Econmics and Reliability of California Nuclear Reactors

Economic and Reliability Consequences Needing Evaluation

1. HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE – Since 1982 California has waited for the federal government to assume their responsibility and resolved long-term offsite storage of highly radioactive waste. Current plans to leave on our coast for 60-300 is irresponsible and will likely involved major funding and continued risk.
2. NO HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE: When buying or selling property within 50 miles of San Onofre, it should be disclosed that no insurance (home or business) is available at any price and that federal liability limits are $12.6 billion (there are currently over $150 billion in claims in Japan)
3. EMERGENCY EVACUATION ZONES: Currently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has ruled that 12 miles for emergency planning is adequate, yet the same NRC recommended that U.S. citizens evacuate out 50 miles in Japan. If zones are extended what is the cost and who will be tasked with letting homebuyers know of this zone?
4. MARINE LIFE: The EPA is now requiring alternatives to the current cooling plan at all nuclear reactors. At SONGS this could entail: drilling under I-5, digging under sea wall to install four 12’ tubes to carry water, building a huge desalination plant (the largest in U.S.), and construct several 570’ tall cooling towers. The destruction of marine life (important to coastal buyers) is also impacted by the next point:
5. SEISMIC STUDIES: California has directed both PG&E and SCE to undergo updated seismic studies. Current costs are $64 million for each site, but in 2012 the Coastal Commission denied a permit due to marine life devastation.

California’s economy, the lives and livelihoods of our residents and businesses are at risk. Responsibly phasing out and replacing 4400 baseload megawatts require a thoughtful and informed process. Understanding the full costs of continued investments in aging reactors, and nuclear waste sites on our fragile coast is not pro or anti-nuclear, it’s just good sense.

Donations welcome

http://www.a4nr.org
Rochelle Becker
PO 1328, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

Watchdog Experts Evicted from NRC Meeting

Enformable  posted 3/22/2013

This week Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility attorney John Geesman, seismologist consultant Dr. Douglas Hamilton, and outreach coordinator David Weisman traveled to a three day workshop in Oakland, which was a part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission mandated post-Fukushima workshop. 

picture

John Geesman Represents Alliance

California energy policy leader John Geesman to lead legal intervention in CPUC
nuclear proceedings on behalf of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
On this anniversary of the devastating 1994 Northridge earthquake, the Alliance for Nuclear
Responsibility hopes to “shake out” the complacency of state regulators and utilities by announcing the
retention of veteran energy policy leader John Geesman as legal counsel in their proceedings before
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Mr. Geesman’s long career in energy policy
includes having been executive director of the California Energy Commission (CEC) during Jerry
Brown’s first term as governor, serving as a commissioner on the CEC, former chair of the California
Power Exchange, past board member of the CAISO, and a prominent opponent of PG&E’s defeated
Proposition 16 in 2010.
The Alliance is currently intervening in PG&E’s request for $64 million in ratepayer funding for
seismic studies at Diablo Canyon—an increase of $47 million over their initial proposal. Questions
have been raised regarding not only the cost, but also the merits of the scope of the study. Mr.
Geesman concludes, “The fact that the CPUC staff could recently rubber-stamp Southern California
Edison’s proposed seismic studies for the San Onofre nuclear plant without review by any seismic
experts shows what we’re up against.”
In the wake of the San Bruno gas explosion and revelations about the CPUC and PG&E’s negligent
oversight, these concerns are justifiably magnified when addressing California’s aging—and
seismically vulnerable—nuclear reactors. “San Bruno was tragic,” comments Alliance outreach
coordinator David Weisman, “San Bruno plus radiation would be catastrophic.”
Geesman finds a worthy ally in the Alliance, noting that, “More than any other organizations working
on nuclear issues, A4NR is focused on forcing the California government to do its job. I want to help
them do that.” Alliance executive director Rochelle Becker is equally enthusiastic about the
partnership, stating, “Nobody finds the dry rot in our regulatory system more effectively than John
Geesman, and it is an honor to have him represent us.”
Testimony and hearings for PG&E’s seismic funding case at the CPUC get under way in February.
# # # # # #
PO Box 1328
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(858) 337-2703
(805) 704-1810
http://www.a4nr.org

Nuclear Responsibility

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
In 2002, the NRC denied our community’s request for an updated seismic review of Diablo Canyon and then approved expanded storage of highly radioactive waste on our coast. In December 2003 an earthquake hit San Simeon on a previously unidentified earthquake fault and the NRC came back in force to explain why that quake had no relevance to Diablo Canyon safety—even though nearly half the emergency sirens failed during the quake and it was revealed that the NRC does not require backup batteries.
By December 2004 the Alliance had been formed to chart a new path to preventing the continued production and storage of highly radioactive waste on our coast: Working solely within the jurisdiction of our state to decide whether the economics and reliability of nuclear power is in the best interest of ratepayers.

