How to support the "Nuclear Waste Symposium"

Please support our Nuclear Waste Symposium today

Two months ago, civic and environmental activists won a big victory in shutting down the San Onofre nuclear plant. It may seem that all is now quiet in San Onofre land - but it is not. Our Coalition to Decommission San Onofre has been startled by the huge challenge in dealing with radioactive nuclear waste at the plant. The issues include: unusually potent forms of fuel, dense storage of spent fuel far beyond design limits, large uncertainties about where the waste will ultimately be stored and for how long, and last but not least, the economics of decommissioning. These issues were below the radar during the shutdown debate but now they loom large.

We are organizing a symposium for October featuring highly-regarded national experts on the key issues, with plenty of time for questions to panelists and group discussion. Our immediate goal is to assure that best practices will be applied to minimize the risk for those who must live with San Onofre as a nuclear waste dump. Our ultimate goal is to reinvigorate the national discussion about what to do with America’s radioactive nuclear waste.  

Our target date is Oct 19, 2013. We need your help to make sure this important symposium comes to life. Please take moment right now to make your tax deductible donation today at paypal https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5K6JAPS2EGU4W   Based on necessary expenses for the event, our fund-raising goal is $9000. We have received $1000 as challenge grant from Glenn Pascall to start us off. Anyone who matches or exceeds this generous gift will be invited to join us for dinner afterwards with coalition leaders and with national experts who are our invited guest speakers. Any amount is welcomed.  If you prefer to write a check you can send to my address at 1203 Via Presa, San Clemente CA. 92672 using the name "Coalition to Decommission San Onofre", bottom, bottom left under memo please write "Nuclear Waste Symposium".

Our coalition member groups include: Peace Resource Center of San Diego, Citizens Oversight Project, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Women Occupy San Diego, San Clemente Green, San Onofre Safety, and Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE).

Gene Stone

Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE)
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/

Related articles

• Symposium on Decommissioning San Onofre and the Ongoing Dangers of Nuclear Waste
• Public meeting about decommissioning process for san Onofre Nuclear Power PLant
• Hot Spot Near West Lake Landfill Raises Concerns
• Oregon GOP Official: Drop nuclear waste from airplanes for its health benefits - Add radioactive material from San Onofre to our drinking water (VIDEO)
• Fukushima's continuing struggles raise questions about America's nuclear waste storage

TO THE PEOPLE OF JAPAN

To the people of Japan,

We, the anti-nuclear activists and environmentalists around the world, are very sorry this catastrophic nuclear accident has happened to the people in the land of Japan. We will continue to support and pray for you all.

Take heart and be strong and do not lose faith because in the aftermath of this tragic accident, there have been many thousands of people in the streets protesting one of the worst environmental disasters in the world. You now have a chance to lead the world and show us how to break the corrupt connection between the nuclear industry and governments.  You also have the opportunity to lead us in finding the solution of what to do with nuclear waste.  This, the whole world desperately needs.  I am speaking of the many millions of pounds of nuclear waste that are now present in our one world. It is not too late.  We still have time to prevent the looming disasters that the nuclear power industry and corrupt governments are perpetrating on the people of the world.

Take heart and lead the people as the strong and powerful intellectual force that you are.  Lead us in the right actions to save the world from any future nuclear disasters. We are counting on you and stand with you.

Gene Stone

ROSE, http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/

Related articles

• 2 years after nuclear disaster, Japan spawns freaky fruits and veggies
• 60,000 in Tokyo protest government plans to restart nuclear power
• Residents Challenge Pilgrim's Permit For New Nuclear Waste Site
• Fukushima plant boss hailed as hero dies

Corporate Terrorism

Corporate Terrorism

It is now clear that the NUCLEAR MAFIA and their cronies at the NRC, U.S. Gov’t and CA State Gov’t plan to perpetrate another act of nuclear terrorism upon the people of Southern California and the world. By allowing Southern California Edison to restart the damaged and defective reactor number two that has not even been repaired, to experimentally restart at 70% power sometime in June or July 2013.

I say terrorism because many people in California are afraid for the health of their children, their property values, and what would happen if a major nuclear accident happened at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station? By definition terrorism is an act that its purpose is to create fear. Just thinking about the evacuation plan that every Californian knows would not work, and having to shelter in place during a nuclear meltdown at SONGS.  Then after the radiation damage to people's health has been done just like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the government will announce in a month or two (far too late) that in a 10, 20 or 30 mile radius will be an exclusion zone due to high radiation levels, and everyone has to leave their homes and possessions to go live in a refugee camp somewhere in Riverside County. The loss of billions in property values, infrastructure (schools, roads, beaches, farm land and food crops, local governments) personal disruptions and destruction of several millions lives, all put at risk in the name of profits for SCE. 

