Ban The Bananas!

The whole BED concept is one that takes no consideration about the varying intensity and energy levels of various isotope decays. To equate Cesium, Strontium, Iodine, Americium, and other fission isotopes with naturally abundant Potassium 40 is completely unscientific and ludicrous. First off, potassium is not anywhere close to being as toxic as fission isotopes. Second, the human body does not accumulate potassium. When potassium is added to the body, an equivalent is expelled by the kidneys. The same is not true of fission isotopes. Add to it that the energy discharge of potassium 40 is not nearly as powerful as cesium, iodine, strontium, and other fission isotopes. Fourth, potassium does not focus on settling in specific parts of the body, like bone marrow, muscle, glands, etc.

If you hear someone talking in terms of BED, rest assured that the person only has a very shallow grasp of what is taking place during isotope decay. All those mathematical equations are squat when you look at the issue in depth.

So stick a banana in your ear and refuse to consider the full truth of the issue. Cite those BED’s as if they are truth itself. Maybe those who don’t comprehend nuclear physics will believe you.

The problem is the canisters storing tons of nuclear waste at San Onofre are only 5/8″ thick steel and are subject to stress corrosion cracking due to our marine environment. A similar canister at Diablo Canyon nuclear plant at the coast in San Luis Obispo County has conditions for cracking after only 2 years of us, yet Edison plans to buy more of these inferior canisters. They need to buy thick casks (up to 20″ thick) like those used in the rest of the world. Even one microscopic crack can release millions of curies of radiation. And that’s not bananas. If you want to saved our wonderful communities, please get involved. Learn more at SanOnofreSafety.org. That fuel will be there for decades or longer even if a new location is found for the waste.

Welcome to the C.R.A.P. club, Ms. Gilmore. Undoubtedly, your extensive expertise in studies of stress-corrosion cracking will be taken into account when Edison calls for technical review by experts of all those failing nuclear waste containers. By the way, using your profound knowledge of nuclear radiation, please double-check whether I have it correct: If that nuclear waste cask you mentioned is full of nothing but Co-60, and it is radiating one million Curies per hour through that microscopic crack, I calculate that, at about 3 feet away the BED dose will equal 113 billion bananas. And that ain’t hay.

Jerry Walsh – “…Maybe those who don’t comprehend nuclear physics will believe you….”

There are maybe 1¾ billion people living in the developed world and probably less than 1 in 10,000 comprehend nuclear physics. Yet, the widespread deployment of nuclear power has been ‘postponed’ for the best part of 4 decades by the utterance of radiophobic gibberish by the likes of Helen Caldicott.

The only way to counter this hyperbolic screaming, designed to terrorise the other 9,999 of us, is by explaining in comparative terms the dangers we face from the accidental release of fission products, when allied to the probability of ingestion.

Can you describe in comparative terms the dangers faced by Californians from Fukushima fission products and bananas or x-rays or aircraft flights or radon or background radiation levels? Come on – give the rest of us some idea!

I have some disappointing news for Jerry Walsh. He does not meet the exacting requirements for membership in C.R.A.P. Unwittingly, he actually made a try at explaining things using known physical facts. But, all may not yet be lost: perhaps he’ll enlighten us by divulging that “full truth” he claims people refuse to consider after they stick a banana in their ear. In the meantime, I strongly suggest he checks the definition of such words as “satire” and “sarcasm.” Just for the heck of it.

NO member of the public has ever been harmed by the storing of used nuclear fuel either in storage pools or dry cask storage in the entire 60 year history of commercial nuclear power. Yet, the anti-nukes who first lied about various aspects of San Onofre and continue to provide false information to the public, want to alarm and frighten the public concerning this NON-DANGER.
Anti-nukes dishonestly wish to exaggerate the fear of radiation but in reality, we live in a radioactive world, it is all around us and there is NO escaping it. In fact our own bodies have radioactive elements in it and those sleeping next to us receive radiation doses from our bodies. In addition, virtually all food contains radioactive elements. See the below article which begins with:

“Technically, all food is slightly radioactive. This is because all food and other organic molecules contain carbon, which naturally exists as a mixture of isotopes, including radioactive carbon-14.”

http://chemistry.about.com/od/foodcookingchemistry/tp/10-Common-Naturally-Radioactive-Foods.htm

It goes on to show that Brazil nuts contain almost twice the radioactivity as Bananas and Lima Beans too, surpass Bananas. Walsh up above states we cannot compare these tiny amounts to things like Americium but fails to mention that Americium is found in your common smoke detector.
Check out those living in places like Ramsar Iran where people absorb doses as high as 25,000 mRem per YEAR! And these folks have been living under those circumstances for centuries. In 30 years at San Onofre, I’ve only received 874 mRem. That’s right, 874 in 30 years vs 25,000 every single year!
see here:
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2013/01/22/hot-spots-earths-5-most-naturally-radioactive-places/

You might also enjoy seeing testing of old dry casks here, fascinating regardless of your view point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4‎

Lastly, you will all enjoy this humorous Youtube presentation on the dumbest thing ever said about radiation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2PxY-wOrI8

For those who want an in depth description of Cesium, Potassium, Barium, etc. and how these radioactive elements bare on the topic under discussion, see an excellent description here:

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-and-cesium.html

Since Ms. Gilmore, obviously having no knowledge whatsoever of welding processes and having no clue as to where my know-how of making welds on and in highly radioactive applications comes from, I’ll try to briefly enumerate: My Company, Arc Machines, Inc. (under new management since 2008) from 1976 on, designed, developed, engineered and supplied a great variety of highly complex remotely-operable welding equipment for numerous high-level radiation applications, including equipment to make repair welds inside reactor vessels, to facilities such as Oak Ridge Laboratories, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, Savannah River National Laboratory, numerous classified US Navy nuclear applications, Mol (PAMELA) High-level Waste Vitrification facility, Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe, GE Nuclear Engineering, for many nuclear power plants in Japan, Europe, India, Russia and, of course, the US – including the SONGS facility. So, Ms. Gilmore, I not only have done my “homework,” so to speak, on repairing cracked nuclear fuel storage casks which are leaking your millions of Curies of radiation (I’m asking Ms. Gilmore – or anyone else – to provide the locations where cracked spent nuclear fuel storage casks actually are or were leaking radiation and to provide the radioactivity levels measured; I do not know of any anywhere in the World), I also am quite expert in welding processes; and, I’m one of a not very large population who are better acquainted with nuclear radiation than most, and have a science-based comprehension of radiation’s consequences and ways of dealing with it. By the way – I’m still waiting for Ms. Gilmore to provide factual descriptions of the used fuel amounts stored at SONGS and the amount of Cs-137 there that is purportedly emitting 80 million Curies of radiation. Maybe my figures are not correct; any facts proving I’m in error would be appreciated. But, too bad that members of the C.R.A.P. club are not allowed to resort to facts.

That we have a serious problem with what to do with the used nuclear fuel (and other radioactive waste) is eminently obvious; if not for the astounding stupidity, combined with unbridled political egotism of some politicians, that problem, today, would be of minor significance.

