Small Amount of Radiation "Could Have" Leaked Outside at San Onofre
Southern California Edison said in a statement that "a precautionary shutdown of Unit 3" at the electricity generating plant was under way, but that there had been no release of radiation to the atmosphere and there was no danger to employees or the public.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10283804-possible-leak-caus...
Wait on second thought -a day later.what will it be tommoro .lies lies unbelievable industry.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/San-Onofre-Small-Radiation-Leak-...
"A small amount of radioactive gas "could have" escaped from the station, said Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks. A spokesman for SoCal Edison told the Associated Press Wednesday that the amount would have been "extremely small" and prossibly not detectable by monitors.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/San-Onofre-Small-Radiation-Leak-138502519.html"
http://www.businessghana.com/portal/news/index.php?op=getNews&news_cat_i...
New Report: Nuclear Power Plants Threaten Drinking Water for 2.3 Million Californians
News Date: 25th January 2012
San Onofre OP about the huge steam plumes my brother saw...
Okay so, I have mixed confirmations and denials about if the steam was radioactive !
I must admit I have doubts about the NRC and other reports being honest and credible after the Fukushima incident and other nuclear mishaps around the world. And oops a contract worker just fell into the reactor pool but don't worry he had on a "life jacket" to keep him safe. Nothing to see here folks, the guy is just fine.
I drove by San Onofre this past Saturday and noticed a huge amount of white powder substance stuck all over the top about halfway down one of the dome shaped reactors. What is that ? Is it boron poured over to cool it or what ?
Lets talk about words for a minute.
The words "could have" "might have" "leak" and "minuscule" send chills down my spine.
We heard Fukushima "could have" leaked, and "could have" melted we never saw the words "indeed it melted."
"Indeed it exploded." We saw "minuscule" amounts of radiation "might have" " leaked" out.
When Fukushima's reactors exploded we heard confirmations that all is well and safe then after the fact reports tell us that the people were over exposed and this could have been avoided if officials were forthcoming. Just like San Onofre first they said nothing "leaked" out then the next day change of story and they admitted "minuscule" amounts "could have leaked out."
We heard these keywords over and over again:
COULD HAVE when it fricking did explode, and contaminate.
MIGHT HAVE when it absolutely melted
MINUSCULE when the radiation was not minuscule but DEADLY and MASSIVE AMOUNTS
LEAK this is takes the cake ! A leak is like a little trickle, but trillion gallons is no leak honey
People beware the following words when used with anything that has to do with nuclear waste.
Obviously these words COULD HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, MINUSCULE, AND LEAK are always put into place to cover up something horrible and dangerous.
Any comment on the powder substance on the reactor dome ??
NOT Boron
The powder is certainly NOT boron. Boron is a neutron absorber, and the only place you would put it that it would do any good is IN the core - that's where the neutrons are if there are any.
The reactor isn't "dome shaped" - that's just the building that contains the reactor. You wouldn't put a powder over the dome to cool it.
Evidently you haven't been listening to the people at BRAWM and good scientists like the eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice, and his testimony to Congress. Courtesy of the Health Physics Society:
http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf
Dr. Boice testifies:
The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor
The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent
Don't settle for just any old "health professional", there are some that are driven more by their politics than by any concerns for giving unbiased information.
Radiation epidemiologists are the professional scientists that are devoted to the scientific study of radiation on public health. Dr. Boice is one of the most stellar.
You are off a few orders of magnitude on your leak. It's not trillions of gallons.
EXCEPT FOR
UNLESS
No Americans were exposed to harmful amounts of radiation, from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster unless …
They lived in Boise-Idaho, the Cascades, Boston, Honshu Island Japan, Mariana Islands or Guam.
They served aboard the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Group Strike Force.
They are subject to any of a million bioaccumulation mechanisms over the next few hundred millennia.
They were refused access to KI and Prussian-Blue anti-radiation medications during Spring-2011.
Other than that, we are ‘golden’
John D. Boice, MD is, rather apparently, a SHILL for the Commercial NPP Industry, much like Ann Coulter, Barack Obama and the Washington Post. Their FALSE assurances have adversely affected the health and expected lifespan of tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese. They are willful mass murderers of innocents, the lot of them.