What will be the fate of Southern California if this act of Nuclear Terrorism by the NUCLEAR MAFIA is allowed this experimental restart at San Onofre Nuke plant?

Sent to me anonymously

The Pledge

I commit to conserving electrical power and other forms of energy as much as possible each and every Wednesday. I will also continue to conserve electrical usage throughout the week and think conservation and energy efficiency in other areas of my life.

I will continue to conserve electrical energy until all dirty and outdated forms of electrical generating facilities are decommissioned and replaced with clean renewable sources of energy.

ACTION ALERT-TAKE ACTION NOW

ACTION ALERT: ROSE is asking that you join us and share with your friends this very important strategy at this time. Call write or email Gov Brown, NRC Chairman MacFarlane and CA PUC.

Please write or call Gov Brown and ask him to support the people of CA in our effort to coordinate the actions of these two government agencies. We demand that the NRC make no decision to restart San Onofre (SONGS) until the PUC has done it's work and made their decision as to whether it is cost effective for Californians to have to pay any more rate increases for a dangerously defective nuclear power plant. It is now time the PUC and NRC work together on the same timeline for the good of Californians and our economy.

Governor Jerry Brown

c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160
http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php

Annette L. Vietti-Cook
Secretary of the Commission
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop O-16G4
Washington, DC 20555-0001
(301) 415-1969
NRCExecSec@nrc.gov

CPUC
San Francisco Office (Headquarters)
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
415.703.2782
800.848.5580

NRC, Edison "Far From The Truth Of San Onofre In Maryland"

The NRC should find a suitable location on this map. 

The 12/18/12 NRC public meeting regarding Edison's proposed restart of its defective San Onofre nuclear reactor should NOT be held in Maryland.

It should be re-scheduled for next year in a location near the public and media most impacted by the NRC's decision. NO TRUST. NO RESTART!"

Thank You for your Support --

The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre

Dear Senators Boxer and Feinstein, and NRC Commissioners,

As one of almost 9 million residents, parents, business owners, workers and/or students within 50 miles of the defective nuclear reactors at San Onofre in Southern California, I am very disappointed and angry that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff is holding a "public meeting" on the operator's proposed restart of one of these defective reactors one week before Christmas at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. NOT in the vicinity of the plant, where those of us most impacted by the NRC's decision on this proposal can attend in person.

I accept the fact that not everyone who attends an NRC public meeting in person and wants to speak will have a chance to do so, but at least those who do speak are in a forum where local citizens are present, as well as our local media. Limiting us and our local media to indirect, one-way access to the meeting via Webcast is NOT in the public's best interest. The NRC has an obligation to put our needs before NRC staff's convenience. While Webcasting and a Telephone Bridge may be appropriate for those who live far from the plant under discussion or could not physically attend the meeting, it is certainly a disservice to those of us who stand directly in harm's way if things go terribly wrong.

I demand that the NRC Staff reschedule this "Category 1 Public Meeting" until after the New Year to a location readily accessible to the public impacted by the NRC's decision on Edison's proposal to restart this defective nuclear reactor in our midst.

On the NRC's website, "Important Information for Meeting Attendees," describes "Category 1 Public Meetings" (such as this one) in the NRC's open meeting policy as: 'The public is invited to observe these meetings and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned."

How are the "opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned" afforded when public access is primarly via one-way Webcast and/or Telephone Bridge? EFFECTIVE "open public meetings" must be held in the area impacted by the action or decision being contemplated by the NRC.

My trust in the NRC, and that of many others in the vicinity of San Onofre, can only be restored by our personal witness of the NRC in action and the ability to ask questions interactively. NO TRUST. NO RESTART.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)
(Your City)

Send the foregoing message to:

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. Tel: (202) 224-3553/ E-Mail: via Webform athttp://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/policycomments.cfm

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. Tel: (202) 224-3841/ E-mail: via Webform at https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane. Tel: (301) 415-1750/ E-Mail: Chairman@nrc.gov

Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki. Tel: (301) 415-1855/ E-Mail: CMRSVINICKI@nrc.gov (She is on Facebook, too: Kristine Svinicki -- you can Message her w/o being Friends.)

Commissioner George Apostolakis. Tel: (301) 415-1810/ E-Mail: CMRAPOSTOLAKIS@nrc.gov

Commissioner William D. Magwood. Tel: (301) 415-8420/ E-Mail: CMRMAGWOOD@nrc.gov

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff. Tel: (301) 415-1800/ E-Mail: CMROSTENDORFF@nrc.gov

Will the NRC give SCE what it wants, permission to restart unit 2?

