Nuke Dump Outlet Mall San Clemente

 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 

Notes from David G. Victor SCE/CEP Chairman

Here are two important notes from David G. Victor SCE/CEP chairman.  Reading these carefully will give you insight into David’s understanding and misconceptions of how Southern California should proceed with the decommissioning of SONGS and it’s new life as a Nuclear Waste Dump, and how in the world to work with the NRC.

Overall in my opinion he is starting to get the complexities in decommissioning a Nuke Plant with 8,4 million people within a 50 mile radius and the lack of real direction and oversight by the NRC.

To read these note click on the links below.

NRC, 15 July 2014 visit

Victor at NRC 15 July 2014 (1)

By Gene Stone, ROSE

Share this:

San Onofre Long Term High-level Nuke Waste Repository

Residents Organized for Safe Environment (ROSE) Statement of Concern:

ROSE believes that the NRC’s stated alternative to Change the Waste Confidence away from the small step approach to the long-term Waste Confidence program for 200 years to make nuclear power plant sites into nuclear waste dumps for 200 years is shortsighted and completely without regard for the safety of the millions of citizens who populate the areas around these power plants.
This type of decision by the NRC, demands that the public take action to secure its own safety from the hazards of such a nuclear waste dump in their vicinity wherever it is located. It calls into question the very mandate itself of the NRC “Protecting People and the Environment” and leads us to the conclusion that the NRC is no longer capable of Protecting the People and the Environment. This may mean it is time to consider disbanding the NRC and forming a new protective agency led by the citizens themselves who have no vested interest in protecting the nuclear industry.

NRC Draft Report for Comment Dec 2011 Waste storage policy. Background and Preliminary Assumptions For an Environmental Impact Statement.—Long-Term Waste Confidence Update. States
6. Alternatives Under the National Environmental Policy Act
“The proposed action is a change to the Commission.’s current Waste Confidence decision and rule, which requires the Commission to revisit the issue of Waste Confidence every five to ten years. As part of this process, the Commission has revised Waste Confidence twice since 1984, and each time has expanded the temporal scope of its analysis by a few decades. This long-term Waste Confidence update would move away from this small-step approach, and would extend the temporal scope of Waste Confidence by as many as 200 years. The EIS will include an analysis of the impacts of four storage scenarios in order to assess the magnitude and range of impacts and the safety of extended storage. Section 8 of this report discusses these scenarios. As with the current Waste Confidence rule and decision, the Waste Confidence EIS will generically describe the potential impacts of extended storage and will assume that the storage of spent nuclear fuel will continue to be a regulated activity in the future. Unlike the current Waste Confidence rule and decision, this long-term Waste Confidence EIS will not require reconsideration of a possible update to the rule and decision every five to ten years.

The no-action alternative is to continue to review the Waste Confidence decision and rule for updates every 5 to 10 years.”
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/