Here is from hiroshimasyndrome.com website:

“Some might further object that K-40 and reactor Cesium produce different kinds of radiation. That’s somewhat true. To begin, both emit Beta (β) radiation. A β is a high-speed electron. When it comes in contact with anything (even air) the β quickly gets absorbed into the outer electron shell of another atom, ionizing the atom. A β cannot penetrate very well…most βs are totally absorbed by a thin piece of tin foil. It happens that fast. It should be noted that high-energy βs need a few millimeters of aluminum to be attenuated, but these energy levels are not typical of what we find with K-40 and reactor Cesium: both are much less energetic and thus have less penetrating ability. Your outer layers of skin (which are dead) are an excellent β radiation shield with energy levels below about 1.5 MeV (Million electron Volts), which is the case with reactor Cesium βs. If βs are released inside living tissue, the ionization occurs in the tissue-itself and can cause localized harm, nearly all of which is counteracted by cellular repair mechanisms. The energy level of the Cs-137 β is 1.17 MeV, Cs-134 at 0.7 MeV, while the β from K-40 is actually a bit higher than both at 1.31 MeV. But, for all intents and purposes the three are relatively equal energy-wise with relatively weak penetrating properties.

One difference between the two is that K-40 also emits a Gamma ray of 1.46 MeV about 11% of the time: Cs-137 emits β and a much-weaker Gamma than K-40 at about 0.67 MeV. Cs-134 a β plus occasionally a Gamma at 0.67 MeV. Does this mean K-40 is more hazardous than reactor Cesium? No. Here’s why…a β is actually a high speed, sub-atomic particle ejected from the nucleus of a radioactive atom. A neutron in the nucleus suddenly becomes unstable, expunges the high energy electron (β) and turns into a proton. When this happens to a Cs-137 nucleus, it is no longer Cesium. It instantly becomes Barium-137.

Ba-137 is about 12% of all the naturally-occurring Barium found on our planet, and it is not typically radioactive. However, if it has been freshly formed by Cs-137 β-decay, then it is briefly radioactive. It literally has too much energy in the nucleus to be stable and must give off some of it in the form of Gamma radiation. It releases the Gamma at an energy level of 0.7 MeV and loses the radioactive potential. It only happens once and cannot happen a second time to the same atom. Ba-137 has a radioactive half-life of 2.6 minutes, so it will be gone no more than 26 minutes after it is formed, with a 50% chance of it being gone 2.6 minutes after it forms. It doesn’t stick around very long.

Barium is a group II element…chemically similar to Calcium. Thus, it can be called a “bone-seeker”, per se. However, it typically takes longer than 26 minutes for radioactive Ba-137 spawned by Cs-137 to “find” some bone in our systems. Bodily-retained Cesium tends to concentrate in muscle tissue, which is why it has a longer biological half-life than Potassium. Thus, the Ba-137 is released into muscle and not bone. Although biologically lodged in muscle when it is transmuted from Cs-137, there is a small but finite probability that some of the Cesium-spawned radioactive Ba-137 will find bone to irradiate. If this happens, bone exposure will occur for a very short time due to Ba-137’s very short half-life, but not long enough or in sufficient concentration to cause cancer.

Because of the Cesium-Barium connection and Cesium’s longer biological half-life than Potassium, the bodily-retained limit for Cesium-137 is many times lower than the recommended (but not regulated) bodily-retained limit for K-40. We would have to continually eat a LOT of Potassium-rich food to reach the recommended K-40 limit…more than 10 bananas or a 5lb. bag of potatoes every day. By the same token, we would have to eat 100 grams (about 4 ounces) of reactor Cesium-contaminated food, at Japan’s 100 Bq/kg limit, every day for a year to reach its regulatory limit in Japan, which is several times more restrictive than the rest of the world.”

I hope this helps the curious.

The fuel is presently stored in a fuel pool (wet storage). Isn’t dry storage inherently safer from earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural effects? The steel container is protected from the effects of the environment by the concrete radiation shield so very little salt water would be present. Also, the radioactivity in the fuel is mostly contained in the fuel assembly metal which is not releasable to the environment through any hole so that argument is false. Most of the fission products are chemically bound in the fuel matrix and only a small fraction would be available for release so the millions of curies of activity that could be released is also false. Compounding false statement does not make them true.

@ Donna, from your website:
“The human body is born with potassium-40 in its tissues and it is the most common radionuclide in human tissues and in food. We evolved in the presence of potassium-40 and our bodies have well-developed repair mechanisms to respond to its effects. The concentration of potassium-40 in the human body is constant and not affected by concentrations in the environment.”

This quote from the EPA (I’m taking your word for it) is supposed to refute the “banana myth”? YOU’RE KIDDING ME RIGHT? Your anti-nuke activists have been proclaiming on-infinitum ad nauseam that there is NO safe dose and have challenged me on the concept that the body repairs itself from damage due to radiation (you appear to doubt this fact), just like it does from other damages, and now when presented with information that we receive dose from bananas (and a host of other foods) you seem to be saying no big deal. You can’t have it both ways unless you are attempting to promote the canard that man-made radiation is some how different and worse than natural radiation. Radiation as measured in Rem, is the same regardless of source with the caveat that an internal dose (which bananas and other foods obviously are) is worse than an external dose.
Now, I would agree dose from bananas is NOT a big deal but I would also say that low dose from any sources is no big deal, but it is this latter statement that doesn’t comport with the anti-nuclear activist narrative. See here:

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2013/01/22/hot-spots-earths-5-most-naturally-radioactive-places/

We see in the above link places like Ramsar Iran where folks receive as much as 25,000 mRem (other sites say 26,000) PER YEAR and they have been receiving that all their lives (including small children). To put that in perspective, I’ve received 874 mRem in 30 years at San Onofre, and some at Ramsar receive 25,000 mRem EVERY YEAR and these folks are fine. Anti-nuke activists wish to exaggerate the dangers of radiation to justify their hysteria over nuclear power; if you and the rest of the activists could only muster a scintilla of skepticism toward renewables that you display toward nuclear power, you would, like the citizens in one Chinese city, be protesting the manufacture of solar panels. See here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-chinese-solar-plant-is-shut-down-after-4-days-of-violent-protests-over-pollution-2011-9

@ Donna,
Yes Donna, I give you credit for research, for working with material engineers etc. But it is inherently obvious to the most casual observer that you do so only looking for validation of what you have already concluded and will ignore ALL information to the contrary and consider experts who disagree with your opinions to be in the pocket of, or too cozy with the nuclear industry. Indeed, you’ve suggested that independent investigator and chairman of the CEP, David Victor, is biased because after he studied all the material including what YOU presented, he came to the opposite conclusion of what you and your followers desired.
So, let me repeat what I said above. A Rem of any type of radiation is equal to a Rem of any other type of radiation with the caveat that an internal dose is worse than an external dose. You appear to be disagreeing with me on that Fact, I’ll let you clarify.
Again, I repeat that you did NOT ‘dispel’ the “banana myth” in your link. You simply made a statement and as you have said before, making a statement does NOT make it so. Your followers have made a BIG deal about how every little bit of radiation hurts and is cumulative and have injected as much fear and hysteria as they could muster and now suddenly, with radiation from foods, oh, no big deal…you can’t have it both ways. Did you read what I posted on K40 vs Cesium up above? Do you have any reservations about its accuracy?
You didn’t address those who live in naturally high dose areas like Ramsar Iran and Guarapari Beach Brazil and the absence of the nefarious radiation effects your followers expound upon.
As to the research facility for liquid rocket fuel, liquid metals, and nuclear reactors, Rocketdyne, your study certainly indicates a problem but the study itself doesn’t indicate confidence in its ability to rule out the plethora of possible contributing factors. A quote from YOUR posted study:

“Despite the biologic plausibility of carcinogenic effects on several (“radiosensitive”) organs and tissues, the results for most types of cancers are rather inconsistent across studies.” Another quote from the conclusion: “Indeed, the estimated excess rate ratio (rate ratio minus one) corresponding to the effect of 100 mSv was at least 6 to 8 times greater in our study than comparable estimates extrapolated from the study of A-bomb survivors (Tables 3.9 and 4.2).” The atomic bomb studies that your posted study is 6 to 8 times greater than are still the gold standard for studying the effects of radiation on the human body.