Will the NRC give SCE what it wants, permission to restart?

A PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station DOCKET: 05000361/362 November 16th, 2012 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. (PDT) LOCATION: Doubletree Guest Suites, Doheny Beach, CA 34402 Pacific Coast Highway Dana Point, CA 92629.

The 8.4 million citizens in the 50 radius of San Onofre should be very worried about the Southern California Edison's plan to restart unit number two at SONGS. SCE will explain in detail their plan of action to restart unit #2 at this meeting. For your information and safety please attend this meeting. Will the NRC give SCE want it wants, which is permission for them to restart without making any repairs to unit #2, with only the addition of a sound listening device to hear if there is a new steam leak?

The NRC has not replied to the public demand for an adjudicated public hearing that was clearly heard and understood by Mr. Collins at the last NRC meeting on San Onofre on October 9, 2012. How long will the public have to wait for an answer? Time is running out, and the NRC's credibility is once again in question. Just what are the NRC alliances? Why is there such a rush to restart this defective steam generator? 

Will the NRC ever respond to the questions submitted by David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists?  These question where:

Union of Concerned Scientists has serious concerns about Southern California Edison’s (SCE) restart plans for San Onofre Unit 2. In a 10/12/2012 letter submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), David Lochbaum, Director, Nuclear Safety Project, identified the following issues:

1.      Unit 2 replacement steam generator 2SG89 has significantly more wear indications per number of supports than does [Unit 2] replacement steam generator 2SG88. Until the reason for this marked difference between the wear degradation for the Unit 2 replacement steam generators is understood, the operational assessment performed for future operation is suspect. [See graph in Lochbaum letter].

2.      Since all four replacement steam generators came from the same manufacturer, were of the same design, made of the same materials, assembled using the same procedures, and operated under nearly identical conditions in twin reactors, the reason for this marked difference is unclear… [the] explanation is not well documented and therefore appears to be more convenient than factual.

3.      The document states that the owner will “administratively limit Unit 2 to 70% reactor power prior to a mid-cycle” outage to inspect the replacement steam generators. What are the legal consequences if the reactor power were to increase to 75%, 85% or 100% power? The NRC has licensed San Onofre Unit 2 to operate at 100% power. What would legally prevent the owner from restarting Unit 2 and increasing its output to the NRC licensed limit? The NRC’s enforcement program includes sanctions when its regulations are violated, but nothing for broken promises. If the NRC agrees that reactor operation at less than 100 percent power is warranted, it should enforce that reduction with an order or comparable legally-enforceable document.

4.      Table 8-1 of Enclosure 2 and its accompanying text attempt to explain how operating Unit 2 at 70% power will prevent the tube-to-tube wear (TTW) experienced on Unit 3 by comparing it to an anonymous reactor (called Plant A). ..reliance on one suspect data point (Plant A) is hardly solid justification for operation and 70% power being acceptable.

5.      There is no justification in this 80-plus page document for an operating duration of 150 days.

6.      … there are no legal means compelling the plant’s owner to shut down Unit 2 after 150 days of operation at or above 15% power.

7.      ...a temporary nitrogen-16 radiation detection system will be installed prior to the Unit 2 startup. However, there is no commitment to use it after startup, or to keep it in service should it stop functioning. The detection system is proposed as a defense-in-depth measure, but there is no assurance it will be operated.

8.      Attachment 6 to Enclosure 2 has proprietary information redacted. Section 1.4 of Enclosure 2 states that the owner used AREVA, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, and Intertek/APTECH to review the operational assessment. At least one of these companies manufactures replacement steam generators and would therefore be a competitor to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), which made the replacement steam generators for San Onofre. If the owner did not withhold the proprietary information from MHI’s competitors, why withhold it at all? If SCE did withhold the proprietary information from these reviewers, what is the value of their independent, but limited, review?

The question has to be asked should the restart be put on hold until the Academy of Science cancer study is completed, and should real time radiation monitoring be put in place on NRC's or SCE's website prior to a restart? The public needs to see for themselves what is being released when this defective steam generator blows again.

It is clear to ROSE that the rush to restart unit two is on, and the decision by the NRC to let SCE move forward has been made at the highest levels of the NRC.

One last question remains will you stand up for the public’s right to know and for the safety our children deserve?

