Help C.A.N. Coalition Against Nukes & NIRS Honor a Different Kind of Nuclear Legacy

MICHAEL MARIOTTEThe Legacy of Michael Mariotte.

For over 30 years, Michael Mariotte has helped build the movement to stop nuclear power, end the creation of radioactive waste, and hasten our sustainable energy future.

And it is not just us who feel this way. Over a dozen national organizations recently joined to present Michael with a Lifetime Achievement Award, with the highest praises for his work. Watch the video above to see some of his and NIRS’ accomplishments.

But now Michael needs our support. For two years, he has been fighting his way through an aggressive form of cancer. Despite his illness, it has actually helped keep him strong to continue working throughout. This cause is truly his passion and his life’s work. Just see our GreenWorld blog for his prolific activity and inimitable voice. In honor of his incredible dedication and service, NIRS is committed to providing Michael whatever support he needs, just as he has sustained the movement all these years.

To truly honor Michael’s work and commitment, NIRS has a dual responsibility: we must not only make sure we meet our obligation to him – we must also ensure our work does not miss a beat, and we are able keep the movement going strong.

Our Proposal: Michael’s Legacy Fund

Therefore, NIRS is raising funds to ensure Michael has the support he needs and that his work continues. We are calling it the Legacy Fund, and our goal is to raise at least $100,000. The funds raised will serve three purposes:

  • To ensure Michael receives his full salary and benefits, regardless of whether he is able to continue working.
  • To ensure NIRS has the capacity to advance the mission to which he has dedicated his career.
  • At Michael’s specific request, to ramp up NIRS’ work on nuclear power and climate (an issue he first began working on in 1988!) throughout this year, and at the year-end international climate conference in Paris.

Michael played a key role in keeping nuclear power out of international climate rules in The Hague in 2000 and intends for NIRS to do so again this year. Atomic reactors and the nuclear fuel chain are simply too expensive, too dangerous, too dirty, and too environmentally devastating to be considered a climate solution. Clean, safe and affordable renewable energy coupled with a 21st century smart grid, distributed generation and increasingly competitive electricity storage will power our future without carbon emissions, radioactive waste, and nuclear meltdown.

Michael’s leadership has led us through some of the movement’s darkest times, up to the next phase of our work, which represents nothing short of the fulfillment of our mission: the phase-out of nuclear power, and the transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future. The challenges before us are significant, with a new coordinated campaign against renewable energy and climate policies by the nuclear industry. Due in no small part to Michael’s work, we have the opportunity to stop them, and develop a new generation of anti-nuclear activists. We must see it through.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Get involved: The People’s Climate March New York City Sept. 21st

go to the NIRS site


Take Action: Tell the EPA to take nuclear support out of its carbon rules.


Indian activists detained for protesting against India-Australia Uranium Agreement

By Nuclear Resource A group of activists were arrested yesterday from the Australian High Commission in Delhi when they went to protest against the uranium agreement, detained in the nearby Chanakyapuri police station for an hour or so, and later let off with warning and after our details were registered.

Read more here:: http://www.dianuke.org/indian-activists-detained-for-protesting-against-india-australia-uranium-agreement/

Visualizing the climate march

By Michael Mariotte


With just over three weeks to go until the September 21 People’s Climate March, we are receiving more and more questions from people about everything from logistical details to the message of the Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent.

In some cases, we just don’t have answers yet–especially on some of the logistical issues, some of which are pretty important. The People’s Climate March didn’t exactly have everything planned when the organizers announced the event. From our perspective, it seems more like the event was announced with the hope that it would take off, and the planning would depend on the response.

Fortunately, the event has taken off and momentum clearly is building. About 200 buses to NYC are confirmed and more are being chartered from various areas of the country just about daily. There are special trains coming from the West Coast and from Washington DC. There are car caravans being set up. And, of course, with tens of millions of people living within commuting range of New York City, there is a huge local base to draw on who don’t need chartered buses or other special transportation.

In short, this is going to be big, and any logistical decisions that might have been made two months ago would have be thrown out the window now anyway.

The march route

What we do know: like the march time, the march route, the main assembly area, where to look for buses and other transportation–all that is posted on the Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent website here.