Rochelle Becker

Seismic Safety California

Viewpoint: Let’s give seismic safety a closer look. By Sam Blakeslee
As a newly elected freshman lawmaker and former geophysicist, I raised a few eyebrows when I authored a 2005 Viewpoint in The Tribune cautioning that significant seismic uncertainty exists around Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. I questioned, “Is the entire facility safe from tsunami and earthquake damage that could be generated by large offshore faults?” I called for rigorous independent study and analysis of the seismic zone around the facility.
PG&E’s vice president penned his own Viewpoint in The Tribune mocking my suggestion that much uncertainty remained about the facility and derisively suggesting that PG&E “look[s] forward to helping [Blakeslee] understand how we are assuring that Diablo is seismically sound …”
To avoid dealing with these difficult questions about seismic safety, some tried to politicize this as a pro-nuclear versus anti-nuclear debate.
SIMILAR STORIES:
But I kept demanding answers. Regulators shrugged off my concerns, claiming their perfunctory reviews were sufficient oversight. PG&E asserted that adequate seismic work had already been performed. PG&E’s in-house seismic consultants confidently insisted that the plant is designed to withstand an earthquake larger than the estimated capability of the nearby Hosgri Fault.
Fed up, I authored AB 1632, legislation requiring the California Energy Commission to assess the vulnerability of California’s aging nuclear power plants.
Then, in 2007, while the CEC was preparing its AB 1632 report, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake rocked Japan. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, the largest nuclear plant in the world, experienced ground motion shaking nearly twice what was anticipated when the plant was designed. The quake caused significant damage at the facility and minor radioactive leaks. The plant was immediately shut down.
A year later, the CEC released its AB 1632 report echoing my call for advanced seismic studies around Diablo Canyon. PG&E responded that these high-tech studies were unnecessary, stating, “ … we believe there is no uncertainty regarding the seismic setting and hazard at the Diablo Canyon site.”
Weeks after PG&E’s assertion, the USGS announced the discovery of a significant new fault potentially running directly underneath Diablo Canyon. The characteristics of the Shoreline Fault, as well as its relationship with the Hosgri Fault, remain largely unknown — as detailed seismic studies have not yet been performed.
Just this week, spokesman Kory Raftery stated that PG&E still has not committed to performing the advanced seismic study called for by the CEC.
Over the past few years, the failure by regulators to provide adequate independent oversight and responsibly enforce accountability measures has led to catastrophic human and environmental disasters.
The Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill, the most significant environmental tragedy in the history of the nation, was largely a regulatory failure. Regulators adopted a passive check-the-box mentality, failing to ask difficult questions or provide rigorous oversight.
Last fall, San Bruno was rocked by the explosion of a natural gas pipeline that killed eight people. The aging pipeline was identified in 2007 as one of the top 100 highest risk sections. Though funds were approved for PG&E to fix that very pipeline, the utility delayed the work and the Public Utilities Commission did not require the work be completed.
Now, the world watches in shock as events in Japan unfold. The massive earthquake has caused explosions at three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, resulting in a major nuclear disaster. The devastating series of unexpected events revealed unknown vulnerabilities at the nuclear facility and in its backup safety systems.
Commissioner Akira Omoto of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, who was involved in the construction of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility, admitted that the engineering assumptions and redundant fail-safe systems believed by experts to guard against a nuclear disaster simply proved inadequate in the end.
“We thought we had taken adequate precautions … but what happened was beyond our expectation,” he told Reuters.
Within four years, two separate earthquakes have knocked out two nuclear facilities. Both nuclear power plants were believed to be constructed to withstand the strongest seismic events possible in their respective areas.
Japan’s top experts were proven wrong. Twice.
Meanwhile, here in the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues to rubber-stamp every relicensing application, without exception.
PG&E is now rushing to relicense Diablo Canyon a full 13 years before its current licenses expire, continuing to dismiss any concerns about the safety of the facility. PG&E confidently maintains that the facility is not vulnerable to a seismic event. The people of Japan were told the same thing.
The public counts on lawmakers and regulators to put the public’s safety ahead of the agendas of powerful interests. Our greatest risk is arrogantly asserting that California is immune to this type of disaster before obtaining the necessary scientific data to adequately understand the risks posed by the complex fault systems off our coast.
I will continue in my six-year fight to protect my community and ensure California is responsibly managing seismic and nuclear risk.
State Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, represents the 15th District. He is a geophysicist with a doctorate in earthquake studies from UC Santa Barbara for his research in seismic scattering, micro-earthquake studies and fault-zone attenuation.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/03/19/1528691/viewpoint-lets-give-seismic-safety.html