See here for a tip of the iceberg to the contrary:

http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad9709boyar.html

From the above article: “There are no data that support a linear inference of harm from nuclear radiation down to zero effect at zero dose. The data indicate that people would live longer and healthier lives if they received a little more radiation, not less.” Statement by Robert E Boyar of the Argonne National Laboratory.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/443.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440074/

A quote from the article above:

“Exposure to radiation is inevitable. In the present study, we assessed the effect of long-term low dose-rate radiation on genomic stability using several highly sensitive end points for DNA damage and DNA damage responses. Using some of the most sensitive techniques available, low dose-rate radiation (approximately 400-fold natural background radiation) over a 5-week period does not affect DNA base-lesion levels, micronuclei formation, HR frequency, or expression of DNA damage response genes. Importantly, an equal dose of radiation delivered acutely did induce DNA damage and DNA damage responses, thus demonstrating in an in vivoanimal model that lowering the dose-rate suppresses the potentially deleterious impact of radiation.”

http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/Ron%20Mitchel%20and%20Doug%20Boreham,%20AECL,%20IRPA-10,%20May%202000.htm

A quote from the above study:

“None of the predictions of the LNT hypothesis, as it applies to cancer risk from low or chronic doses of low LET radiation, are supported by the above data in human or rodent cells. The limited data in animals also indicates that the observed responses are not consistent with the hypothesis.”

http://atomicinsights.com/science-falsified-no-safe-dose-hypothesis-radiation-now/

No reason to fear low-dose radiation
The LNT Model – why it is a problem, why it was adopted, why it persists, and how it can be overcome

by
A group of professionals from Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI)
(Please see the end of the article for the list of authors)

http://atomicinsights.com/good-source-information-effects-benefits-radiology/

Radiologyinfo.org is a valuable, informative web site developed by physicians from the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) and the American College of Radiology (ACR). It is well-organized and provides factual, readily understood information to people who want to know more about the benefits, possible side effects, and long term health implications of undergoing diagnostic procedures or treatments involving radiation.

http://atomicinsights.com/health-effects-nuclear-radiation-plain-language/

From the above article’s list of related posts:

Positive effects of low dose radiation – Dr. Jerry Cuttler via Go Nuclear
Time for a Different Approach for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation by Dr. J. M. Cuttler, P. Eng, Cuttler & Associates, Inc.
A case for using more nuclear energy by Dr. J. M. Cuttler, P. Eng
What Becomes of Nuclear Risk Assessment in Light of Radiation Hormesis? by Dr. J. M. Cuttler, P. Eng, Cuttler & Associates, Inc.

Here is a short 3 minute video from a woman not associated with the nuclear industry. She puts the issue into perspective, a perspective utterly lacking in the anti-nuclear camp, and she does it in a way that is easy to understand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZHH3UQ_Rw0

Ah, the predictability of people like Ms. Gilmore… True to her steadfast commitment to the tenets of the C.R.A.P. club, she again keeps to herself all those facts she says we can’t have as “our own.” She also seems to have difficulty reading what is written, as she claims that my erstwhile company, Arc Machines, Inc. somehow was involved in “the welding you’ve done is with plutonium fuel.” Having managed that company for over 30 years, and having had a relatively high-level clearance ( Q clearance) from the DOE, while visiting numerous nuclear laboratories and other facilities, I don’t recall ever noticing any welding “with plutonium fuel.” That containers with plutonium inside may have been welded with our equipment is a possibility, but I don’t know where or by whom. Aside from that, my company has never done any welding per se; we design and fabricate equipment for others to do the welding. Of the numerous types of welding machinery we have fabricated, some were for making closure welds on a variety of different-design used fuel casks and on high-level, as well as low-level, radioactive waste containers. I would venture to say that I have seen more of such containers than Ms. Gilmore. I am also happy to see that Ms. Gilmore admits that there are no known used-fuel storage casks that have cracks – microscopic or otherwise – which are leaking those millions of curies of radiation she’s warning us about. In fact, I will wager her a truckload of bananas that she’s more likely to win the California lottery jackpot twice in a row than anyone from San Diego to San Francisco is likely to be harmed by radiation from any used nuclear fuel casks, cracked or not. As to bananas: in my little article about bananas, I never said or even implied that radiation from bananas is somehow less harmful than from other sources; I used the radiation from bananas simply as an understandable unit of measure of radiation, comparing banana radiation to other sources, becquerel-for-becquerel, without qualifying that any further. Purposely, no additional characteristics, such as type of radiation or equivalent energy levels were mentioned.

And, those who have read the KiKK report and taken as gospel its extrapolations and statistical probabilities, should know that the incidence of cancer farther than 5 kilometers from nuclear power plants is higher than within that 5-km zone, and should consider the fact that cancer (leukemia) incidence in locations within 5-km of a proposed, not built, nuclear power plant is the same as within 5-km of an operating plant. See, for example, this report: http://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse_PDF/2008/Kikk_Studie_e.pdf?__blob=publicationFile . Ms. Gilmore would get a whole lot more traction with her concerns about radiation if she studied what is happening at and around coal-fired plants, where tons of radioactive materials are being spewed into the environment every year. Just for fun, Ms. Gilmore ought to read: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

But, I suppose she will continue to march to the tune trumpeted by such shining beacons of scaremongering misinformation as Ms. Helen Caldicott or our own Mr. Larry Agran, the Grand Panjandrum of the local chapter of C.R.A.P.

Since Ms. Gilmore claims to send scientific reports she intends to read to an unnamed research scientist to ascertain that those reports meet “rigorous scientific standards,” perhaps she would deign to submit this quasi-scientific little article from the Laguna Beach Independent for testing: http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/guest-column-14/ .
I would really like to know whether she (or he) approbates its content.

Mindaugas Gedgaudas

Mindaugas, a quote from the review (the link you posted) of the German KiKK study:

“The study is thus not suited to the task of establishing a correlation with exposure to radiation from nuclear power plants. All of the radioecological and risk-based circumstances reviewed by the SSK indicate that exposure to ionising radiation caused by nuclear power plants cannot explain the result found by the KiKK Study. The additional radiation exposure caused by nuclear power plants is lower, by a factor of considerably more than 1,000, than the radiation exposure that could cause the risks reported by the KiKK Study.
• The natural radiation exposure within the study area, and its fluctuations, are both greater, by several orders of magnitude, than the additional radiation exposure caused by the relevant nuclear power plants. If one assumes that the low radiation exposures caused by the nuclear power plants are responsible for the increased leukaemia risk for children, then, in light of current knowledge, one must calculate that leukaemias due to natural radiation exposure would be more common, by several orders of magnitude, than they are actually observed to be in Germany and elsewhere.”

I had not seen this study before, thanks for the link. Although a resounding rebuke to the anti-nuclear hysteria, facts and documentation will make NO difference to them until and unless they are willing to change their mindset.
I myself would desert nuclear power in a heart beat IF, a big IF, something better came along; perhaps something will…someday.
Also, excellent points on coal. See here from Green Peace, no friend of nuclear:

“A new health impacts assessment report, unveiled today by Greenpeace and delivered to selected media, estimated that China’s operating coal-fired power plants released polluting emissions that killed 260,000 people in 2011 alone.

By contrast, air pollution from coal power plants in the United States caused 13,200 premature deaths in 2010, according to a study by the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based nonprofit group dedicated to reducing atmospheric pollution.”

To be against nuclear, is to be FOR coal because it is usually the replacement for lost nuclear. See Germany.