Their faces belong on ‘Wanted DOA’ posters; for crimes against humanity, to wit mass murder, criminal conspiracy to commit same as well as Aiding & Abetting the slaughter.
Oh, AND Trillions of gallons of the NW Pacific Ocean have been contaminated from the Fukushima runoff and fallout. The radionuclide runoff into the NW Pacific Ocean exceeds even the IMMENSE fallout from the VAST radionuclide storms generated at the Fukushima Daiichi commercial NPP.
I just hope the industrial
I just hope the industrial complex is shut down, unplugged, put out. The damage and devastation, simply too grave.
Laguna takes stand on San Onofre /
Drafted in 1982 without consulting the city, the plan designated Laguna as a shelter area, meaning the local population should just hang out — "shelter in place" — while residents within a 10-mile radius of the plant high-tail it.
http://www.coastlinepilot.com/news/tn-cpt-0217-sanonofre-20120210,0,3444...
------------
Nuclear plant's neighbors want radiation monitors
Residents worried about leaks from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station asked San Clemente's elected leaders Tuesday night to have sensors installed around town to monitor radiation levels.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/radiation-339351-san-council.html
Radiation alarms?new detail overlooked for a week ...tdm
Workers enter faulty reactor, prepare inspection
Heat transfer tubes are under scrutiny at the oceanfront nuclear plant 45 miles north of San Diego nearly a week after radiation alarms prompted a shutdown of the southernmost of two reactors.
Small traces of radioactive gas from that leak may have reached the atmosphere without endangering workers or neighbors, according to plant operator Southern California Edison and officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/06/workers-enter-faulty-reactor-...
-------------
Are the radiation alarms intertwined with radiation sensors?
San Onofre Radiation Risk
San Onofre Radiation Risk Called Minimal
Experts say radiation is everywhere, and it's not all bad
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/San-Onofre-Radiation-Risk-Called...
Error in the above report
There is an error in the above report. The part that says that nuclear power plant workers receive 12 times what the normal person does. Actually, nuclear power plant workers are allowed to receive a dose that is 12 times what the normal person does. The figure they refer to is the legal limit.
In actual practice, nuclear power plant workers receive little more than what the average person does; and less than the average person if that average person lives in Denver.
really nice correction .phew u saved the day!
"By contrast, nuclear power workers can receive 12 times the radiation others receive.
Still, Zender said even those who work inside places like San Onofre would have to double their exposure to be at an increased risk of cancer."
------------------//
Latest News....
Very interesting interview with a San Onofre whistleblower on what's going on at San Onofre:
http://sanonofresafety.org/2012/02/04/whistleblower-interview-san-onofre...
Latest News.....
Very interesting interview with a San Onofre whistleblower of what's going on at San Onofre:
http://sanonofresafety.org/2012/02/04/whistleblower-interview-san-onofre...
Interesting...a few errors.
Interesting interview, in spite of the highly biased interviewer.
The guest was in error in a few instances. Nuclear energy is not due to any "atomic friction". Nuclear energy, as with any energy, is due to a force, which is the nuclear force that holds the nucleus of atoms together. Because of this force there is a potential energy. For example, because of the force of gravity, there is gravitational potential energy. The higher you lift an object, the higher its potential energy, and the more energy that can be recovered if the object is allowed to fall under controlled conditions, or the more energy that can go into breaking the object if its fall is uncontrolled.
The nuclear potential energy of the Uranium nucleus is more than the nuclear potential energy of the fission products if the Uranium fissions. The difference in potential energy is released as kinetic energy of the atoms. Kinetic energy of atoms is what we call heat.
The guest was in error about the leak and potential release path of radioactivity in the Unit 3 incident.
Finally the guest is in error about local officials having some control over safety concerns of the nuclear power plant. As we have seen recently with the ruling in Federal Court in the case of Vermont Yankee, the local officials and even the Vermont State legislature have NO SAY over safety concerns at the Vermont Yankee power plant.
Nuclear power plants are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and no less than the US Supreme Court has said in multiple rulings that the NRC is the SOLE regulator when it comes to issues of nuclear safety.
Event notification
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2012/20...
"At 1505 PST, Unit 3 entered Abnormal Operation Instruction S023-13-14 'Reactor Coolant Leak' for a steam generator leak exceeding 5 gallons per day.