Nuclear Failure Guaranteed

You don’t have to be Nostradamus to read statistics. Historically 2% of the 400 plus nuclear plants have failed and contaminated the earth. Between China, the U.S., UK and others wanting to build more & more reactors, we are guaranteed to have additional castastrophes world wide. The scientist & profiteers will say “no, not so, we build them better now.” That’s candy coating the grim deadly outcome of just one more failure. You see, Japan built the latest and the greatest.
We can do three things to assure a futue for mankind. 1. Individual and Corporate conservation. 2.Aggressively develop renewables. 3.Work toward outlawing lobbyist. Lobbyist represent special interest goups, not the public. The Lobbyist have the buying power to cause legislation that favors the profiters. In 2010 Nuclear lobbyist spent 1.7 million dollars to preserve and potect the profiteers. Randy Scott

Unforgiving Technology

Californians hope they will never be awakened to the tragedy unfolding in Japan. It may never happen, but failure to acknowledge and admit the possibility is a sure path to complacency and carelessness. When mixing nuclear power and earthquakes, ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous and irresponsible.
California’s elected leaders — starting with San Luis Obispo’s own Sen. Sam Blakeslee and a bipartisan coalition in Sacramento — had been asking tough questions about seismic safety and nuclear power for half a decade before the radioactive “Black Friday” struck Japan. As a result of Blakeslee’s legislation, AB 1632, the California Energy Commission has taken steps to demand new, advanced seismic mapping of the onshore and offshore areas surrounding California’s aging nuclear plants.
The CEC made it clear that these answers need to be known if we are to be able to rely on affordable and reliable power now and into the future. Japan had already experienced the devastating effects of an earthquake at the world’s largest nuclear plant in 2007. At that time, there was no meltdown, but 8000 megawatts were lost, and the monetary cost of repairs and replacement power has exceeded $10 billion.
After that event, Japan’s nuclear regulators vowed to revise and strengthen all their standards and facilities. It appears — tragically — that they failed to act in time. In defiance of our state’s request, PG&E applied to relicense Diablo Canyon with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a federal agency that does not require any updated seismic information before granting relicensing.
The NRC is also the agency that, in a 1984 decision, told the interveners in the original licensing of Diablo Canyon that they could not consider the compound effects of both a meltdown and an earthquake, declaring, “The commission has determined that the chance of such a bizarre concatenation of events occurring is extremely small. Not only is this conclusion well supported by the record evidence, it accords most eminently with common sense notions of statistical probability.”
Given that we have just witnessed an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown all occurring in sequence, does the NRC still believe the chance of this “bizarre concatenation of events” is merely hypothetical?
At this moment, PG&E’s application for ratepayer funding to proceed with license renewal is sitting at the California Public Utilities Commission. PG&E has not begun to complete the “3-D seismic reflection mapping and other advanced techniques” directed by the CEC, CPUC and required by our Coastal Commission as well. Why has the CPUC not returned this application to PG&E as incomplete pending the resolution of these studies? Why is PG&E stalling on this issue?

Nor, as they have implied, has PG&E’s recent study of the newly discovered Shoreline Fault been peer-reviewed by the U.S. Geologic Survey. This paper has printed, “Extensive studies done by seismologists with plant owners PG&E, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Geological Survey show that four earthquake faults in the vicinity of the plant could produce quakes of no more than 6.5 magnitude.”