That site is now being updated daily and will continue to be through September 21. What we don’t yet know: like the location of the nuclear-free, carbon-free activist meeting on Saturday afternoon, September 20; the exact assembly point for the Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent; whether the police will allow us to have sound at the assembly point so we can have a mini-rally for the Contingent; and some other details, will be posted on that site as soon as we confirm that information.

Somewhat more ephemeral is what the March, and the Contingent, will look like, but we get a lot of questions about that too.

And while no one will know for sure until we all get there, we at least have some ideas.

The March itself will be spread out over many, many city blocks–that is a certainty. Like I said above–this is going to be big. Historic even.

The Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent most likely will be around the middle of the march, under the general heading of contingents fighting against various dirty energy sources. And the Contingent will be large.

nukenothanks2The Contingent will be led by a very large, bright blue “Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free” banner. But probably the most striking visual aspect will be 650 bright yellow Smiling Sun flags that say “Nuclear Power? No Thanks,” which in one graphic gets across both our opposition to nuclear power and our support for renewable energy. 400 of the flags will be in English, 150 in Spanish, and 100 in Japanese. It’s a universal message.

Besides the flags, which will be held high and very visible, NIRS also will be bringing 200 Don’t Nuke the Climate posters, also mounted to be held high and visibly. And we have a few other large banners we’ll be bringing.

Between the flags, signs, and banners, the nuclear-free aspect of our message will really get across, colorfully and vibrantly. So if you’re coming without your own signs, don’t worry at all–there will be plenty available to carry.

donnukeclimatecrowdMany groups and people in the Contingent will be bringing their own signs, banners and other materials, of course. And that’s great. That will add to the visual kaleidoscope and bring special attention to a lot of regional and local concerns.

For example, we expect a large group focused on shutting down New York’s Indian Point reactors–that group is also bringing along a giant King CONG (coal, oil, nuclear, gas) prop. Another group will be focused on the Pilgrim reactor. And others with other specific reactors and/or issues in mind.

We might also see–and we’ll certainly welcome–people and signs/banners and the like against coal; against fracking and other dirty energy; for clean, renewable energy.

Because that’s really what the Contingent is about: the nuclear-free, carbon-free solution to our climate crisis. There probably won’t be a lot of signs in the Contingent about climate change itself; there are plenty of other groups who will have those. This Contingent ultimately is about the clean energy solutions–which is what unifies all of us who fight different dirty energy sources.

And, over the next three weeks, we’ll be producing more materials that will be useful in articulating that message and the solutions–and hopefully will make for good reading on the buses to New York as well. We’ll be posting them on the Contingent website too.

statueoflibertywsolarpanelWe also hope, and expect, the Contingent will reverberate with sound. People have talked about bringing drums and acoustic instruments, and we encourage that; we’ll have songs and chants ready to go. No one wants to walk through the city in silence–this will be more of a celebration. Yes, the climate is in a state of crisis and that’s deadly serious. And yes, nuclear power is trying to rescue its failed technology on the back of that crisis, and that’s deadly serious too.

But we have the solutions–and that is definitely worth celebrating not only for ourselves but for everyone. Because remember: this event is growing to historic proportions. The largest climate march ever. The largest anti-nuclear statement in decades. The whole world will be watching. You’ll want to be there.

GreenWorld is going on vacation! Yes, even activists get a break now and then (fortunately). We will return on Monday, September 15.

Michael Mariotte

August 29, 2014

Permalink: http://safeenergy.org/2014/08/29/visualizing-the-climate-march/

Please support GreenWorld with your tax-deductible contribution on our donation page here. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size–your support is what makes this publication possible.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!

GreenWorld is crossposted on tumblr at https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nirsnet

Filed under: energy future Tagged: Indian Point, Nuclear-Free Carbon-Free Contingent, People’s Climate March, Pilgrim, Smiling Sun flag

Read more here:: http://safeenergy.org/2014/08/29/visualizing-the-climate-march/

UBS: It’s time to join the (solar) revolution

By Michael Mariotte

UBS: the falling costs of solar power and battery storage combined with increasing use of electric vehicles means the end of large power plants--faster than you might think.

UBS: the falling costs of solar power and battery storage combined with increasing use of electric vehicles means the end of large power plants–faster than you might think.