Gene Stone, ROSE

http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/

10-18-12 SCE's RSG Testing Update + New NRC Blog Topic

The NRC has just posted this new topic on their blog site:

In Response to Your Letters: Proposed Restart of SONGS Unit 2

by Allison Macfarlane

NRC Chairman

http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/

You are encouraged to add your own comments, but be advised that moderation/posting is glacial!

====== 10/18/12 RESTART NEWS UPDATE =====

Information Concerning SCE's Ongoing RSG  Restart Testing At SanO:

I saw this info and I've had this email conversation with NRC Region IV about it:

(I saw this on Oct. 17, 2012 and sent it to the NRC)

Sir

I saw this posted on Twitter today and wanted to forward it to you, in the hope that it is not factual, because if it is, then the NRC has more problems at San Onofre than just damaged and leaking SG tubes...

This was posted on Facebook:

"ACTION ALERT! San Onofre Nuke Plant could Re-Start Within 10 Days!
From a whistle-blower at San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California: "We are working on Unit 2, bringing it up from Mode 5 to 4 and are preparing to go from Mode 4 to 3 by the weekend of October 20th. Southern California Edison (SCE) brought in the auxiliary boiler (which runs off of oil), and assigned 12 hour shifts. SCE are making damn sure that no steam leaves the domes for fear the public will catch on. I can’t believe how audacious they are, but for all practical purposes, they are going to restart Unit 2—which still is highly radioactive—without the NRC thoroughly reviewing Edison’s application that was just submitted. Their motivation is to see if they fixed the new reactor head which leaked profusely the first time they tried it. They don’t want anything holding them back from actually restarting when they get the green light from the NRC. The NRC’s Confirmatory Action Letter allows them to take it up to Mode 3 because the reactor is not “critical”, (fission reaction is on hold). They are trying to beat the clock before time runs out on them and the CPUC (California Public Utility Commission) sticks Edison with the cost of the outage instead of the ratepayers.” -M

Question: Has the NRC approved this new TESTING, (as it was my understanding that there would be no restarting until the NRC decided it was safe to do so)?   You should be able to confirm the validity of the above with a simple phone call to the resident inspector at San Onofre...

Hopefully Mr. Elmo Collins will honor his quote, "We don't experiment with safety"...

I look forward to your timely response, as I want to give the NRC a chance to comment before publishing the above.

=====

I got this reply on Oct. 18, 2012:

Southern California Edison is permitted, by their license, and by the Confirmatory Action Letter issued March 27, 2012, to heat up and pressurize Unit 2 to normal operating pressure and temperature.  This heat up is being done using offsite electrical power.  This is NOT starting up the plant.  The safety concern with Unit 2 steam generators is the excessive vibration that occurs during high steam flow conditions in the steam generator, which may result in unexpected and rapid steam generator tube wear.  This cannot occur in the condition the plant is being taken to.  The steam generators will be hot, and pressurized, but there is no heat generation from the reactor, and the heat generation from the auxiliary boiler and reactor coolant (electric) pumps is very small and cannot produce enough energy to cause vibration in the steam generator tubes.  

The NRC has no concern with the structural integrity of the Unit 2 steam generator tubes today, in their current reactor shutdown condition.  The NRC is currently evaluating Southern California Edison’s proposal to restart the reactor.  This proposal states that Unit 2 can be operated, meaning it can start the reactor to produce the large amount of heat and steam flow for 70% of normal full power operation.  This amount of steam flow must be shown to not result in additional unexpected and excessive tube wear, or the NRC will not allow the reactor to be restarted. 

The reactor has not been, and will not be started up until NRC has granted permission.  The “testing” that is being referred to is normal testing that is allowed by the current license at San Onofre.  The “testing” that Mr. Collins was referring to is any test or experiment that is not currently an approved procedure and is outside the safety analysis as described in the facility Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.  As an example, the NRC would not allow the reactor to be restarted, producing the large amount of heat and steam flow, so that the licensee could monitor tube vibration to ‘see’ if excessive vibration is occurring – that would be a “test”.  The licensee must prove, with reasonable assurance, before starting the reactor, that excessive vibration will NOT occur.

Victor Dricks

Public Affairs Officer

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission / Region IV

=====

So I sent this reply yesterday:

Question 1 – Is the pressurized and hot reactor coolant (Any Amount) being circulated through SG 2E-089 under these test conditions?

Question 2 – Does the NRC postulate a MSLB outside containment under these test conditions?

Question 3 – If the answer to Question 1 and 2 is yes, does NRC postulate > 99.6 % steam voiding in the U-Tube Bundle?

