Chernobyl - Fukushima - San Onofre SILENT BUT DEADLY
Channel: MsMilkytheclown1
Date: 10/04/2014

A very informative video that I hope inspires You to become involved in these issues.  
Panel Discussion - BC Space Gallery - Laguna Beach, CA - March 11, 2014 http://youtu.be/-SBnccEOaHs by eon3   
Donna Gilmore, Gary Headrick, Harvey Wasserman  
San Onofre Stores 19X more radiation On Site than was released in the Chernobyl accident.   A hydrogen explosion can still happen in a dry cask.  NRC won't approve transportation because the cladding is fragile and might shatter if they move "the stuff".  Profit over safety unless we do something about it.  

"Fukushima is NOT a Worst Case Scenario" according to Harvey Wasserman.(approx 30 minutes into video)

http://sanonofresafety.org/

NEW REPORT: High Burnup Nuclear Fuel — Pushing the Safety Envelope http://sanonofresafety.org/2014/01/08/high-burnup-fuel-fact-sheet-2/

HANDOUT: Nuclear Waste Recommendations http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nuclearwasterecommendations2014-04-01.pdf

San Onofre's nuclear reactors are permanently shut down. However, we're left with tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste that will remain on site for decades, if not longer.  San Onofre's spent fuel contains 89 times the amount of radiation (Cesium-137) released from Chernobyl. http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/22/3/3024/SONGS_Spent_Fuel_FINAL.pdf

HIGH BURNUP FUEL:  http://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/ San Onofre and other U.S. reactors switched to the more dangerous high burnup nuclear fuel over a decade ago. High burnup fuel is low enriched uranium that has burned longer in the reactor than lower burnup fuel. High burnup fuel is over twice as radioactive, hotter than lower burnup fuel, and unpredictable and unstable in storage and transport. The protective cladding around the fuel is more likely to become brittle and shatter, risking release of radiation.
Years to Cool Chart

High burnup nuclear fuel: up to 20+ years to cool

There is no approved method to safely store high burnup fuel in dry casks for more than 20 years .http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/isg-11R3.pdf  And there is no approved method to transport high burnup fuel waste. This fuel is so hot, it must cool in the spent fuel pools years longer than lower burnup fuel.  Edison plans to store high burnup fuel in a new model dry cask that would make it even more dangerous. More... http://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/

The San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant has the worst safety complaint record of all U.S. nuclear reactors according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety allegation datahttp://sanonofresafety.org/safety-allegations-8/ . See charts for details http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/allegationscharts4pages-19.pdf . Employees are retaliated against for reporting safety problems. See Safety Allegations Section http://sanonofresafety.org/safety-allegations-8/ for details on this and other safety complaints by employees and others. More... http://sanonofresafety.org/safety-allegations-8/

Southern California Edison wanted to restart the Unit 2 nuclear reactor without fixing the defective steam generators http://sanonofresafety.org/2012/10/14/union-of-concerned-scientists-questions-restart-of-san-onofre-unit-2-nuclear-reactor/ . Both reactors have been shut since 1/31/2012, when Unit 3 leaked radiation into the environment  http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12090A153.pdf . All four poorly designed replacement steam generators show decades of tube wear after less than two years of installation -- the worst in the nation.  http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/badvibrations2012-06-28.pdf

http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/ml13263a271-so-inspectionreport2013-09-20.pdf
The NRC concluded Southern California Edison was at fault.  "...a significant design deficiency in replacement steam generators, resulting in rapid tube wear of a type never before seen in recirculating steam generators."   In the NRC's December 23, 2013 Notice of Violation, they stated: "...design control measures were not established to provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of certain designs." http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/ml13357a058-2013-12-23nrc-unit3-songs-white-finding-letter-final-131223.pdf

http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sce-serves-formal-notice-of-dispute-to-mitsubishi2013-07-18.pdf
Edison now admits the steam generators are lemons.  However, they were willing to restart Unit 2 without repairing them.  Edison and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) redesigned the steam generator tube anti-vibration system in order to increase profits. They removed the central stay cylinder in order to add about 400 extra tubes to each generator. Read Arnie Gundersen's  Fairewind Associates Report San Onofre's steam generators: significantly worse than all others nationwide.   http://fairewinds.org/san-onofres-steam-generators-significantly-worse-than-all-others-nationwide/