Already this year we’ve reported on several major investment banks and analysts that argue the future is solar power. First there was Goldman Sachs (Goldman Sachs sees a solar future for the U.S.–and that has nuclear utilities running scared), then Barclay’s (Nuclear industry wins short-term victories, but losing long-term battle), then Bloomberg (Bloomberg sees a renewable-powered future), then Citigroup (Citigroup: The revolution will not be televised).

Now the giant multinational investment firm UBS has joined the march toward a clean energy future.

In a letter to its clients, UBS says flat out: “It’s time to join the revolution.”

Right now, the payback period for installation of rooftop solar plus battery storage is about 12 years. That means that after 12 years, the homeowner’s electricity is essentially free.

A graphic from Union of Concerned Scientists showing the falling costs of rooftop solar.

But by the end of this decade, UBS states, the payback period will be six to eight years. And by 2030 it will be a mere three years. At that point, it would be silly for anyone not to install rooftop solar.

Driving this trend is not just the falling costs of solar panels and installation. UBS says a huge factor is electric vehicles (EVs). According to UBS,

“The expected rapid decline in battery cost by (more than) 50 per cent by 2020 should not just spur EV sales, but also lead to exponential growth in demand for stationary batteries to store excess power. This is relevant for an electricity mix with a much higher share of (volatile) renewables.”

UBS asserts that the reason utilities are missing the trend–to their ultimate detriment–is that they’re not looking at the issue holistically.

“Our proprietary model shows it is the combination of the three that makes solar fully competitive and that has the potential to bring disruptive changes to the electricity sector.

“Here are the maths: One can leverage the EV purchase with an investment in a solar system and a stationary battery. By doing so, one can optimize the self-consumption of solar power and minimize the “excess waste” of solar electricity.

“And what also may matter to many EV buyers: The electricity used to drive the car is carbon-free. The combination of and EV + solar + battery should have a payback of 7-11 years, depending on the country-specific economics. In other words, based on a 20-year technical life of a solar system, a German buyer should receive 12 years of electricity for free (purchase in 2020).”

Although the UBS report is focused on Europe, this graphic from Union of Concerned Scientists shows that “grid parity”–when solar becomes as cheap as getting power from a utility–isn’t far away for most of the U.S. either.

The UBS letter to its clients is focused on Europe, where it says the payback period will drop fastest in countries with the highest electricity costs, including Germany, Spain and Italy. But there is no reason the same wouldn’t be true in the U.S. and just about anywhere else.

As for the future of large nuclear and fossil fuel power plants? “Large-scale power generation, however, will be the dinosaur of the future energy system: Too big, too inflexible, not even relevant for backup power in the long run,” UBS writes. “By 2025, everybody will be able to produce and store power. And it will be green and cost competitive, ie, not more expensive or even cheaper than buying power from utilities.”

Michael Mariotte

August 27, 2014

Permalink: http://safeenergy.org/2014/08/27/ubs-its-time-to-join-the-solar-revolution/

Please support GreenWorld with your tax-deductible contribution on our donation page here. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size–your support is what makes this publication possible.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!

GreenWorld is crossposted on tumblr at https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nirsnet

Filed under: energy future, Renewables Tagged: battery storage, electric vehicles, rooftop solar, solar power, UBS

Read more here:: http://safeenergy.org/2014/08/27/ubs-its-time-to-join-the-solar-revolution/

Premature Failure of U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Canisters

In a nutshell all we are saying is that this process should be slowed down to ensure the best possible choice of dry cask canisters is made, spend the money wisely “once” to avert another steam generator type disaster and ensure the safety of California’s future. Gene Stone &  Donna Gilmore.

Premature Failure of U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Canisters

The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) should delay funding the new San Onofre dry cask storage system until Southern California Edison provides written substantiation that the major problems identified below are resolved.

San Onofre’s Chief Nuclear Officer, Tom Palmisano, told the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee on August 12th that Edison plans to decide in August or September on a dry cask system vendor. The dry casks systems Edison is considering may fail within 30 years or possibly sooner, based on information provided by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) technical staff. And there is no technology to adequately inspect canisters and no system in place to mitigate a failed canister.