In fact, Dr. Jeanne Hardebeck, USGS seismologist writes, “The USGS has determined that the Hosgri Fault is capable of a magnitude 7.3 earthquake. This is from a 2008 statewide fault study, called UCERF2, a collaboration of USGS, CGS, and university scientists, which was extensively peer reviewed,” and adds, “the USGS has not reviewed PG&E’s Shoreline Fault report.”

Instead of following state directives, PG&E spends its efforts spreading messages like: “lessons (from Japan) are also central to everyone in this state who enjoys the benefits of abundant, clean and low-cost nuclear energy.”

In interview after heart-wrenching interview, no one in Japan is speaking about low-cost, abundant, clean nuclear energy now. Rather, the people of Japan will continue to face horrendous losses for decades to come, and the primary lesson to learn — nuclear power is an unforgiving and deadly technology — still seems to fall on deaf ears at the NRC.

The ears of our state officials are wide open. Concerned Californians need to let the CPUC know that PG&E must do the studies.

We will leave it to scientists and their expert peers to determine the number, location and magnitude of these faults. But if we fail to support our state legislators and oversight agencies in requiring that this work be completed, and completed now, there will be only one fault: Ours.
Rochelle Becker is executive director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.

Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/03/16/1524332/viewpoint-unforgiving-and-deadly.html#ixzz1GroZvdc6

Rochelle Becker, Executive Director
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
http://www.a4nr.org
PO 1328
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406-1328

Nuclear Global Warming

Nuclear scientist and nuke profiteers claim it’s cheap energy. Seven cents for a kilowatt of poweer while turning a blind eye to the carnage, past, present and future. Thyroid, Leukemia, breast cancers to name a few, the list goes on & on. Seven cents is a gross misnomer, as the highly radioactive waste from spent fuel rods needs to be cast and re-cast for millions of years and more.
If you factor that cost in with inflation from a time that might as well be light years away, the seven cents could be thousands of dollars for the single kilowatt. Natural gas is about 9 cents flat for the kilowatt,no strings, no contamination.
The same profiteers claim carbon based fuel add to global warming. What all fail to recognize is, while carbon based fuel encompasses a complex process to capture the heat that is attribute to the warming,nuclear contributes to global warming with a simples direct path. Over 400 nuclear plants on earth produce super heated water (in case of cooling down radioactive spent fuel rods). that attribute billions of BTU’s daily towards global warming. A pound of coal produces a very limited amount of heat. The atomic reactor produces super heat 24 hours a day, day in and day out year after year.
Nuclear scientist and profiteers are wining the public over by sugar coating the radiation. Wake up , pull the wool above your eyes. Remember putting your head in sand will not protect you butt from getting radiated.
A world you could live in will be powered by renewable energy. Guest author Randy Scott

#San Onofre, radiation,Japan,Nuclear

Nuclear Sunshine

What does nuclear energy and sunshine have in common, radiation. That is the most common argument for nuclear power that radiation is natural so therefore it is safe. Yet when we heat up nuclear power plants with our water, the reactor releases man-made ionisation radiation into our air, earth & water daily. Not natural radiation, that we have learned to survive in for millions of years.
In order to understand nuclear technology and its impact on human health, three atomic events must be discussed. “Fissioning, activation & ionisation. Fissioning, the splitting of the uranium or plutonium atom is responsible for producing radioactive fission fragments”,(that is why many people would like it to stay in the ground).When splitting happens, this causes the ionisation of normal atoms (the ones we got used to over the years). “This leads to a chain of microscopic events that we may see as a cancer death or a deformed child. radioactive fission products are produced in nuclear reactors.
When an atom is split, all kinds of new radioactive products are formed. If existing chemical are in the air or water it changes structure slightly and they become radioactive. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for all the newly formed radioactive chemicals to return to a safe state. By the way,the nuclear plant itself becomes unusable with time and must be dismantled and isolated as radioactive waste.
The cost of safeguarding the waste for billions of years, and the cost of dismantling and storing tons and tons of of radioactive power plants and tons of spent fuel rods that are also highly radioactive does not make any economically sense. We only get 16% of our electricity from this dinosaurs technology.
Eventually all the nuclear reactors will all break or melt down have an accident and radiate more communities (like Simi Valley in California).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not refusing any nuclear power plant owner who ask for re-licensing these dangerous plants. The nuclear power plants in the US are old, risks for communities having a meltdown is getting higher. I personally asked one of the NRC guys, why do you rubber stamp these plants?
Excerpts: “No Immediate Danger” Rosalie Bertell