David,
Stating that coal is our only option to nuclear is false logic. Edison and PG&E receive billions of dollars every year of our energy efficiency money and squander it. SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District) has a real program for replacing and encouraging more energy efficient air conditioners and other effective programs. PG&E, SDG&E and Edison put so many hoops and limitations in the process, it discourages participants. In addition, they do not pay a fair amount to people whose solar systems feed energy back into the electric grid. These are just a few examples. See details at http://sanonofresafety.org/energy-options/

And when one of those thin San Onofre spent fuel canisters cracks open and releases millions of curies of radiation and we are forced to leave our communities what will you say then? If you think it can’t happen, what do you say about the Diablo Canyon 2-year old thin steel canister that has all the conditions for cracking, due to our coastal environment?
https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/diablocanyonscc-2014-10-23.pdf

You cannot tell me there are no cracked steel canisters at San Onofre. Edison has not inspected any of them for cracks or corrosion — they can’t — they don’t have the technology to do it; yet they want to spend almost $1.3 billion to buy more thin steel canisters. And no one will know when the crack goes through the wall of the thin (1/2″ to 5/8″) canisters until AFTER they leak radiation into the atmosphere. Please encourage Edison to select thick casks to ensure our safety for at least 80 to 100 years, rather than the 20 to 30 years we’re faced with now. These are the facts. It is disrespectful of you to claim our information is based on emotions. That is a pro-nuke talking point to attempt to discredit our information. Was Dr. Singh (vendor of the Diablo Holtec canister and Edison’s choice for new canisters) being emotional when he said at the October 14 2014 CEP meeting that even a microscopic crack will release millions of curies of radiation into the atmosphere? http://youtu.be/euaFZt0YPi4

As long as you continue to ignore the facts that don’t fit your beliefs, we can’t make progress in this discussion. And how can you ignore the triple nuclear meltdown currently happening at the Fukushima reactors? There has been an average of one reactor meltdown every 5 years in the last 35 years. We share the ring of fire (highest probability of earthquakes in the world) with Japan. And the canisters at San Onofre and at most other U.S. nuclear facilities are not seismically rated for cracks. The NRC Director of Spent Fuel Management refuses to acknowledge this issue. So does Edison. Some people want the waste out of here, but that will not happen for decades given the technical, logistic and legal obstacles. And if they do leave here, they will still impact us, so we must demand safer containers. Have you watched my presentation on these canisters? The NRC Director asked me to speak at their annual waste conference.
http://youtu.be/KvAbDX0R2Eg

I also had an opportunity to ask the NRC and nuclear industry engineers questions at the conference. They did not have good answers to key questions. You can see that Q&A session here.
http://youtu.be/ZpT_fHNnfc0

And here is a presentation from the German company that makes the leading cask in the rest of the world. They were invited to speak at the NRC conference I attended. However, if Edison won’t buy their product, the NRC won’t make this a priority to license. In addition, Edison does not have an NRC license for the Holtec UMAX system they want to buy, but they have been telling people they do.
http://youtu.be/mGJfve6ecIU
I’m interested in hearing your comments after watching these videos.

The third page of this document contains myths about nuclear waste dry storage. This is to counter the misleading information Edison is sharing about the Holtec canisters they plan to buy. As always, David, if you find any errors in this information, please share and I’ll correct the information once I have proof of the errors.
https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/reasonstobuythickcasks2015-01-30.pdf

Donna
SanOnofreSafety.org

Donna,
May I point out that I said coal is USUALLY the replacement for lost nuclear and I gave the example of Germany where this is true. You misquoted me when you claimed I said coal was our ONLY option. I have pointed out in the past that natural gas units were fired up to help fill the gap when San Onofre was shut down.
You’re always steering the unwary to your web site where on this very topic (electrical generation) you have a link that you claim supports the point you are trying to make above. Let me quote from YOUR link:

The California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), responsible for managing the bulk of the state’s power grid, recently issued its 2013 Summer Assessment confirming adequate supplies for most of California. The assessment identified local reliability concerns for southern Orange and San Diego Counties during extensive heat waves as a result of the absence of power from San Onofre.

Or here in the same article that YOUR web site points to:

The ISO is also continuing demand response and conservation awareness, and is asking consumers to watch for the Flex Alert conservation campaign on TV and radio again this summer, which will alert customers when to conserve electricity. “SDG&E customers are encouraged to watch for Flex Alerts this summer and help alleviate stress on the local grid by reducing energy use during key hours. Conserving on these key days will be essential,” said Eric Schmitt, ISO vice president of operations.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/RULINGS/130667.htm
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/RULINGS/130669.pdf

Now, on your web site you have a link called Excess Power Without Nuclear…which sends the viewer to a site with a chart that claims we have, and will have through 2020, between 150% and 167% surplus electrical generation in CA. This chart makes the staggering claim that electrical demand will go DOWN every year from 2011 to 2020. It also indicates that the worst surplus WITHOUT ANY NUCLEAR, ie., also NO Diablo Canyon, is 145%. Needless to say, that is NOT consistent with the above statements by SDG&E, which YOU referenced. This chart of yours was prepared by, Women’s Energy Matters, not exactly a source of scientific gravitas, but it is anti-nuclear and supports your narrative, hence, why it is on your web site.

If we go to government sites we find exactly the opposite message as the one found on your web site. As common sense would dictate, it shows electric demand going UP every year through 2020, not down as your chosen web site indicates. Also, in the rows indicating imports and exports, all areas, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E indicate zero EXPORTS and a lot of IMPORTS. This is again, contrary to the message you were sending above and that is found on your web site. Although I have misplaced the e-mail, the reply from the energy transmission folks to this very question was that 30% of all power Consumed in California, is Produced OUTSIDE of California…hardly a surplus.
All of this doesn’t even address voltage support. Even if there was sufficient electrical generation, there must be generation close to the area or voltage may dip. That is why SCE is considering installing a synchronous generator in the San Onofre switchyard…to hold up voltage in this area. It wasn’t needed when San Onofre was on line but due to lack of generation in this area, it is needed now.

I’ll answer your other statements as time permits.

Donna,
When you say “You cannot tell me there are no cracked steel canisters at San Onofre.” I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are NO through-wall cracks and do so based on NO increase in dose rates. You say “Edison has not inspected any of them for cracks or corrosion — they can’t — they don’t have the technology to do it…” BUT, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant has conducted the very inspection YOU claim there is no technology for. See here:

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001025209

Here is a quote from the article:

The project team selected for inspection two stainless steel canisters at Calvert Cliffs that had been in service for more than 15 years, a lead canister with the highest integrated dose and a second canister with the lowest temperature (also known as the “cold” canister). The inspection included visual examination, temperature measurements, and surface sampling. The team performed the inspection remotely, with the canisters remaining in the storage module, so tooling had to be developed for delivering the test equipment to the canister surface. For the surface sample collection, the team used both wet and dry surface methods. The wet method involved a commercially available device, but extensive testing was needed to qualify it for the specific conditions. The dry method involved a specially designed cartridge for collecting as much loose surface dust and debris as possible for later analysis. Visual inspection required insertion of a camera through the outlet vent for access to the area inside of the module for a view of nearly all of the canister surface. Surface sample and temperature measurements were performed by inserting a long tool through a narrow gap between the canister and the storage module in order to access the canister from the front opening with the door removed and temporary shielding installed.