Edison created an artificial date of June 2019 to have all the spent fuel assemblies loaded into canisters. We don’t need to rush into another “steam generator” like boondoggle.  Edison’s Tom Palmisano told the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communication Committee on August 12th that issues regarding high burnup fuel and dry cask storage have been addressed. However, these issues have not been resolved.

Canisters may need to be replaced within 30-42 years or sooner. 

Recent information provided by the NRC technical staff indicates dry storage canisters may need to be replaced within 30-42 years or sooner, due to stress corrosion cracking of the thin (1/2 to 5/8 inch) stainless steel canisters (due to our coastal environment). Similar stainless steel materials at nuclear plants have failed within 16 to 33 years.  The concrete overpacks also have aging issues that are accelerated in coastal environments.                                          sanonofrecaskloadingintostoragebunker

Southern California Edison has budgeted $400 million dollars for the dry storage system. As Commissioner Florio stated after the recent CPUC meeting in Costa Mesa, “We don’t want to have to buy these again.”

No remediation plan to repair or replace failed canisters.

The NRC stated that if one of the canisters becomes defective (e.g. 75% through-wall stress corrosion cracks), there is no way to repair or replace the canister; especially if the spent fuel storage and transfer pools are demolished, as Edison plans to do. And before a canister can be transported (inside a transport cask), the canister must not have cracks.

No technology to adequately inspect canisters for stress corrosion cracking.

The NRC states technology does not exist to adequately inspect steel canisters for stress corrosion cracks or to measure how or when the cracks will go through the wall of the canister. They plan to allow the nuclear industry 5 years to try to develop technology. And then they only plan to require inspection of one canister at each nuclear plant.

No license renewals until aging management issued addressed.

The NRC is in the process of developing an aging management plan due to the new requirement that dry storage systems need to last 100 to 300+ years. They are delaying license renewals until unresolved aging management issues can be addressed. However, they plan to allow the NUHOMS 32PTH2 canister that Edison may procure to be included in an existing license. The NRC is evaluating how long dry storage systems will last. Previously, they only needed to last 20+ years with the assumption there would be a permanent repository.

No canisters approved for high burnup fuel for more than the initial 20 years.

The NRC has not extended licenses past the initial 20 years for storage of high burnup fuel (>45GWd/MTU) due to unknowns about high burnup fuel in storage and transport. This fuel is over twice as radioactive and hotter than lower burnup fuel.  The NRC has allowed nuclear plants to burn fuel longer, without the research to show that it is safe in storage and transport. The protective fuel cladding can become brittle and crack; resulting is higher risk for radiation exposure, if the canisters fail.

NUHOMS dry canister license certification expires in less than nine years.

The NUHOMS DSC-32PTH2 canisters that Edison wants to procure are not yet licensed by the NRC. If approved, the license will expire in less than nine years (February 5, 2023), since Areva-TN decided to avoid a new license certification and include it in their existing license for the DSC-24PT series, which has a different design.

New design of the NUMHOMS DSC-32PTH2 eliminates failed fuel cans.

Unlike the existing 24 fuel assembly canisters, the new 32 fuel assembly canisters have no provision for Failed Fuel Cans. This means damaged fuel assemblies (of which San Onofre has many) cannot be used in the DSC-32PTH2 canisters. The NRC and DOE require fuel assemblies to be retrievable so they can be transferred to other containers. The Failed Fuel Cans met this requirement.


On July 14th, 15th and August 5th the NRC had public meetings to address aging management issues with dry cask storage system. Their goal is to require an aging management plan before relicensing or issuing new licenses, now that the NRC knows on-site or interim dry cask storage will be needed for up to 300 years or more. The NRC stated the earliest date for a permanent repository is 2048 and that is optimistic. They are researching on-site and interim dry cask storage requirements for 40,100, 150 and 300+ years. No NRC canisters are certified for extended storage or for geological repository storage. Canister licenses for the more dangerous and unstable high burnup (>45GWd/MTU) spent fuel have not been renewed for more than the initial 20 year license, even for expired licenses. And the NRC’s Bob Einziger states there are still transportation problems with high burnup fuel. NRC staff plan to have a draft for public comment regarding dry cask storage relicensing by the end of 2014, according to Mark Lombard, Director, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation. However, this will not address our current issues.

