Category: CBG News

SAN ONOFRE: CBG Study Shows Safety of Restarting Either Unit 2 or 3 is Questionable

In a report released today, CBG conducted an exhaustive analysis of data from nuclear plants nationwide.  After analyzing the data, it became stunningly clear that San Onofre’s Unit 2 reactor has about 400 times as many damaged steam generator tubes as the median number at comparable plants over the same operational period, and Unit 3 has more than 450 times as many.  Each San Onofre reactor has greater than a thousand times as many indications of wear on the tubes than the typical reactor in its first cycle of operation.  And each San Onofre unit has had to …

NASA Reaffirms Commitment to SSFL Cleanup Agreement, Will Clean Up Contamination to Background

NASA announced that it will fully comply with the Agreement on Consent (AOC) signed in December 2010 to cleanup its portion of SSFL to background levels and set the scope of its Environmental Impact Statement to be in compliance with the AOC.

NASA released the following statement:

July 18, 2012

Update on NASA’s National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Santa Susana Field Laboratory

NASA remains committed to a proposed cleanup to background that will meet the Administrative Order on Consent between DTSC and NASA.

We received comments from Senator Boxer and the Council on Environmental Quality regarding the evaluation

San Onofre nuclear power plant: More dangerous than imagined

There is a new report on the devastating information recently disclosed by the NRC–that approximately 3,400 steam generator tubes have gone bad at San Onofre, a number nearly equal to as many tubes installed in Unit 2 and Unit 3 of the power plant.  Despite this information, Edison is considering re-starting Unit 2 as early as August 2012.

CBG’s Dan Hirsch:

“This reveals a far greater problem than has been previously disclosed, and raises serious questions about whether it is safe to restart either unit.”

How Many Wake-Up Calls Does it Take? Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukushima.

2011 was a historical year for nuclear power and the nuclear industry.  After TMI, nuclear industry advocates told us not to worry, they had brought the accident under control a half-hour before a complete meltdown and breach of the reactor vessel would have occurred.
After Chernobyl had a complete meltdown (and fire) they told us not to worry, it was a Soviet-design reactor, different than ours.

But what can they say in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, which, as I write, is still going on? These were General Electric-designed plants, in a technologically advanced society, with a regulatory structure …