Fairewinds Special Edition: They covered up the truth at San Onofre nuke plant — Knowingly put public safety in Southern California at risk (AUDIO)

Published: February 8th, 2013 at 10:42 am ET
By

11 comments


Title: Sen. Boxer Believes that San Onofre Knew About Problems Years Earlier
Source: Fairewinds Energy Education
Date: Feb. 8, 2013

Sen. Boxer Believes that San Onofre Knew About Problems Years Earlier

In this special edition, Fairewinds analyzes a letter from Senator Boxer and Representative Markey that indicates that the problems at San Onofre were known to its owner, Southern California Edison, years before the steam generators were installed and rapidly failed [...]

At 5:45 in

Maggie Gundersen, Founder of Fairewinds Energy Education: It shows that Edison covered up the truth. They knew this, they were asked about it. Fairewinds issued a report in March of 2012 that talked about the fact that Edison made design changes and purposefully left that information out from any of its NRC filings because it didn’t want to face a license amendment process. And according to the quotes extracted from the MHI [Mitsubishi Heavy Industries] report that Senator Boxer and Congressman Markey have — that is verified — it’s verified in there and it says they purposely took this action because they didn’t want a full license amendment review. I don’t know, does that constitute lying under oath? To me it does.

Kevin Hurley, Fairewinds’ Media Developer: Of course, you could say now since they did avoid that process and they did have that accident, they knowingly put the public safety in Southern California at risk?

Gundersen: Yes, there are 8 and a half million people right in that vicinity of the nuclear plant, inadequate evacuation plans and the rate payers have paid more than 770 million dollars for this debacle of these broken, faulty-designed replacement steam generators.

Full report here

Published: February 8th, 2013 at 10:42 am ET
By

11 comments

11 comments to Fairewinds Special Edition: They covered up the truth at San Onofre nuke plant — Knowingly put public safety in Southern California at risk (AUDIO)

  • My inlaws are, like, five miles from there. FIL was a security guard on the premises after a career in Marines.


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    That plant released radiation, and Californians have no idea how much was released, or the duration of time, or how many times it was released. And they'll never know.


    Report comment

  • Auntie Nuke

    …and how is this not Attempted Murder? Bring 'em up on charges!


    Report comment

    • renewable

      Ooops. Accidentally posted the wrong one. Here's the correct post:

      Look at the radiation (Radioactive Effluent) released by San Onofre Units 2 & 3 in 2011 during their "normal" operations:

      Pages 9 + 10 show:

      – gaseous effluent releases argon-41, krypton-85m/87/88, xenon 133/135/138
      – iodines 131/133
      – particulate releases – cesium 134/137, chromium-51, cobalt-57/58/60, manganese-54, niobium-95, tellurium-132, zirconium-95

      Page 13 shows:

      – the tritium, iodine, and radioactive particulate dose to organs

      On page 17, it says there were gaseous releases totalling 2,564 minutes; 1,564 minutes; and 885 minutes.

      http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1211/ML12118A098.pdf

      http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-specific-reports/sano2-3.html


      Report comment

      • razzz razzz

        Those are normal everyday releases that Dr. Helen Caldicott likes to point out and remind everybody that a nuclear power plant releases these radioactive poisons while in everyday operation. Even idle the fuel pools releases poisons like tritium. And rarely mentioned is what happens if you inhale or ingested these poisons.

        The steam generator fiasco is criminal. Let's see how Edison wiggles out of this one and if the NRC helps them out. I would settle for the plant site being shutdown, forever. Jail time for fraud would set a good example for any future stupidity.


        Report comment

  • Three Eleven Eleven Three Eleven Eleven

    New KPBS interview with Arnie Gundersen on the San Onofre issue:

    http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/feb/07/edison-denies-knowing-about-faulty-steam-generator/


    Report comment

    • Three Eleven Eleven Three Eleven Eleven

      The interviewer said she talked with someone who's worked in the nuclear industry for over a decade and "they're being asked to sign more non-disclosure documents than she ever remembered."

      "In other words, the NRC is not operating in a more transparent manner…"


      Report comment

  • Three Eleven Eleven Three Eleven Eleven

    This is important:

    When Michio Kaku was asked where a "superquake" could occur, he said Los Angeles or San Francisco.

    http://enenews.com/kaku-cbs-game-changer-rewrite-all-textbooks-concern-about-monster-quake-nuclear-plant-video

    Isn't that yet another reason why California should not have nuclear power plants?


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Pick a Nuclear Radiation Plant. Any single one, old or new…

    This is what you will get, more than what you bargained for…

    Duke's Crystal River nuclear plant faces long, uncertain road

    Decontaminating a plant involves removing tainted equipment, locking used nuclear fuel in dry storage and scrubbing leftover radioactive material from heat exchangers, pipes, floors and walls.

    But in safe storage, time does some of the work, as decades of decay break down radioactivity into its safer, more stable parts.

    "The longer you wait, the easier the cleanup," Nuclear Energy Institute senior technical adviser Steven Kraft said, "because of this natural decay."

    Not everyone favors kicking the nuclear can down the road.

    "Decontamination could still be a four- or five-year process. But at the end, you're done," Lewis said.

    "When you're looking at something like this, you want to get it over with. Who knows what the world will look like in 80 years? Do you really want a deteriorating nuclear power plant to sit there for 60 or 80 years?"

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/duke-energys-crystal-river-nuclear-plant-faces-long-uncertain-road/1274108


    Report comment

    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

      @Jebus

      A huge thank you to Duke Power for permanently closing Crystal River, but they still don't plan to return to the rate payers the sums collected to repair it which were granted by the Public Service Commission. Another case of the people paying for something they will never receive.

      Now we wait to hear about the proposed Levy County I and II which is being challenged by NIRS and The Ecology Party of Florida. The Atomic Safety Licensing Board should not even think twice about not granting a license for those plants.


      Report comment