Stainless Steel Dry Canister Problems

Darrell Dunn, an NRC materials engineer, stated stainless steel dry storage canisters are vulnerable to failure within about 25 – 42 years. If any of the fuel cladding in the canister fails, there is no protective barrier and we could have a serious radiation release. The NRC said they have no current mitigation plan for that consequence.  They suggested we MIGHT be able to put the fuel back in the spent fuel pool.  However, Edison plans to destroy the spent fuel and transfer pools. And there is no technology to repair the canisters. The NRC said they HOPE there will be a solution for mitigation in the future. Even an NRC May 2nd High Burnup Fuel letter admits there are mitigation problems.

No Inspections of Stainless Steel Canisters

To make matters worse, these stainless steel canisters are not inspected after they are loaded into the unsealed concrete overpacks (Areva NUHOMS) or concrete casks (Holtec and NAC Magnastor).  The NRC proposed having each nuclear plant inspect the outside of only ONE stainless steel canister before they receive a license renewal and then do that once every 5 years.  The industry balked at having to even check one canister at every plant. The problem with the stainless steel canisters is they do not protect against gamma rays; so it’s not a simple task to remove a canister from the concrete overpack/cask to examine the exterior for corrosion or other degradation. And since welded canisters do not have monitoring for helium leaks, we may not have any warning of an impending radiation release.

Concrete Overpack Corrosion Problems

Darrell Dunn discussed serious corrosion problems with the concrete overpacks/casks, especially in coastal environments.

Ductile Cast Iron Casks may be a better solution

Asked if San Onofre would be better off using ductile cast iron casks like the CASTOR, due to our coastal environment, Aladar (Al) Csontos, NRC Branch Chief in the Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation (SFST), said that might be a better option near the ocean. Casks, such as CASTOR, may eventually have aging issues with bolts and seals. The CASTOR has double sealed lids, so even if one fails, we’ll still have a sealed canister. And Edison would be able to easily monitor for cask material degradation with all the casks.

The NRC licensed the CASTOR V/21 ductile cast iron cask years ago and the cask is still in use. In fact, a CASTOR V/21 was used to prove low burnup fuel is safe to store for over 15 years. However, none of the current U.S. cask designs have been tested even though they use a different storage technology.  The U.S. industry chose a different technology (stainless steel/concrete overpack/cask) mainly due to the cost of ductile cast iron at the time and with the assumption that the canisters would only be needed until Yucca Mountain opened. The CASTOR V/21 was considered the “Cadillac” of the industry and the CASTOR line is still very popular in other parts of the world for BOTH storage and transport (including high burnup fuel). The CASTOR canisters have multiple certifications for quality manufacturing, unlike the U.S. stainless steel canisters that are allowed exceptions to ASME and other standards. Material prices for stainless and cast iron have changed, so the price point should be lower.

The CASTOR has pressurized lid monitoring to detect helium leaks and temperature changes. The welded U.S. canisters do not have this capability, but the NRC and Department of Energy (DOE) state this is a high priority issue to resolve.

The inside of the CASTOR cask, including the sealing surface, has a nickel coating for corrosion protection. On the outside, the cask is protected by an epoxy resin coating in the fin area and nickel coating elsewhere.  And unlike the U.S. stainless steel canisters, it does not have stress corrosion cracking issues and does not require a concrete overpack/cask.

The original CASTOR V/21 is almost 15″ thick as opposed to the 1/2″ to 5/8″ stainless steel canisters.  The newer model CASTOR V/19 is almost 20″ thick. There are other ductile cast iron canister brands that are used in other countries. However, the U.S. emphasis on cost rather than longer term safety discourages competition from better quality casks vendors. With new U.S. needs for longer term onsite and interim dry cask storage, this should change.

Forged Steel Casks (AREVA TN Series)

Areva makes thick walled forged steel casks (TN series), which were approved for limited use years ago by the NRC. The TN cask is much thicker than the stainless steel canisters and doesn’t require a cement overpack/cask.  Its specifications are not as robust as the CASTOR, but better than the Areva NUHOMS system that Edison may procure.  Fukushima Daiichi and Germany use some TN casks. Germany mainly uses the CASTOR casks.

Enclose Casks in Buildings

Both Japan and Germany enclose their casks in buildings for protection from the environment and other external forces. This is something Edison should consider.

