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
So Cal Edison is now burying 136 Chernobyl's of radioactive waste 100 feet from the ocean in thin cans. #SaveTrestles
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Recommendations for temporary storage of Nuclear Waste at San Onofre
How long will SONGS be a Nuclear Waste Dump? That answer is unclear at best. But for sure it will be here longer than anyone wants. So it will be safest and cheapest to store it right the first time! SCE and NRC love’s to say the risks are small, but they don’t like to tell us how BIG a nuclear waste accident can be. Anyone remember Chernobyl and Fukushima?
ROSE advocates relocation of nuclear waste as soon as is feasible from the SONGS site to a less populated area and a less earthquake prone area. Temporary or permanent, although a permanent situation is preferred.
1. Storage of dry cask of any type should be within it’s own building to protect them from the salt air at San Onofre as some other countries do .
2. The best canister we have seen is the V-19 German canister. (The V-19 and 21 canisters are an example of a better made product for our site at San Onofre. It was not meant to be a recommendation to buy, just the type of construction method we may want to look at.)
3. There should be a fuel pool with crane on site to mitigate any accident with any of the dry casks.
4. There should be some type of pressure or radiation monitoring of cask in real time which the V-19 canister has.
5. NRC needs to update it’s procedures to include inspections of decommissioned cask storage areas on a regular and timely basis.
6. DOE needs to set a firm date as to when they will takeover SONGS nuclear waste and exactly how they will do that.
Donna Gilmore talking about dry cask storage for San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLr0WR5oSjU
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
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.
By Gene Stone, ROSE
Share this:
Monday, June 16, 2014
Fukushima To San Onofre Sunseting On Nuclear Power
Public Meeting on San Onofre -- Public can speak out about PUC Dysfunction and Sky High Power Rates
Hundreds of secret documents in PUC San Onofre files may halt settlement
Opponents "GAGGED" at San Onofre Public Meeting but PUC Allows Hours of Private Meetings With Utilities
The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) announced a public meeting regarding the San Onofre proposed settlement, Monday, June 16, 2014, at the Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92627, 4pm to 7pm. The public is invited to present their views and ask questions
Opponents to the settlement will also hold a press conference at 3:30pm in the patio of the center just prior to the main event, which is considered the kick off to the "World Cup of Bailouts."
Some members of the public have said the CPUC is a "Kangaroo Court" and there are rumors that wild kangaroos will invade the meeting.
The settlement was negotiated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric SDG&E) in secret meetings starting in May 2013, with one outside party, TURN (The Utility Reform Network) and one CPUC internal party, the Office of Ratepayer Advocacy (ORA). The final settlement was first revealed to the public and to other parties on March 27, 2014, with the stipulation that it could not be modified in any way.
It provides that SCE receive $3.3 billion for the crippled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Proponents have sold this as a $1.4 billion "refund" but in reality, that figure is simply the difference from the original absurd utility request of $4.7 billion and the proposed settlement figure.
Opponents believe ratepayers should receive refund checks of about $250 million.
"The difference in the two sides is stark. The utilities and their followers want ratepayers to provide the net asset value of the base plant PLUS a return of 2.65%, a situation unheard of, even in the distorted world of public utilities," said Ray Lutz, National Coordinator of Citizens Oversight, representing the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre (CDSO) a leading opponent to the bailout settlement. "It is clear that the Commission had this rigged from the beginning, as the meat of the investigation was delayed so long while they fiddled with inconsequential issues."
"The Commission has likely jumped to a conclusion to support the unfair settlement, without allowing the proceedings to complete, and that's why rumors are circulating that wild kangaroos may be invading the meeting," said Charles Langley, a San Diego Gas & Electric ratepayer.
In response to a recent Public Records Request, the CPUC revealed hundreds of secret documents provided to the Commission by technical consultants and never provided to other parties. "It is highly improper to collect all this data and share with the utilities but not with the other parties in the proceeding," said Michael Aguirre, who represents Ruth Henricks, a party in the CPUC San Onofre investigation. "Technical consultants have apparently been working for the Commission and with Commission lawyers for months, generating this treasure trove of secret documents that will likely kill the settlement on the spot. This looks like a way to set up a back-channel with utilities to allow the settlement to be discussed." The consultants were slated to be used for the Phase 3 investigation, which never was started.