Here is another quote:

In terms of visual results, both canisters had substantial amounts of dust, particularly on the top surface, and a few small rust blooms were observed on the lead canister; however, the general condition of both canisters was good, with no signs of gross degradation. The measured temperatures were 124°F and the 112°F at the bottom of the lead and cold canisters, respectively. These measured temperatures were in good agreement with the predicted temperatures, but did not increase appreciably along the sides of the cold canister as predicted. The chemical analysis results confirmed very low chloride concentrations, less than 0.1 g/m2 by one or two orders of magnitude. Of particular interest was that the sample compositions resembled inland rainwater rather than seawater, indicating that the environment is more inland than marine.

You made statements in the past saying no nuclear plant has had their fuel storage license extended beyond the initial 20 years. That was literally true at the time; it was also irrelevant as the first plants subsequently, and predictably, had their storage licenses renewed. You also state above that SONGs doesn’t have a license to use the Holtec design; that may be literally true but again, irrelevant as there is ZERO expectation that SONGs won’t obtain said license when it comes time to move fuel; Hotec is already prepping the area for the storage pad. You ask what I would say about the Diablo Canyon canisters having ‘the conditions’ for CSCC, I’d say BFD. Although your statement is literally true, your conclusion as to what it means is grossly exaggerated. Having a few salt crystals is a long way from a through-wall crack and as independent investigator and chairman of the CEP, David Victor, concluded, it wasn’t the earth shattering discovery you and your followers would like it to be.
A quote from independent investigator David Victor’s report:

Results from an actual cask that has been allowed to leak slowly for 2 years show, as well, that intrusion of water and the formation of hydrogen gas can’t reach explosive levels (section 4.4.3, page 4-25). I learned two things from this work. First, there is simply zero basis for the highly emotive statements that I have seen in the press and various other locations for the view that long-term storage of the fuel on site at SONGS has put “another Fukushima” or “another Chernobyl” in our backyard. We do the public a disservice with such emotive language since it creates images that are not in any way rooted in the technical assessment of the real risks.

That statement is obviously directed at you and your followers. Indeed, here is a question I asked YOU some time ago, a question you have never answered:

On your video, Safety Over Profits, at about 2:50 and again about 4:00, you say that if O2 gets into the canister, an explosion can result. Can you describe for me the mechanism of that explosion? You say this explosion will be on the scale of Fukushima, really? From one canister?

In light of David Victor’s statement, are you still standing by what you claimed in that video?
Here is another quote from David Victor’s report:

Finally, I want to underscore that I am deeply concerned about some claims and numbers that have been widely reported and re-reported in the press because I have found no robust basis for those numbers. In particular, I note that there are claims that cracks could begin as early as 30 years. However, none of the data reviewed above provide any evidence for that number, and the number itself seems to emerge from an unrecorded verbal exchange at a meeting with two NRC officials. Yet having reviewed all the presentations by those officials on that topic, and having included them in an extensive array of email exchanges, I do not find any robust support for that number.

Finally, another quote from his study:

Based on an extensive review and re-review of all the evidence I don’t see any support for these rapid corrosion, cracking and through wall penetration scenarios. Moreover, I note that EPRI has recently released a report that examines exactly this scenario. That report looks at the scenario that would unfold after conditions for cracking had been established and after a crack had initiatited. How long would it take for a crack, then, to travel through the walls if the crack were not detected and stopped? EPRI’s answer is about 80 years.31 In addition, the NRC has stated that if they knew that the conditions for cracking existed in the first place they would require mitigation of those conditions. Based on what we know reliably, I do not see these scenarios of SCC and through-wall cracking as credible.

I’ll answer your other statements as time permits.

David,
As you know, the first thin-wall nuclear waste canister loaded at San Onofre was on 10/3/2003, so it’s been in use just over 10 years in this immature and unproven technology. We haven’t had a through-wall crack yet because it takes time for a crack to go through-wall. We know we have corrosive salt air. We know that other components made of similar material at San Onofre and other nuclear plants have had through-wall chloride-induced stress corrosion cracks (CISSC), some in as little as 17 years (per NRC’s Darrell Dunn’s July and August 2014 technical presentations). What we don’t know is what the temperatures of the canisters are at San Onofre. If it’s 85 degrees C or lower (as was the case at Diablo Canyon after only 2 years), we have all the conditions for chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking. No spent fuel canisters have ever been inspected for stress corrosion cracking, since inspection technology does not exist for this in loaded spent fuel canisters. The only actual experience has been with other similar material components at ambient temperatures. Once cracking has started, it will spread faster through spent fuel canisters, since they will be above ambient temperatures. And according to NRC Branch Manager Al Csontos, there are many additional corrosion factors that can trigger stress corrosion cracking (other than our corrosive salt environment). However, the NRC has not focused on those issues. I have included reports on some of these on my Nuclear Waste page.

You’ve fallen victim to the “half-truths” of Edison and others. If I had not participated in the NRC July and August 2014 technical meetings on stress corrosion cracking and aging management, I would not have know the truth. David Victor chose to exclude from his Dry Cask report critical facts from the NRC documentation I sent him from those meetings and other documentation I sent him from government and scientific sources.

Have you read my Dry Cask paper and the references in that document that discuss this and other critical issues? It doesn’t appear so, based on your comments. David Victor included a version of my Dry Cask paper in Attachment A of his report as part of the Dry Cask Workgroup’s contrary statements. He put it at the very end of Attachment A. Maybe you didn’t read that far. Most people wouldn’t. David Victor invited me to be a member of that Workgroup because of the concerns I raised in the CEP meetings. Edison is using the CEP to imply they had consensus on David Victor’s Dry Cask recommendations, which is not true. Here is a link to the most current version of my short Dry Cask Report. It also includes a page of Nuclear Storage Myths to counter the misleading statements from Edison and others.
https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/reasonstobuythickcasks2015-01-30.pdf

In my Dry Cask report I reference the NRC 8/5/2014 meeting summary that verifies the fact the NRC is planning to give the industry 5 years to try to develop inspection technology for corrosion and cracks. It also states once a crack initiates the NRC estimates it will take at least 16 years for a crack to go through-wall. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1425/ML14258A081.pdf

The NRC stated they were not aware of the Diablo Canyon limited inspection results at their August meeting, even though EPRI did the limited inspection in January 2014. In the 8/5/2014 meeting summary NRC states they didn’t expect a crack would initiate for at least 30 years because they didn’t think the temperature of the canisters would be low enough for salts to dissolve on the canisters. The Diablo Canyon EPRI limited inspection data proves they were wrong. A canister was found to have all the conditions to initiate cracking after only 2 years (not 30). Here is a link to my Diablo Canyon paper on this issue. It includes technical and government references. It was peer reviewed by a licensed, independent and experienced materials engineer who is quoted in the report. His experience includes evaluation of nuclear waste storage container materials for Yucca Mountain.
https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/diablocanyonscc-2014-10-23.pdf

My Diablo Canyon paper does not state that the Diablo canisters have through-wall cracks and I never stated or implied that they do. However, the paper addresses the time it will take for cracks to go through wall in the thin canisters once a crack initiates. The NRC stated in the 8/5/2014 meeting summary the cracks may go through-wall in these thin canisters as early as 16 years after a crack initiates. Other data referenced in my Diablo Canyon report supports it may happen sooner. EPRI’s claim that you and Victor referenced estimates 80 years for through-wall cracking. However, it is based on assumptions (modeling) and ignores actual data that EPRI is fully aware of, since EPRI did the limited surface inspections at Diablo Canyon and Calvert Cliffs. David Victor chose to include EPRI’s 80 year estimate that was based on assumptions and ignore the NRC and EPRI data that would support an earlier through-wall crack timeframe. Victor was appointed by Edison to Chair the CEP and sits on the EPRI Board, so I would hardly call him independent. Victor says in his report he trusts the nuclear industry to figure out all the thin canister problems timely. Therefore, he supports continued use of thin canisters. However, his trust is based on unsubstantiated hope. Much of his Dry Cask report is based on assumptions and opinions and lacks sufficient data and references to support his conclusions. My Dry Cask document contains government and scientific data to support recommending thick casks that do not have the problems of the thin canister designs. It is not based on assumptions or unsubstantiated hope. My thick cask recommendation is based on selecting the best dry storage technology currently available in the world for interim storage. Instead Edison selected a thin canister design that cannot be inspected, maintained, repaired and is subject to cracking within 30 years, and that has no early warning system, so we won’t know until after radiation leaks into the environment. And to make matters worse, the NRC only requires Edison to check the canisters for leaks every 3 months! Would you take a road trip with your family in a car that cannot be inspected and had no early warning of pending failures and base your hope that nothing will go wrong on a promise from the salesman they’ll have all this figured out before anything goes wrong? And pay almost $1.3 billion dollars for a fleet of these cars? That’s what we’re being asked to do. We should not be paying for vendor promises and putting our families and communities at risk.