Action Needed

No dry cask solution is even close to perfect, but we need to buy ourselves as much time as possible. Given the issues with stress corrosion cracking, concrete degradation, lack of monitoring, and lack of external inspection of stainless steel canisters, we can do better. Spent fuel pools are dangerous. However, the spent fuel needs to cool in the pools for a number of years, so we have time to do a better job selecting a dry cask storage system. Edison’s artificial deadline of June 2019 to have all canisters loaded should not be the driving factor for the future of California.

The NRC does not proactively research dry storage system designs. They only respond to vendor requests for licensing. Vendors will only do this if they think they have a customer lined up for their product. California needs to be that customer.

Edison should reopen the bidding to include vendors with other cask technology. Edison’s Community Engagement Panel (CEP) had a presentation from Areva, but from no other dry cask storage vendors. Edison only solicited bids from three canister system manufacturers who all have the problems mentioned in this document. Edison requested the NRC approve the NUHOMS 32PTH2 design – it was not licensed when they decided to use it. That license amendment (Docket No. 72-1029, Certificate of Compliance No. 1029 Amendment No. 3) may be approved in August.  However, the CPUC should not approve funding for this canister system.

Edison has not shared with us the documents they used to solicit bids (Request for Proposal), so we have no idea what the requirements are in that bid package.  That would be useful information and the public should have access to this information.

If you have questions about sources for any information, contact Donna Gilmore. There are also detailed references on the SanOnofreSafety.org website.  A link to the NRC July and August presentations as well as other documents discussed here are on the following pages.

Donna Gilmore
949-204-7794, dgilmore@cox.net

Gene Stone
Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE)
Member, SONGS Community Engagement Panel
949-233-7724, genston@sbcglobal.net


High Burnup Fuel

High Burnup Nuclear Fuel −Pushing the Safety Envelope, M. Resnikoff, D. Gilmore, Jan 2014  http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hbffactsheet01-09-2014.pdf

Letter from Chairman Macfarlane regarding high burnup fuel, May 2, 2014 http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/05-02-14-ltr-to-priscilla-star-fm-chairman-macfarlane.pdf

Response from Donna Gilmore to NRC regarding May 2, 2014 request for NRC high burnup fuel technical basis, June 25, 2014


NRC Presentations

NRC Meeting to Obtain Stakeholder Input on Potential Changes to Guidance for Renewal of Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance, July 14th/15th, 2014 (includes slide presentations)


Chloride-Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking Tests and Example Aging Management Program, Darrell S. Dunn, NRC/NMSS/SFST, Public Meeting with NEI on Chloride Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking Regulatory Issue Resolution Protocol, August 5, 2014


CASTOR Dry Casks (Ductile cast iron cask technology)

CASTOR V/21 NRC Certificate of Compliance and Safety Analysis Report, August 17, 1990   http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0330/ML033020117.pdf

CASTOR brochure (includes the CASTOR V/19 and other ductile cast iron casks).


GNS’ [CASTOR] experience in the long-term storage at dry interim storage facilities in Ahaus and Gorleben, IAEA Vienna, May 20, 2014  http://bit.ly/1jUSNOZ

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Experience, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (GNS Castor V/21, Transnuclear TN-24P, Westinghouse MC-10, NAC S-100-C), 1987


BAM test results for CASTOR transport containers


Fracture Mechanics Based Design for Radioactive Material Transport Packagings, Historical Review, Sandia SAND98-0764 UC-804, April 1998 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/654001

GNS CASTOR Presentation, June 09-11, 2010, Varna, Bulgaria (slide 18: CASTOR V/19, V52)


Areva TN Series Casks (forged steel cask technology)

TN-24 NRC Certificate of Compliance and Safety Analysis Report, November 4, 1993


AREVA Innovation in the Design of the Used Fuel Storage System, CRIEPI Tokyo, November 15-17, 2010 (includes information on TN 24 casks)


AREVA Dual Purpose Casks in Operation, AREVA TN Experience, Vienna, May 19-21, 2014 http://bit.ly/1l9xO5R

NUHOMS 32PTH2 and San Onofre Decommissioning Plans

NRC Certificate of Compliance for Spent Fuel Storage Casks, COC 1029, Docket 72-1029, Amendment 3, Model No. Standardized Advanced NUHOMS®-24PT1, 24PT4, and 32PTH2,  expires 02/05/2023 (pending NRC approval as of 8/20/2014)


Comments on Direct Rule re List of Approved Storage Casks (79 Fed. Reg. 21,121 (April 15, 2014), Request for Rescission of the Direct Rule, and Request for Publication of a New and Revised Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. 13-0271, Diane Curran, on behalf of 20 environmental organizations and individuals.