The PUC’s pattern of stifling public participation is troubling. Last week a Court issued a decision to stop ratepayers from going to Superior Court to prevent closed door meetings in violation of the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act. Ratepayer advocate, Maria Severson, has called on state legislators to draft a bill that ensures the PUC – like every other state agency – has no closed door meetings and complies with the Public Records Act, and if they try to shut the door to the public, the ratepayers can go to Superior Court to stop them. These “Sunshine” and “Open Meeting” Laws are not being obeyed by the Commission. Last month, PUC President Michael Peevey, a former Southern California Edison officer, weighed in on the public’s right to participate in PUC proceedings. His position articulated on the attached five-second mp3 recording.
An extremely brief evidentiary hearing was held on May 14, 2014 in CPUC headquarters in San Francisco. At that meeting, SCE President Ron Litzinger admitted to Aguirre's questions that there was nothing in the record that would allow the Commission to evaluate whether the settlement adequately addressed ratepayer's claims.
Now, a public participation meeting is being held to allow the parties to make statements and to allow the public to ask questions. "We had to struggle to get equal time," Lutz said. "But now they are trying to control what we can say as well."
At first, they gave opponents no time at all. Then, proponents 40 minutes and opponents only 20 minutes. When the CDSO said they planned to make a Powerpoint presentation and needed more time, perhaps 30 minutes, the ALJ implemented a 'gag' order, disallowing a powerpoint presentation, and requiring all documents to be pre-approved by the ALJs (Administative Law Judges) before it could be presented.
ALJ Melanie Darling said "No projectors, power points, or other argumentative aids will be permitted inside the meeting." and refused to provide a webcast of the meeting.
In response, the CDSO reasserted their request for 30 minutes during the meeting, with the following email, sent to all parties, bringing up the fact that the proponents of the settlement have already met with the Commission in ex parte meetings, including a personal meeting with Florio, the primary Commissioner of the proceeding, for more than two hours.
Dear ALJ Darling:
On April 14, 2014, Southern California Edison and other proponents (SDG&E, TURN, ORA, FOE) of the proposed settlement met in a number of private ex parte meetings. The notice of these meetings is attached. These parties met for 45 minutes with representatives for Commissioner Peevey, 30 minutes with advisors to Commissioner Picker, 30 minutes with advisors to, and with Commissioner Florio, and 30 minutes with Advisors to Commissioner Peterman. During these meetings, they presented their point of view to Commissioner Florio and advisors of the other Commissioners.
There were also other ex parte meetings with the Commission by the proponents of the settlement.
According to the rules of practice and procedure (8.2 and 8.3), such meetings are allowed in ratemaking proceedings with advisors to Commissioners without prior notice. Prior notice was provided for the meeting with Commissioner Florio. This is a ratemaking proceeding. Also, including in those rules, other parties are allowed to request equal time in similar ex parte meetings.
The CDSO hereby makes such a request. We request that we be allowed time at this public meeting to make our presentation to those commissioners and advisors who are present at the meeting. We will not be constrained in what we choose to present to the commissioners. We plan to bring a power point projector and screen so we may effectively communicate our position, since I'm sure the proponents were not constrained in their private presentations, and we will be distributing any material we see fit during our presentation to the Commissioners.
I hereby reassert our request for 30 minutes during this meeting for the opponents to the settlement to use as they see fit.
Respectfully,
--Raymond Lutz
"We have yet to hear back from ALJ Darling, but we are going to assert our rights to make our case as strongly as we can, even though it's clear that this regulatory agency is fully captured by the utilities," Lutz said.
