Join The San Onofre Cancer Study

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?

“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

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

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

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.

1. We must ask ourselves does this repeated positive spin serve the public interest? In my opinion No.
2. 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.
3. 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

Related articles

• Fukushima Clean-Up Based On Shady Science And Tax Payer Rip-Off
• Where will all our nuclear waste go? Disposal is at a critical stage, feds say
• State Approves $3.3 Billion Settlement to Close San Onofre
• Plan divides billions in closed nuke plant costs
• Consumers to pay $3.3 billion in deal to divide costs from closed San Onofre nuclear plant
• Ratepayers file suit over San Onofre nuclear plant

San Onofre Dry Cask Danger

SanOnofreSafety.org founder Donna Gilmore's presentation to the NRC on dry cask nuclear waste storage issues at the San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump, delivered by invitation as part of an NRC Regulatory Conference held Nov. 19-20, 2014 in Rockville, Maryland.

San Onofre Dry Cask Danger Be Advised

Related articles

• Prairie Island joins nuclear waste legal challenge
• Nuclear waste storage plans being challanged by 3 states
• Leaked Sellafield photos reveal 'massive radioactive release' threat
• How To Store Nuclear Waste For 10,000 Years (And How Not To)

My full statement to the NRC, Oct 27, 2014

I'd like to thank the NRC for hearing our comments today. I'am happy to see many friends here today that will speak for the safety of CA.

I must say, I no longer believe that SCE is considering doing the state of the art decommissioning that they promised us at the first Community Engagement Panel meeting. Nor do I believe that the NRC will demand or require that of them! But a more standard approach to decommissioning.

The NRC should have to be more proactive with its approach to SCEs PSDAR? The fact that the NRC does not approve or disapprove this minimalist approach to the safe storage of nuclear waste is very disappointing & alarming. Going forward with a plan that uses canisters that were designed for short-term storage does not make sense.

What would make sense to me is if the NRC would take an active regulatory role forcing & working with the industry to improve the design of the dry cask canisters and set in place a real & effective system of defense in depth, a aging management plan, for long-term storage of nuclear waste and a real method of inspection and monitoring of these improved canisters.

Thank you for listening to the people who will speak to you today for the safety of California's 8.4 million people, it's children & environment and the economy of SoCal.

You may now check this meeting off your list as another NRC public relations meeting where the public was heard but not listen too! We expect & need more than that from the NRC.

Gene Stone, ROSE, SCE/CEP Member

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