February 10, 2012 letter from Edison to NRC: Support for NRC Review of Transnuclear Inc. Application for Amendment 3 to the Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® Certificate of Compliance No. 1029, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Docket Nos. 50-36, 50-362 and 72041


Update on Decommissioning Plans, Tom Palmisano, Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer, August 12, 2014 presentation to CA Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, Chairman Alex Padilla


Community Engagement Panel Correspondence

High Burnup Fuel and Dry Cask Storage Issues, July 17, 2014 letter to CEP Chairman David Victor from Donna Gilmore, San Onofre Safety


David Victor testimony to NRC Commissioners, July 15, 2014


Additional references at SanOnofreSafety.org

Scrap the Japan-India Nuclear Agreement : an international appeal to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Narendra Modi


The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit Japan on the 31st of August. On 1 September Mr. Modi and Japanese PM Mr. Shinzo Abe are expected to finalize the Japan-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. We, the concerned citizens and civil society groups of Japan, India and the world urge both the Prime Ministers to immediately terminate the negotiations.

This agreement effectively turns back the wheel of reckoning after Fukushima by rehabilitating global nuclear corporates in India which is violently imposing reactor projects on vulnerable people. Also, it sets an unacceptable precedent by legitimizing India`s nuclear weapons, manufactured by using international nuclear technology.

The nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant demonstrated to the world that once a nuclear accident occurs, it affects the society and our life far into the future in unexpected and dangerous ways. In the light of this accident, Japan’s plans to build new nuclear power plants are next to impossible, and even restarting the existing reactors is highly objectionable and untenable.

Given these problems in the domestic realm, Mr. Abe has looked abroad to salvage the declining nuclear industry of Japan. The Abe administration has negotiated nuclear corporation agreements with many countries, and currently possesses huge plans to export nuclear technology. Given the current situation of Japan, where people continue to suffer from the unfolding disaster in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, it is embarrassing that Japan that has experienced the accident and disastrous consequences of this technology is thoughtlessly exporting nuclear technology to other countries.

The Japan-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement has multiple unacceptable implications. India possesses nuclear weapons, and had tested them twice without joining the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Conclusion of the Japan-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement would be a de-facto legitimization of India’s nuclear arms. Furthermore, Japanese supply of nuclear technology will boost India`s nuclear arsenal as India would use imported reactors and fuel for its civilian reactors and its domestic uranium reserves would be entirely free for weapons production. It implies that by concluding this treaty, Japan would effectively be participating in India’s nuclear weapons program.

If we allow this agreement to be concluded, it would be a sin not only against Hibakushas who survived the a-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but would also undermine Japan`s role in the world for global nuclear disarmament.

Prime Minister Abe, you are traveling all over the world as an ambassador of the nuclear industry. Export of nuclear technology is the key for Japan’s economic revival in your worldview. You have the penchant for lecturing to the world about the lessons learned from Fukushima and Japan’s responsibility to provide safe nuclear power plants. However, if there is any lesson to be learned from Fukushima, it is not to continue with the oxymoron of nuclear safety but for detailed and immediate evacuation plans in Japan. We believe that our primary responsibility is to demonstrate that we can create the world without nuclear power, not to act under pressure from pro-nuke countries like U.S. and France. The lucrative nuclear market in India cannot be allowed to undermine these principles.

Prime Minister Modi, the Indian government has announced that the effects of Fukushima nuclear accident are not “really crucial.” Please visit Fukushima while you are in Japan, and see how people are suffering, see for yourself how this ongoing nuclear accident continues to destroy lives. If you can put yourself in the survivors’ shoes, you will give up your plan to promote more nuclear power. Invoking Fukushima is a cruel joke if you cannot stand on the side of the Fukushima survivors

We request both the Prime Ministers to stop any further discussion on the Japan-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, and withdraw from the negotiations. In the post-Fukushima world, it would be more prudent to discuss about creating a future without nuclear weapons and nuclear power out of pure human concerns is totally unacceptable.


