dg.pdf

NRC Presentations

NRC Meeting to Obtain Stakeholder Input on Potential Changes to Guidance for Renewal of Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance, July 14th/15th, 2014 (includes slide presentations)

http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/public-involvement.html

Chloride-Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking Tests and Example Aging Management Program, Darrell S. Dunn, NRC/NMSS/SFST, Public Meeting with NEI on Chloride Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking Regulatory Issue Resolution Protocol, August 5, 2014

https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/8-5-14-scc-rirp-nrc-presentation.pdf

CASTOR Dry Casks (Ductile cast iron cask technology)

CASTOR V/21 NRC Certificate of Compliance and Safety Analysis Report, August 17, 1990   http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0330/ML033020117.pdf

CASTOR brochure (includes the CASTOR V/19 and other ductile cast iron casks).

http://www.siempelkamp.com/fileadmin/media/Englisch/Nukleartechnik/produkte/CASTOR_A_high_tech_Product_made_of_ductile_Cast_Iron.pdf

GNS’ [CASTOR] experience in the long-term storage at dry interim storage facilities in Ahaus and Gorleben, IAEA Vienna, May 20, 2014  http://bit.ly/1jUSNOZ

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Experience, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (GNS Castor V/21, Transnuclear TN-24P, Westinghouse MC-10, NAC S-100-C), 1987

https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/NJC-1-2-11.pdf

BAM test results for CASTOR transport containers

http://www.tes.bam.de/en/umschliessungen/behaelter_radioaktive_stoffe/behaelterpruefungen/index.htm#castor

Fracture Mechanics Based Design for Radioactive Material Transport Packagings, Historical Review, Sandia SAND98-0764 UC-804, April 1998http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/654001

GNS CASTOR Presentation, June 09-11, 2010, Varna, Bulgaria (slide 18: CASTOR V/19, V52)

http://www.bulatom-bg.org/files/conferences/dokladi2010/Section%203/Report_Thomas.pdf

Areva TN Series Casks (forged steel cask technology)

TN-24 NRC Certificate of Compliance and Safety Analysis Report, November 4, 1993

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0330/ML033020128.pdf

AREVA Innovation in the Design of the Used Fuel Storage System, CRIEPI Tokyo, November 15-17, 2010 (includes information on TN 24 casks)

http://criepi.denken.or.jp/result/event/seminar/2010/issf/pdf/4-1_powerpoint.pdf

AREVA Dual Purpose Casks in Operation, AREVA TN Experience, Vienna, May 19-21, 2014 http://bit.ly/1l9xO5R

NUHOMS 32PTH2 and San Onofre Decommissioning Plans

NRC Certificate of Compliance for Spent Fuel Storage Casks, COC 1029, Docket 72-1029, Amendment 3, Model No. Standardized Advanced NUHOMS®-24PT1, 24PT4, and 32PTH2,  expires 02/05/2023 (pending NRC approval as of 8/20/2014)

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1329/ML13290A176.pdf

Comments on Direct Rule re List of Approved Storage Casks (79 Fed. Reg. 21,121 (April 15, 2014), Request for Rescission of the Direct Rule, and Request for Publication of a New and Revised Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. 13-0271, Diane Curran, on behalf of 20 environmental organizations and individuals.

https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/2014-05-15-comment-letter-to-nrc-re-nuhoms-cask-approval-corrected-2014-05-27.pdf

February 10, 2012 letter from Edison to NRC: Support for NRC Review of Transnuclear Inc. Application for Amendment 3 to the Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® Certificate of Compliance No. 1029, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Docket Nos. 50-36, 50-362 and 72041

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12046A013.pdf

Update on Decommissioning Plans, Tom Palmisano, Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer, August 12, 2014 presentation to CA Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, Chairman Alex Padilla

http://seuc.senate.ca.gov/sites/seuc.senate.ca.gov/files/08-12-14%20Edison%20presentation.pdf

Community Engagement Panel Correspondence

High Burnup Fuel and Dry Cask Storage Issues, July 17, 2014 letter to CEP Chairman David Victor from Donna Gilmore, San Onofre Safety

https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/lettertodavidvictor2014-07-17dg.pdf