 The public is going to ask ,"What is going on between Region IV and the NRC? People need the answers in a hurry.  Is the NRC more concerned about the Safety of The Public or letting Edison get away with whatever they want to do?  If NRC was strict from the very beginning with Edison, things would not have to come to this.  There is still time.  Here is a quote for your benefit, An anonymous participant in an Industry Conference was asking questions and persistently complaining about complex and unclear NRC regulations.  A NRC Branch Chief said, "Sir, to resolve any complex technical problem and understand unclear regulations, you have to, 'Read and reread in between the lines', use, 'Critical questioning and an investigative attitude' and 'Solid teamwork & alignment'."

=====

I'll update this post, if I get any additional replies

Best

CaptD

CPUC - DRAFT ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION REGARDING SONGS UNITS 2 AND 3

The San Francisco-based California Public Utilities Commission on Tuesday published a draft investigation order regarding the idled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

 It will take up the matter at a public meeting Oct. 25 in Irvine. 

                                                   --> Salute to UT's Morgan Lee

COM/MF1/sbf                                     DRAFT                              Agenda ID #11659 

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Rates, Operations, Practices, Services and Facilities of Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company Associated with the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3.

Investigation_________

ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION REGARDING SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3

Complete CPUC Draft Order

snip:

1. Introduction

We open this investigation to consolidate and consider issues raised by the extended outages of Units 2 and 3 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). This includes determining whether to order the immediate removal effective today of all costs related to SONGS from the rates of Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), with placement of those costs in a deferred debit account pending the return of one or both facilities to useful service or other possible action. It also includes considering appropriate rate treatment for all SONGS-related costs in other proceedings.

This investigation will consider the causes of the outages, the utilities’ responses, the future of the SONGS units, and the resulting effects on the provision of safe and reliable electric service at just and reasonable rates. Due to the size, location, ownership structure, and unique nuclear licensing requirements of SONGS, the unexpected outages raise particularly complex issues. These issues come before us in many proceedings. This investigation will consider these issues in a consolidated manner that is efficient for the utilities, parties and the Commission. To facilitate that objective, all costs incurred on and after January 1, 2012 that are associated with SONGS shall be tracked in a memorandum account. SCE and SDG&E shall each, within 30 days of today, file with the Energy Division Director and serve on the service list a Tier 1 advice letter to establish that account, including specified subaccounts.

FOE --> San Onofre - Feds Stonewall FOE's Petition For Legal Hearing On Reactor Restart

Posted Oct. 16, 2012,           Salute to FOE!

WASHINGTON, D.C. --  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s continued refusal to consider a legally binding hearing on the future of the San Onofre nuclear plant has prompted Friends of the Earth to accuse the agency of failing to protect the public and of failing to follow its own rules and procedures. 


More than three months have passed since Friends of the Earth petitioned the NRC for a legally binding hearing on the future of the crippled plant. In that time, the NRC has failed to even schedule a discussion of the petition. Now that Southern California Edison has submitted a plan to restart one of San Onofre’s reactors, Friends of the Earth is reiterating its request that the NRC begin a license amendment process to determine if San Onofre is safe to operate and is asking for an emergency stay to keep the plant closed in the meantime.

In a letter to the NRC , Friends of the Earth said: “Time is being wasted.” The organization argued that that the Commission is not only ignoring the law but precedent in a strikingly similar case.



In 2002, the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona – partly owned by Edison – replaced two steam generators of similar design to those used at San Onofre. Under NRC rules, when utilities replace major equipment with a revised design that affects the unit’s safe operation, the licensee must obtain a license amendment. Palo Verde’s operators did so.

In contrast, when Edison replaced the steam generators at San Onofre, the utility claimed it was “like for like” – so similar to the units it was replacing that no license amendment was required.  But Edison in fact made major design changes to the new steam generators that caused the equipment to degrade and fail after less than two years of operation.  These errors in design and the steam generators’ failure are now critical to the question as to whether it’s safe to operate either of the San Onofre reactors.

“It cannot be lawful for utilities to pick and choose the process they undergo,” Friends of the Earth wrote to the NRC. Friends of the Earth “seeks only that this Commission enforce its own rules in an even-handed manner. . . .  We submit that, consistent with its decision on the Palo Verde plant, its own regulations, and the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission, not the staff, must decide the point and must grant the petition filed by Friends of the Earth and convene a licensing proceeding to amend formally the license for San Onofre

”

To read the letter to the NRC: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/23/6/2497/12-10-16_Letter_to_the_NRC.pdf

CONTACT: 
Damon Moglen, (202) 222-0708 
Dave Freeman, (310) 902-2147

Categories: Climate And Energy, News Releases, San Onofre News