Here is an EPRI slide that states the Calvert Cliffs and other limited inspections were not intended to find chloride-induced stress corrosion cracks.
https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/epri-in-serviceinspectiondsc-2014-01-28.jpg

Here is an EPRI slide that states “What we don’t know — conditions on actual canisters”.
https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/ml13022a316epri-2012-12-18ssc-slide5.jpg

Even your boss, Tom Palmisano, states they have not inspected any of the San Onofre canisters. So as you state, the only way you will know you have cracks is AFTER they go through the wall of the canister and the radiation leaks in the environment.

And as Holtec’s CEO and President Dr. Singh stated at the October 2014 CEP meeting, even microscopic through-wall cracks will release millions of curies of radiation into the environment. Here is a video of Dr. Singh making those statements http://youtu.be/euaFZt0YPi4

Edison selected Holtec canisters for San Onofre, in spite of all the above evidence. We need to urge our state, federal and local elected officials to demand the NRC Commissioners not approve the new Holtec UMAX system Edison wants to use, and to demand the CPUC Commissioners not approve funds for this system until they address the above issues. These canisters are likely to start failing within 30 years. There are no funds to replace these canisters after they fail and no system in place to deal with a leaking canister. And these canisters cannot be repaired (as confirmed by the canister vendor Dr. Singh in the above video). These are facts left out of David Victor’s report.

“David, if you find any errors in this information, please share and I’ll correct the information once I have proof of the errors.”

Your myth #1 and #2 are refuted by the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant inspections:

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001025209

Myth #3) You give as a reference for your statement Holtec President Dr. Singh and include a link to the video. In the video, Dr. Singh NEVER said we CANNOT repair a THROUGH WALL crack. He only said he PERSONALLY would choose to replace the canister which he also said was very easy to isolate…you conveniently forgot that part. Also, SCE representatives approached Dr. Singh afterward and questioned him about his faux pas statement regarding millions of curies coming out. He clarified his statement to say that there are millions of curies IN the canister, not coming out through a hair line crack. Also, the aging management program is in place to prevent cracks from forming, not just react when/if they occur.
Myth #4 Oh, so you took a state wide poll to verify this? This is Donna talking, don’t confuse your opinion with the rest of the citizens of the state. I can readily believe that the citizens would choose what you want, once YOU have framed the question to support your narrative.
Myth #5 I don’t have a problem with the ductile cast iron casks, I am sure they could be made to work fine. I would say, however, that a mechanical seal is INFERIOR to a weld. Furthermore, San Onofre CANNOT use the ductile cast iron casks because they are too heavy. SONGs SFP handling crane is NOT rated to lift them due to the weight.
Myth #6 I am not concerned about a problem that BEST conservative estimates suggests would NOT occur for at least 80 years. Don’t waste yours and my time trying to convince the public that the industry must have a plan in place for an event that will not happen for another 80 years in the future, especially when the solution is not particularly technically difficult. I watched your question and answer period where you kept going round and round with the NRC on this issue…my hat is off to them, they are very long suffering.
Myth #7 In your footnoted reference, where is the information that supports your statement? It appears you just make a claim and simply throw a link to a discussion hoping nobody actually reads it to find it doesn’t support your narrative. Just what does your statement here attempt to convey?

“Additional costs for thin canisters include transfer casks, transport casks, thick overpacks for final disposal (assuming DOE even allows these for final disposal) and replacement canisters.”

You and your followers have been like a broken record with your “safety before profits” complaint. Are you now saying that the canisters ALL US nuclear plants use are too expensive? Really? This is like the old adage of any port in a storm, or in anti-nuclear parlance, any argument that gains traction regardless of its technical merit.
Myth #8 The ductile cast iron canisters do NOT now, nor have they ever had a license to transport in the US. The NRC refused to give them a license to transport based on the belief that they might shatter if dropped. It is irrelevant whether this belief has been dispelled with further testing (I’ll go out on a limb and trust you on this one), what is relevant is that they are the wrong canisters for San Onofre for all the reasons enumerated by independent investigator and chairman of the CEP, David Victor, AND because they are too darn heavy AND a mechanical seal is INFERIOR to a weld. SONGs’ SFP cranes cannot lift them, they don’t have the capacity.
Myth #9 You didn’t provide a reference for your claim but assuming your statement is correct regarding the type of canisters etc. (simple to check on but this response is long already); please provide documentation, data etc. that supports your implied assertion that other dry cask storage systems would have failed.

David, see below responses to your comments about Page 3, of below linked document “Myths about nuclear waste dry storage.” https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/reasonstobuythickcasks2015-01-30.pdf

Myth 1. David, apparently you don’t understand how metal components are examined for stress corrosion cracks. I recommend you read the following document. This document evaluates methods to examine materials for stress corrosion cracks. I suggest you read it to get an education on what is really needed to check for these cracks.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/ageing/stainless-steels.pdf

If it helps, I can clarify Myth 1 (below) by adding the words “for corrosion or cracks”.
Myth 1. We are not aware of problems with any canisters. No canisters have been inspected for corrosion or cracks, since there is no method to inspect them. Canisters must be inspected while inside concrete overpacks, due to lack of gamma and neutron shielding. Inspection technology for other stainless steel products is not directly transferable. The NRC is allowing vendors 5 years to solve this problem. However, solutions will be limited.

Myth 2. is correct as it stands:
“We have inspected some canisters. Visual inspection was limited to a small surface area of a few steel canisters, and only for canister temperature, surface dust and salts from a small area of the canisters. No crack or corrosion inspections. Even this limited inspection showed conditions exist for cracking at a 2-year old Holtec Diablo Canyon canister. The NRC thought this would not happen for at least 30 years.”

The Calvert Cliffs “inspections” did not check for corrosion and stress corrosion cracks. Maybe you didn’t read it closely. Here are some specifics:
Page 4-9: However, since both canisters were partially coated in dust, it was not possible to get an undisturbed view of all the canister surfaces.
Page 5-1: However, given the type of visual performed, pitting corrosion and stress corrosion cracking cannot be ruled out, especially since some signs of rust were observed on the Lead Canister.
Page 5-3: With the methods used, there is no way to distinguish between the deposits directly in contact with the surface, and the deposits in the buffer layer of dust.