David Victor testimony to NRC Commissioners, July 15, 2014

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/slides/2014/20140715/victor-20140715.pdf

Additional references at SanOnofreSafety.org

2 ACTION ALERTS NEED YOUR COMMENTS!

1st ACTION ITEM;

Please write to all the NRC Commissioners in support of the Chairperson MacFarlane idea to update the NRC Regs in a effort to make it clear for all Plant owners and the public on the decommissioning process for nuclear plants and the handling of "HBF" (high burn fuel). Please ask the Commissioners to have the NRC open a old cask with HBF in it to check on condition of this highly dangerous fuel and the cask condition.

Here are the email address:
Chairman@nrc.gov
CMRSVINICKI@nrc.gov
CMRMAGWOOD@nrc.gov
CMROSTENDORFF@nrc.gov

2nd ACTION ITEM;

THE EPA WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMENTS! DEADLINE AUGUST 3rd.
Both proponents and opponents of nuclear power expect the
Environmental Protection Agency in coming months to relax its rules
restricting radiation emissions from reactors and other nuclear
facilities. EPA officials say they have no such intention, but they
are willing to reconsider the method they use to limit public
exposure—and the public’s level of risk. Comment by August 3, 2014.
The EPA is seeking public input here http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0689-0001 upper right corner "comment now".

Thanks for your activism.

Sincerely,

Gene Stone, ROSE

San Onofre Priorities: On-Site Safety, Off-Site Storage

June 7 marks the first anniversary of Southern California Edison’s decision to permanently close the troubled San Onofre nuclear plant near San Clemente. Gene Stone of Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) summed it up this way: “We are safer – but we are not yet safe.”

There are two crucial matters: the quality of storage technology on-site at San Onofre, and the prospects for long-term storage at a remote site.

The accuracy of Stone’s words was confirmed at a May 6 workshop on managing nuclear fuel waste. Tom Palmisano, senior nuclear officer for Edison, reported that cooling pools at San Onofre currently hold 2668 spent fuel assemblies including 1115 “high burn-up,” a fuel type that is hotter both thermally and radioactively than conventional fuel.

Spent fuel from Unit 1 is already in dry casks holding 24 assemblies each. Removal of Unit 2 and Unit 3 fuel from pools will require 100 more 32-unit casks. This will triple the footprint of the concrete storage structure, from today’s 200 x 400 feet to an ultimate 400 x 600 feet.

Experts are unanimous that fuel pool hazards are far greater than dry cask storage and the intent is to complete transfer in 5 to 7 years. At that point the focus shifts to long-term safety of casks.

A lively debate at the May 6 workshop pitted Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates against Michael McMahon from cask manufacturer AREVA and Drew Barto, lead on spent fuel storage and transportation for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Resnikoff reviewed the performance hazards and risks in cask safety for long-term on-site storage and off-site transport. McMahon and Barto countered with advances in design technology that they say provide a robust and secure storage system even for high burn-up fuel. Through this exchange of sharply differing views, the workshop added value by throwing the spotlight on key technical issues in specific ways that can be debated to a point of resolution. Nuclear safety advocates will be watching the outcome closely.

The other major contribution of the workshop was to confirm a striking degree of unanimity regarding the need to revitalize the process for locating and developing sites for long-term remote storage. Gains in on-site safety promised by technology advances did not diminish the consensus that spent fuel waste should be removed from San Onofre at the earlier possible opportunity.

In part this reflects the unusually exposed nature of the San Onofre site. But sentiment runs deeper. Per Peterson, a member of the NRC’s Blue Ribbon Commission, expressed a feeling little short of dismay at the national failure to identify and develop remote storage. Edison said it is committed to this outcome as the fully satisfactory solution. Members of the expert panel as well as the Citizens Engagement Panel (CEP) that hosted the event made it clear that indefinite on-site storage remains unacceptable.

Message to the NRC: San Onofre may be the test case where all parties are urging a better way than the grotesque and inappropriate land-use outcome of constructing a nuclear waste mausoleum at San Onofre or at any other closed nuclear plant.