Why We’re Marching September 21, 2014

By Michael Mariotte

Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free protestors at the July 29 EPA hearing on its Clean Power Plan in Atlanta.

Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free protestors at the July 29 EPA hearing on its Clean Power Plan in Atlanta.

Here at NIRS we’re already in crazy mode organizing and mobilizing for the Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent to the People’s Climate March in New York City on September 21, 2014.

This is the largest public event organizing effort we’ve undertaken in quite a long time–and we think it will have a huge payoff by making a large, visible, vibrant public statement that that the climate crisis must be addressed now, that nuclear power is no solution to global warming, that a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future is an absolute necessity for our nation and our planet.

Today we released a statement of the Contingent, titled Why We’re Marching on September 21, 2014. You can read it below, and you can download a pdf copy for printing and distributing in your community here.

At the kickoff People’s Climate March press conference in NYC last week.

We also released a list of the initial, and fast-growing, organizational endorsers of the Contingent. This morning there were 38, at this writing there are 41. Endorsers include NIRS, of course, as well as Physicians for Social Responsibility, Musicians United for Safe Energy, and grassroots groups from around the country (and world). If your organization would like to endorse, send an e-mail with your name, organization name, city, state, and country (if outside the U.S.) to nirsnet@nirs.org.

Here are a few useful websites for the Contingent and March:

*Contingent page on NIRS’ website: http://www.nirs.org/climatemarch/climatemarchhome.htm

*Contingent hub on the People’s Climate March website: http://peoplesclimate.org/nonuclearpower/

*Facebook group page for the nuclear-free, carbon-free contingent: https://www.facebook.com/groups/nukefreeclimatefreemarch/

*Contingent page on tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nirsclimatemarch

*To get on an email-list where you can post and will get organizing emails:

*To join grassroots planning/organizing calls for the Contingent, held every other Tuesday (next one is Tuesday, August 12, 2014) at 8 pm Eastern time, contact nirsnet@nirs.org.




The climate crisis is the defining issue of our time. It poses an existential threat to life on Earth in a manner civilization never before has faced. Immediate action is necessary to slash climate-changing emissions in all sectors of society.

On September 21, 2014, the Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent will join the historic People’s Climate March in New York City to demand immediate action from all of the governments of the world.

The solutions to the climate crisis are not difficult to identify. A nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system is a necessity. It is an energy system that relies not on antiquated energy models of the 20th century and their polluting nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies, but on the safe, clean, affordable and sustainable renewable energy, energy efficiency, and modern grid technologies of the 21st century.

Nuclear power in particular cannot solve the climate crisis. Indeed, its continued use exacerbates the problem by preventing the deployment of clean energy systems.

Among a myriad of other problems, nuclear power is:

*Too dangerous: expanded use of nuclear power would inevitably lead to more Fukushimas and Chernobyls. New reactor designs exist only on paper, have their own safety problems, and cannot be brought to the commercial marketplace in time to have a meaningful impact on climate change. The technology and materials needed to generate nuclear energy can be diverted to nuclear weapons programs.
*Too dirty: nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel chain produce vast amounts of lethal radioactive waste, which grow whenever nuclear power is used. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for far more carbon emissions than renewable energy generation and improved energy efficiency. All reactors routinely emit toxic radiation–”the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.
*Too expensive: nuclear power is the costliest means possible of reducing carbon and methane emissions; its use crowds out investment in clean energy sources.
*Too slow: use of nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel emissions would require an unprecedented nuclear construction program, beyond the capability of the world’s manufacturers within an acceptable time frame.

Clean energy, including solar, wind, appropriately-sited geothermal, increased energy efficiency, distributed generation, electricity storage and other advanced technologies can meet the world’s electricity needs without radiation releases, carbon and methane emissions and other pollutants.

All that is lacking is the political will to rapidly deploy these clean technologies. On September 21, we march to break the gridlock and demonstrate to the world that this will exists.

Michael Mariotte

August 4, 2014

Read more here: http://safeenergy.org/2014/08/04/why-were-marching/

Category: nukes and climate, Nuclear-Free Carbon-Free Contingent, People’s Climate March