"At 1549 PST, the leak rate was determined to be 82 gallons per day. At 1610 PST, a leak rate greater than 75 gallons per day with an increasing rate of leakage exceeding 30 gallons per hour was established and entry into S023-13-28 'Rapid Power Reduction' was performed.
"At 1630 PST, commenced rapid power reduction per S023-13-28 'Rapid Power Reduction'. At 1731 PST, with reactor power at 35% the Unit was manually tripped. At 1738 PST, Unit 3 entered Emergency Operation Instruction S023-12-4 'Steam Generator Tube Rupture'.
"At 1800 PST the affected steam generator was isolated."
All control rods fully inserted on the trip. Decay heat is being removed thru the main steam bypass valves into the main condenser. Main feedwater is maintaining steam generator level. No relief valves lifted during the manual trip. The plant is in normal shutdown electrical lineup.
Unit 2 is presently in a refueling outage and was not affected by this event.
Test is this blog working ?
Test
Updated -now the sensors did detect a leak .hmmm
San Onofre: 100s of troubled tubes, gas leak
As workers began inspecting a leaky tube in one of the San Onofre nuclear plant's reactors Thursday, federal regulators said more than 800 tubes in a second, offline reactor showed wear and thinning, although they are only two years old.
"And plant officials confirmed that sensors showed a tiny amount of radioactive gas may have leaked out of a building next to the first reactor before the reactor was shut down late Tuesday."
http://www.ocregister.com/news/unit-338565-reactor-plant.html
San Onofre Nuclear Plant Steaming !
Hey Folks,
We live pretty close to San Onofre, and my brothers surf at Trestles often and have for at least the past 25 years because of the awesome break. So they are familiar with the beast just onshore.
My brother had to pass San Onofre twice on the freeway on his way to and from work on Tuesday. He didn't know about the plant issues at the time he was driving and was alarmed in the evening, to find out the plant is having problems.
He called me explaining that huge amounts of steam were coming off the plant and he thought it was very unusual as he commuted by in his car, and he had never in his life seen the monster shoot out steam, but then he reassured himself as he was driving by that surely if there was an accident the news alerts would be sounding, and perhaps the freeway would also be closed.
So here is my question. San Onofre spokespersons claim the "radiation steam leak" was inside the containment shelter, and none "leaked" out, so no need for concern. However, what they fail to mention is that they actually released all the radioactive steam, from "inside" the containment structure both to relieve the pressure, and to allow workers to get in there to see the damage issues. So this is my assumption based on common sense.
Therefore, we all may be exposed to the fallout from that steam. Also my bro passed by the plant in the late morning and then again on his way home about 4:30pm, I assume all of this time the plant was shooting out steam. At least 6 hours from what he witnessed.
What do you think ? How come no one is asking questions ?
Thanks for any insight you may post !
San Onofre is a PWR - the steam is NOT radioactive
San Onofre is a PWR - the steam is NOT radioactive.
In a PWR, the reactor coolant and the working fluid of the Rankine steam cycle are kept separate. Courtesy of the NRC, here is a diagram of a PWR:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-pwr.html
The yellow loop is the reactor coolant. The blue loop that goes through the turbine is the working fluid of the Rankine steam cycle.
What you saw shooting out of the plant was an "atmospheric dump" of steam that is normal for both PWRs and fossil-fired plants as part of a cool down cycle.
The steam is NOT radioactive, because the loop of water from which they make steam never goes through the reactor. The water that actually goes through the reactor, called the "primary loop", is kept pressurized and is NEVER turned to steam. ( Hence the name Pressurized Water Reactor or PWR )
The plant had a small leak of radioactive WATER from the primary loop. If you saw steam, it was from the second loop and was NOT radioactive.
this is whats occurring "mixing"the above poster is ill informed
San Onofre hasn't been generating power since 5:31 p.m. Tuesday, when Edison shut down its Unit 3 reactor ---- one of two atom-splitters at the seaside plant ---- announcing that operators had detected a leak in one of two giant heat exchangers installed in 2010.
The leak could be a safety concern because it allows water that can can contain radioactive particles to mix with clean water used to make steam. The steam travels outside the protective concrete domes that are designed to protect the public from a radiation release.
There has been no increase in radiation levels outside the plant since the water leak was detected.