Dr. David Victor of UC San Diego chairs the CEP, which organized the workshop. He summed up the discussion this way: “We have an obligation to make the long-term storage of fuel as safe as possible and practical. We need a strategy for federal action on consolidated storage and ultimate repositories. Toward that end, we should articulate what we as a community need—and carry through with the Governor and Congress to assure they give priority to what is most important.”

Enter Senator Barbara Boxer and colleagues Sanders and Markey. On May 16 they introduced Senate bills S. 2324, 2325 and 2326, which would:
• Require the NRC to cease its current practice of issuing exemptions to emergency response and security requirements for spent fuel at closed nuclear reactors, unless all fuel storage at the site is in dry casks.
• Ensure that host states and communities have a meaningful role in shaping decommissioning plans for retired nuclear plants.
• Require for the first time that the NRC to explicitly and publicly approve or reject each proposed decommissioning plan.
• Ensure operator compliance with the NRC requirement that spent nuclear fuel be removed from pools and placed into dry cask storage within 7 years after the decommissioning plan is submitted to the NRC.
• Provide funding to help reactor licensees implement plans for decommissioning nuclear plants.
• Expand the emergency planning zone for non-compliant reactor operators to 50 miles.

The Boxer-Sanders-Markey bills are classic legislative oversight. They close safety-related loopholes and provide a more accountable and participatory process for affected area residents.
These sensible steps do not in themselves deal with on-site storage design technology or remote site development. But they are in the spirit of comprehensive nuclear waste management, which remains one of America’s largest environmental challenges.

By Gleen Pascall
Sierra Club

To all who will help make California safe for our children's future

To all who will help make California safe for our children's future,

Public meeting of the new SCE CEP (Community Engagement Panel) about the decommissioning of SONGS will be Tuesday, March 25 from 6 to 9 p.m. . The meeting will be held at the San Clemente Community Center and people will have a 3 minute comment period at some point in this meeting.  San Clemente Community Center is located at 100 North Calle Seville, San Clemente, CA.

This is the start of a very important process for our community and all of Southern California. Please tell your friend and show up to this meeting if at all possible.

Just some of the issues we need talked about are at this meeting:

High burnup fuel at San Onofre 

Waste storage at San Onofre

Dry Cask being storage in the safest way

If problem happens in the Cask what is SCE plan to mitigate this problem, if none exist then SCE needs to develop adequate strategies to detect and mitigate unexpected degradation during dry storage.

transportation casks for HBF does not exist

I will send another email with the latest document from Marvin Resnikoff and Donna Gilmore on High burnup fuel.

Sincerely,

Gene Stone

Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE)

ROSE’s 2nd free solar project goes to PMMC in Laguna Beach, CA.

WANT TO STOP NUKE’S then join with us. ROSE’s 2nd Solar Project. Solar Panels For Marine Mammals in Laguna Beach Ca. Pacific Marine Mammal Center’s Fundraiser on CrowdRise http://www.crowdrise.com/solarpanelsformarine

Now that we have shutdown San Onofre please help with our 2nd free solar project and be part of the solution to CA’s energy needs.

 THE STORY: Help light up the lives of marine mammals by helping Pacific Marine Mammal Center, a non-profit organization that rescues and rehabilitates marine mammals, go SOLAR! The new year brings new goals, and for 2014 we at PMMC have set our focus on making a big effort towards becoming a more environmentally friendly hospital. By adding solar panels to our facility, PMMC will be able to reduce its energy costs by more than 30%, which saves over $500 in utilities for our Center. Because every $1 at PMMC equals 1 lb of fish, this is approximately 500 more lbs of fish for our seal and sea lion patients each and every month! Help us reduce our energy costs, become a leader in green initiatives, and put more funds back towards food and medication for marine mammals. PMMC has partnered with Planet Earth Solar, LLC and R.O.S.E. (Residents Organized for a Safe Environment) http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/ to help make this project a reality. Planet Earth Solar has already agreed to donate much of their labor and supportive materials, and R.O.S.E. has already helped us to raise over $2,000 for the project! Please join with us on our journey to be better stewards of the environment and make a tax-deductible contribution to PMMC’s Solar Panel project.