Myth 3 (Part 1)David, please provide a document link about how to repair steel containers filled with spent nuclear fuel. You won’t find any. Dr. Singh provides a good explanation as to why it’s not practical to repair a damaged canister. I’ve included that following this of Myth 3.
We have technology to repair stainless steel. That technology does not work for loaded nuclear waste canisters, according to NRC and Holtec President.
Dr. Singh explains why it’s not practical to repair a canister if it were damaged “…It is not practical to repair a canister if it were damaged… if that canister were to develop a leak, let’s be realistic; you have to find it, that crack, where it might be, and then find the means to repair it. You will have, in the face of millions of curies of radioactivity coming out of canister; we think it’s not a path forward… …A canister that develops a microscopic crack (all it takes is a microscopic crack to get the release), to precisely locate it… And then if you try to repair it (remotely by welding)…the problem with that is you create a rough surface which becomes a new creation site for corrosion down the road. ASME Sec 3. Class 1 has some very significant requirements for making repairs of Class 1 structures like the canisters, so I, as a pragmatic technical solution, I don’t advocate repairing the canister.”

Myth #3 (part 2): David, you said “an aging management program is in place to prevent cracks from forming, not just react when/if they occur.” That does not exist. If you have a link that proves something is in place to prevent cracks, please provide it. And regarding impact of a radiation release, please provide written documentation if Dr. Singh’s statement needs correction. I wouldn’t take Edison’s word for that. Better yet, provide a link to data supporting what will happen with a microscopic link.

Myth #4. Once people are made aware that high burnup fuel needs to cool longer in the pool to be safe, they understand. And once they understand these thin canisters may crack prematurely, that they cannot be inspected for cracks or maintained, that there is no early warning system BEFORE a radiation leak, then they want safer containers. These issues are facts, they are not opinions. Edison is not telling them about this data.

Myth #5 The ductile cast iron casks require a different handling crane, just like the Holtec canisters that Edison selected require a different handling crane. The weight is not the issue. That is another myth. The mechanical metal seal is designed for long term use. It is maintainable and can be replaced. A bad weld or cracked canister cannot be replaced. Thick casks are not subject to failure from cracks. And if fuel needed to be removed from a defective canister, the $4 million dollar canister is useless.
Myth 6: I explained why the 80 year estimate is bogus. Why are you choosing to ignore the Diablo Canyon actual data showing conditions for cracking in a 2-year old canister?
Why are you OK with destroying spent fuel pools? I pressed the NRC and NEI because they were evading answering the question. If they had a workable answer, there would be no reason to keep pressing the issue. You’re OK with having no plan if a canister fails? Where is the redundency with no backup plan?

Myth 7: Did you read the footnoted document? NRC 8/5/2014 stress corrosion cracking meeting summary
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1425/ML14258A081.pdf
Tell me what part is not substantiated and I will provide that substantiation. I could add an entire page of references, but tried to keep this document short.
Regarding costs, people need to be aware that the thin canister costs do not include costs for transport casks.Edison should do a full cost/benefit analysis of both thin canisters and thick casks, but they refuse to even allow the thick cask vendor to bid. People at least need to know that the money allocated by Edison does not include all costs. And Edison needs to be transparent and itemize these costs, but they are not sharing itemized costs, claiming we don’t have a right to see the itemized costs that we are paying for.

Myth 8: For the reasons stated above and in my previous response to you, there is no good justification to choose the thin canisters over the thick casks. And the most important issue that makes this an urgent problem is we have canisters that have been loaded at San Onofre since 2003 and NO ONE knows if they are cracking. Given the NRC data and the EPRI Diablo Canyon inspection, I am very concerned we could have a through-wall crack within the next 10 to 20 years. Why are you ignoring the Diablo Canyon data? It is extremely relevant to this issue.

Myth 9: Numerous people (on both sides of the nuclear issue) have been trying to justify use of thin canisters by saying the dry casks at Fukushima didn’t fail. The Fukushima thick cask technology is complete different, so cannot be used to justify that the thin canisters are just as safe. That is my point.

I appreciate hearing your views. It’s important to get these issues out in the open.

Thanks,
Donna

It is illustrative that Donna considers a statement in an explanation by Dr. Singh as fact requiring no further documentation because it comports with her beliefs, yet doesn’t even bother to mention his solution to the proposed problem. Dr. Singh said “You can EASILY isolate that canister in a cask that keeps it cool and basically provided (sic) a next confinement boundary; you’re not relying on the canister.” Also, he never said we can’t repair a canister, he simply indicated he would rather place it in a secondary container; either solves a highly unlikely problem.

These have appeared on Donna’s website: video of a speaker lying about San Onofre’s emergency batteries claiming they had been disconnected for four years (could you drive your car with the battery disconnected?); video of an interview where it was claimed horrendous mutations resulted from TMI describing cows being born with skeletons on the outside of their skin, etc. (science fiction non-sense); supposed experts claiming Pressurized Water Reactors don’t have reactor vessel level indication (False); and video of herself claiming a dry canister leak could result in a catastrophe worse than Fukushima (my questions as to whether she stands by this statement have been met with silence). In addition, her followers have made numerous and repeated statements that the tiny Steam Generator tube leak at San Onofre almost resulted in another Fukushima, that SCE planned on rotating canisters in and out and that the moving of spent fuel was very dangerous (hundreds of thousands of fuel moves have been safely made in the US alone), that TMI has canisters that leaked, radiation discharges are secret, no way to monitor radiation at or coming from San Onofre, truck bombs from outside the perimeter could take out the Spent Fuel Pools, etc. etc., all not only false, but complete crap bereft of a scintilla of reality.

Her claim that David Victor, chair of the CEP, is not independent, is again prima facie evidence of her duplicity. While she points to EPRI documents she feels support her view, she simultaneously tags Victor with bias BECAUSE he works for EPRI. Perhaps she hopes her readers won’t recognize the inconsistency of her arguments. Also, any individual given Victor’s position who, after reviewing all the documentation, came to a conclusion at odds with Donna’s narrative, would be accused of the same bias Victor is accused of. Had he agreed with Donna’s conclusions, it would have been Donna quoting him and she would have been promoting him as “independent”.
It is instructive just who Donna does claim as an independent. Arni Gundersen, the go-to guy for the anti-nuclear community, is labeled an independent engineer by Donna herself. Gundersen was tapped by Friends of the Earth, an anti-nuclear organization, for work against San Onofre which he had been claiming needed to be shut down. He has also engaged in debates against the nuclear industry and is responsible for spreading a lot of fear and hysteria over Fukushima much of which has proved to be false. Yet, because his view points coincide with Donna’s, he is “independent.”

These are the activities of an activist with an agenda, not a citizen concerned with the safety of her community. Exaggeration is the tool of choice and facts and documentation are only tools selectively cited to provide a fig leaf of credibility to the agenda.

It is worth quoting again from David Victors report which he wrote up after reviewing ALL the documentation:

Based on an extensive review and re-review of all the evidence I don’t see any support for these rapid corrosion, cracking and through wall penetration scenarios. Moreover, I note that EPRI has recently released a report that examines exactly this scenario. That report looks at the scenario that would unfold after conditions for cracking had been established and after a crack had initiated. How long would it take for a crack, then, to travel through the walls if the crack were not detected and stopped? EPRI’s answer is about 80 years.31

This is in agreement with the clip that DONNA posted above where in answer to HER question, the representative stated that AFTER the initiation of a crack (it takes years for crack initiation), it would take 86 years as a “most conservative” estimate, to go through wall. Begin at 29:15 for the relevant portion of this discussion or watch the whole thing and judge for yourselves whether her claims that the NRC provided “no good answers” has any merit: http://youtu.be/ZpT_fHNnfc0

More to follow as time permits.