Once it leaves the radioactive side of the plant, the water can evaporate and travel through the plant's electricity-generating turbines. It can also end up getting vented to the atmosphere if the amount of steam in the pipes is too great.
Given that the new components were supposed to last for decades, industry experts were quick to question why the expensive equipment was already leaking at a rate of between 50 and 100 gallons per day.
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/san-onofre-edison-says-it-wil...
Reading comprehension problem?
"Normally, water that is heated by the reactor and flows through the tubes is kept separate from another loop of water, from another source, inside the steam generators.
Instead, the tubes are immersed in the water inside the steam generators, heating the water, which turns to steam that powers the plant's turbines to produce electricity.
But a small leak in one of the tubes could have allowed radioactive water circulating from the reactor to mix with the water in the steam generator.
If so, it could have resulted in the escape of a small amount of radioactive gas."
Courtesy of the Orange County Register
Back to 1st grade...
Back to 1st grade for you. That's where they teach the difference between the numbers 2 and 3.
The above poster claims a reading comprehension problem on the part of another poster. That's really the pot calling the kettle black.
There are 2 issues at San Onofre. One is an *actual* leak at Unit *3* that potentially could have released a small amount of radioactive material via the plant's auxiliary building. The second is the *potential* for a leak in Unit *2* due to the noted excessive wear in the tubes of the new 2-year old steam generators.
An earlier poster was concerned about the potential radioactivity release in the atmospheric dump as part of the cooldown of Unit 3. Unit 3 was shutting down due to an actual leak and potential release from the auxiliary building. There was no detected leak from the primary loop to the secondary loop in Unit 3, and hence nothing to preclude the normal use of an atmospheric steam dump as part of the cooldown cycle. Therefore, the fears of an above poster could be allayed.
However, the poster above confuses the reports from the Orange County Register as to the potential consequences of the excessive wear in the new steam generators of Unit 2 which was recently noted. If that wear persists, it could develop into a leak from the Unit 2 primary loop to the Unit 2 secondary loop. Additionally, as the poster below points out, the Unit 2 systems monitor for such a primary to secondary leak, and close the main steam isolation valves and preclude an atmospheric dump.
The poster above was unable to keep the two reports separate. One report is of an *actual* leak in Unit *3* that could have released radioactivity via the *auxiliary* building. The second report is of a *potential* leak in Unit *2* that could result in the contamination of the secondary loop by the primary. The poster above uses the *second* incident to rebut a post involving purely the consequences of the *first* incident.
Let it not be said that the anti-nukes shirk from displaying their ignorance and manifest lack of intellect in a public forum. With arrogance and unmitigated gall, we have an anti-nuke proclaiming that someone has reading comprehension problems; when the source of the confusion is totally within what passes for the mind of the anti-nuke.
The anti-nukes are self-righteous and arrogant, but they don't have the intellect, knowledge or reasoning ability to back it up. We are treated to another display of same here.
We have another example of why the ill-informed, misguided opinions of the anti-nukes should be regarded as worthless trash and discarded forthwith.
Thanks for the demonstration
Thanks for the demonstration
Thanks for the demonstration of denying the antecedent which is a fallacy of propositional logic:
This person disagrees with me
Anyone that disagrees with me is anti-nuke
Therefore this person is an anti-nuke
Nuclear power is smart
Anti-nukes are stupid
Anyone that doesn't like nuclear power is stupid
Even if the first premiss were true—which it is not—it doesn't follow from a rejection of nuclear power that one must be stupid.
Nothing of the sort
Nothing of the sort
The actual chain of events were:
A person expressed concern about the Unit 3 incident.
A reply was posted concerning the Unit 3 incident.
A rebuttal to the reply was posted using a report about the Unit 2 incident.
Draw your own conclusion
nailed 'em - can u say STUPID
nailed 'em - can u say STUPID?
Poor Reading Comprehension in the above
The pertinent word in the missives from the Orange County Register is "could".
A leak in the tubes between the primary and secondary "could" - but that is NOT what happened at San Onofre in the recent incident. Additionally, the plant is monitored with radiation detectors to detect EXACTLY that occurrence. The plant has valves called "main steam isolation valves" that close in case a leak of the type you postulate is detected.
Your can could have a leak in its gasoline line that could result in an engine fire. You going to stop driving because that could happen?