CONTACT: Ray Lutz 619-820-5321 / raylutz at citizensoversight dot org
EVENT 1: Orange County Press Conference
WHERE: Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92627
WHEN: (just prior to the public meeting at 4pm)
EVENT 2: CPUC Public Meeting
WHERE: Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92627
WHEN: 4-7 pm, Monday, June 16, 2014
NOTE: Rumors are that wild kangaroos will be invading this "kangaroo court"
Fukushima To San Onofre Sunseting On Nuclear Power |
Related articles
- San Onofre rate payers get ripped off!! - 20140514 CPUC Tries to Bully Ratepayers for $3.3Billion
- It's wrong for ratepayers to pay toward San Onofre shutdown
- San Onofre nuclear closure financial - Evidence from a nuclear power plant closure -
- Consumers Face Post-nuclear Billions
- Closing San Onofre could cost ratepayers $3.3 billion
Monday, June 9, 2014
Sen. Boxer Reads SCE's Request for EXEMPTION from ALL Off Site Evacuation Plans at SONGS!
Senator Boxer reads SCE's Request to be EXEMPT from ALL Offsite Evacuation Plans at San Onofre to NRC Chairman McFarlane! The NRC received the request March 30, 2014 but has yet to review it. The exemption includes: NO Alarms, No Warning Sirens, NO Evacuation Plans, NO Relocation Centers, No Liability FOR CHAOS, Radiation Exposure or DEATH! Senator Boxer grills Chairman McFarlane to TURN DOWN the request. Sadly the NRC HAS NEVER turned down this type of request!!!!
Does this sound like a Commission whose very job is to protect the American Public from a Radiological Event? Does this sound like a Commission whose job it is to protect the Nuclear Industry from being exposed for Hiding Truth about Dangers of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear mishaps and events?
Contact Senator Barbra Boxer and thank her for sticking up for your safety.
The Power Is Long Gone The Danger Lives On |
Related articles
- Nuclear regulators to senator: 'None of your business'
- Senators to NRC: Do not exempt decommissioning nuclear reactors from emergency response and security Measures
- State wants Entergy to continue emergency planning after shutdown
- Boxer Slams Nuclear Commission for Post-Fukushima Foot-Dragging
- San Onofre Evacuated While Testing Sirens In San Clemente #SCECEP
Thursday, May 22, 2014
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.
• 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.
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
Sierra Club
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
San Onofre Evacuated While Testing Sirens In San Clemente #SCECEP
Is Siren Testing During A Nuke Plant Evacuation A Good Idea? |
About a dozen non-essential employees have been evacuated from #SanOnofre as a precaution in response to a brush fire near #CampPendleton.
— SCE_SONGS (@SCE_SONGS) May 14, 2014
SONGS is conducting routine siren maintenance in #SanClemente on 5/14 and 5/15. Growl sound may be heard. No action needs to be taken.
— SCE_SONGS (@SCE_SONGS) May 14, 2014
Who in their right mind would run a siren test during an actual emergency?
One is reminded of the childhood story and the lessons learned from "A Boy Who Cried Wolf" Have the people who run these tests never heard of this story? In a nutshell a boy The Boy Who Cried Wolf is one of Aesop's Fables, derived the English idiom "to cry wolf", meaning to give a false alarm. The fable concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. So when the time comes that the boy really was being eaten by a wolf, no one paid any attention.
Please Join Us Thursday Night To Express Your Dismay At This Alarming Lack Of Common Sense.
Are you coming? The #SanOnofre Community Engagement Panel will be held on May 22. It's open to the public: http://t.co/pBgc2Kl9tL
— SCE_SONGS (@SCE_SONGS) May 20, 2014
Related articles
- San Clemente will consider urging removal of San Onofre nuclear waste
- San Onofre Siren System To Undergo Annual Testing Wednesday
- Fires near San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant
- KPBS: Concern over reports of high radiation levels near California nuke plant - Results shared with many residents via internet - Homeland Security professor believes readings not correct
- Wildfire Triggers Nuclear Plant Evacuations Brush Fires Trigger Evacuations at Plant
Location:
Surf Beach, California, USA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)