Before I follow up on the discussion of Dr. Singh’s statement regarding millions of curies of radiation coming out, let me again repeat that though I have worked at San Onofre for 30 years, I am NOT a spokesman for SCE nor do I have their permission or blessing to speak. I represent only myself and no others.
So, I knew the statement of Dr. Singh’s was false when I heard it and just assumed he had misspoke. SCE officials had approached him afterward and he confirmed that he meant there are millions of curies worth of radioactive material inside the canister (or words to that effect) which is a TRUE statement…there are millions of curies of radioactive material inside. However, this material doesn’t magically flow out of a microscopic crack nor would it flow out if the entire canister lid were off. The fuel is a solid, inside the cladding, also solid, it isn’t going anywhere, even with the lid off. Some assemblies, a very small percentage, have fuel defects and these would probably contaminate the little bit of helium inside but leaking through a microscopic crack, without a pressure driving head, would be incredibly slow and pose zero danger to those on site and even less to the community.
As to dose rates, here is a link to give the reader some idea of the magnitude of Dr. Singh’s faux pas:
https://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/ipfm/Managing-Spent-Fuel-Sept-2011.pdf see figure 1.4 on page 7.

Here, we find that a 50 GwD/tHM (hi burn-up fuel), after 10 years, would read about 1000 Rem/hr at one meter. Although certainly a lethal dose, one can see that 1000 Rem is far from Dr. Singh’s millions.

Some of the things Donna writes leave me with the impression she doesn’t understand what a Rem is or the difference between contamination and radiation. Radiation cannot spread, get in or on people. Contamination is the actual radioactive material that gives off the radiation, where it is not wanted, ie., on the body. See the below link:
http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/resources/radiation-faq.aspx
A quote from the above:
Q: What is the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive contamination?
A: When a person is exposed to radiation, there is no transfer of radioactive material, for example, an x-ray. When a person is contaminated with radioactive material, they take that material with them wherever they go, until they are decontaminated.

It is critical that one is able to distinguish between the two to fully comprehend the relative non-danger of used nuclear fuel. Although cracks are not desired and all steps will be taken to insure they don’t occur, even with a huge crack, the dose to the public is nil as the overpack shields the radiation dose. This radiation does not “flow out” and get in or on either the people or anything else. Donna gives the impression that this radiation is going to flow out like a cloud and descend upon the inhabitants…ain’t happening. If I’ve misrepresented her views she is free to clarify.
As to myths, her answer to # 5 is just false! The crane SCE will use for the Holtec design is the same for the Areva. It is the connecting cables that are NOT part of the crane that are different AND Holtec will supply their own. The Holtec design requires no change to SCE’s installed equipment.

In deciding which canisters to use, engineers were first tasked with determining technical feasibility without cost considerations. The European design that Donna and her followers wish SCE to use DID NOT pass this technical review. As previously stated, the ductile cast iron canisters are too heavy, by many tons too heavy. These canisters CANNOT be used and they will NOT be used and Donna can wish all she wants, but it won’t make those European canisters any lighter. For this and other reasons, the European company was not offered a chance to bid. If they offered them for free it wouldn’t make them any lighter…that is a fact!

Why would a $4 million defective canister be useless if the fuel was removed? Just repair it. And why couldn’t a bad weld be fixed (if she is speaking of the seal welds on the lid), just pull it into the transfer cask and re-weld the lid (it has a double weld so this is an unlikely scenario).
Some of her statements just don’t make any sense.

More to come as time permits.

How did we get where we are? The nuclear industry used to safely reprocess used nuclear fuel in this country just as it is safely done in Europe and other countries. Then in the early 1970’s the government stopped the reprocessing and promised to build a repository for the used fuel but the nuclear plants had to fund this project. After Yucca Mt. Nevada was chosen, the anti-nukes opposed it but not on scientific grounds for the studies were only just beginning. They hoped that without a long-term repository states would disallow the building of any more nuclear plants, California did just that. This was part of their long term goal to make America nuclear power free; an agenda not based on any science. The following link details their strategy at a meeting that Ralph Nader spoke at:

http://atomicinsights.com/anti-nuclear-movement-strategy-circa-april-1991/

High-Level Waste
Continue to stall until Congress gives up on the repository program and the progress grinds to a halt
Recognize that DOE itself is responsible for delays in characterizing the Yucca Mountain site
Acknowledge that Yucca Mountain is not suitable, will not be found suitable, and cannot be licensed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 60 (“the only science in the system is political science”)

The above is a quote from material passed out at their meeting.

For recent history, it appears that there was a quid pro quo arrangement whereby Reid would help Obama get elected and Obama would let Reid appoint his personal science advisor (Gregory Jaczko) to the chairmanship of the NRC. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko Below is a quote from the article regarding Jaczko:
He later advised the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on issues regarding nuclear power.[4] He served as appropriations director for U.S. Senator Harry Reid and as Reid’s science policy advisor.[8]

With Jaczko’s help, Obama and Reid were able to defund the Yucca Mt. project. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
A quote from the article:

Since 2009, the Obama administration has been attempting to close the Yucca Mountain repository, despite current US law that designates Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste repository. The administration agency, DOE, began implementation of the President’s plan in May 2009. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also gone along with the administration’s closure plan.

How this all fits in is that the nuclear industry, while paying for Yucca Mt. and getting nothing for it, devised placing used nuclear fuel in dry cask storage. Eventually, it was thought, they would get approval to ship used fuel to Yucca Mt. but the federal government has essentially reneged on the deal. As these plants couldn’t be left eternally in limbo regarding storage of their fuel, the NRC just recently gave approval for indefinite storage (it is anticipated that it won’t be eternal, just until a final site is chosen). So, the industry is left with a situation that wasn’t intended, long term storage in canisters.
It must be stressed at this point that NO person has ever died or been injured from the storing of spent fuel at a commercial nuclear power plant in its entire 60 year history…a phenomenally excellent record. For those who claim it is dangerous, they are engaging in hyperbole, not reality. Let me say again, storing used nuclear fuel is done safely.
Anti-nukes wish to scare the public with the specter of canister leaks…even in the highly unlikely case of a canister leaking, it is no more dangerous than what citizens face on a daily basis. The canisters are surrounded by feet of shielding, either concrete or the earth itself covered in concrete.
As to inspections of the canisters, visual inspections and sampling of the canister surface occur now. Donna sometimes uses visual inspections and tests for cracks interchangeably so it can be confusing as to what she means when she says inspections for cracking don’t occur. Let me be perfectly clear, Dye-Penetrant, Ultrasonic NDT testing, etc. are NOT currently taking place because of the space limitations between the overpack and the canister and because the dose rates with a canister out of the overpack are high (dose rate about 2 Rem/hour, doable, but because there is time to develop methods where workers will receive much lower doses, not needed at this time).
Both EPRI and the nuclear industry are independently pursuing this issue. Issues that remain technical requiring only an engineering solution are invariably solved…this will be one of those.
Finally, Donna Gilmore has invested enormous personal capital in this issue and there is little possibility that an engineering or technical solution that doesn’t rely on her recommendations will be accepted by her and her followers…she has become, not just the voice and leader of her group, but akin to the messiah, she can’t be seen to fail.

We humans produce 12,000 metric tonnes of high-level nuclear waste per year globally with no funded process to keep pace with waste production, and no economic incentive to include reprocessing waste as a life-cycle cost. When someone can show the sustainable cost of nuclear power per net generated KWH exceeds that of solar, post the number here, that result should satisfy everyone. I’ve never seen a banana plantation become a Superfund Site but there are plenty of store in-place nuke sites that will be. (Note to editor: leave this thread open for either eventuality.) Either way the Government creates another career industry, taxpayer and ratepayers loose.