The engine in an airliner could develop an oil leak and cause a jet engine fire in midair while the airliner is at altitude. You going to stop flying because that could happen.
Evidently the anti-nukes don't understand the definition of the word "could". "Could" means there is the potential for something to occur - NOT that it has occurred.
As with any engineered system, there are lots of things that could go wrong, which is why engineers design cars, airliners, and yes, nuclear power plants, to deal with these faults if they actually happen.
For example, with the airliner, the engine is monitored by computers now ( in lieu of flight engineers in 727s and 707s ) and if there is an oil leak, the captain can shutdown that engine to preclude a fire. The airliner is designed so that it can still fly with an engine out. In fact, 3 and 4 engine airliners can suffer the loss of 2 engines and still fly.
In the case of a nuclear power plant, the systems are designed so that if there is a spread of radioactivity to the secondary system, the secondary system within the containment will be isolated.
A contamination of the secondary system is within the realm of possibility; but that is NOT what happened in the recent event at San Onofre. The leak did NOT spread radioactivity to the secondary system. The leak spread radioactivity to the auxiliary building.
Evidently the poster above doesn't realize the purpose of the post given to the poster with the concerns. A previous poster was concerned that the steam that was witnessed being released had something to do with the radiation leak, and that the released steam posed a threat.
The post above was to allay the fears of the poster. If the secondary system is contaminated with radioactivity, then an atmospheric dump can NOT be performed since the isolation valves would be closed.
So my post above was in direct response to the poster's concerns. How typical of the anti-nukes to introduce a scenario that did NOT happen and then raise a hew and cry that something dangerous or sinister happened. Such is the dishonest nature of the anti-nuke to proclaim danger when there is none.
Again, lots of things could happen which is why engineered systems and products have protective features to deal with these faults.
If the anti-nuke wants to live in a world where faults can't happen at all; then we have to give up living in homes - they could fall on top of us in a quake, the water could leak, there could be a short in the electrical system....
We would have to give up cars; the tires could blow you, the fuel could leak, the coolant system could leak.....
These poor delicate creatures called "anti-nukes" that can't handle the most remote possibility of a technical failure, should all give up any type of use of technology and go live in caves somewhere away from our technical civilization that they abhor so much. Enjoy your short "natural" lifetime...
Not could, but did. Your
Not could, but did.
Your statement about San Onofre is false,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd, who manufactured the failed Steam Generators, admit there was a "primary to secondary leakage".
Here is what their report says:
"On January 31, 2012, after the Unit 3 RSGs had been operating for approximately 11
months, the unit was brought into an unplanned shutdown due to maximum primary
to secondary leakage of approximately 82 gallons/day in one RSG. The direct cause of
the leakage was determined to be tube to tube wear in the free span section of the
U-bend region of the RSG, leading to a leak from one of the tubes in that region."
"Unit 3 SG-B (SCE SG088) experienced tube leakage during operation and failure
of eight tubes during in-situ pressure testing. (Both due to Defects)"
These are quotes from Mitsubishi's "Root Cause Analysis Report
for tube wear identified in the Unit 2 and Unit 3 Steam Generators
of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station"
on Page 6, the Executive Summary.
This Mitsubishi Heavy Industries report is available on the NRC website at
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1305/ML13057A013.pdf
The faulty Steam Generator design from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries failed in use after only 11 months, causing a primary to secondary leakage.
NO Radiation Leak
What is important is whether there was a release of radiation; not whether there was a steam generator leak.
Evidently the above poster is unaware of the fact that the atmospheric dump steam is monitored for radiation; and if radiation is detected, the atmospheric dump is terminated.
No radioactivity release was monitored. That's what counts.
It must be very frustrating for the anti-nukes these days. They have to "spin" an innocuous event into a calamity, and they always fall short in the intellect department.
San Onofre Nuclear Plant Steaming !
Hey Folks,
We live pretty close to San Onofre, and my brothers surf at Trestles often and have for at least the past 25 years because of the awesome break. So they are familiar with the beast just onshore.
My brother had to pass San Onofre twice on the freeway on his way to and from work on Tuesday. He didn't know about the plant issues at the time he was driving and was alarmed in the evening, to find out the plant is having problems.
He called me explaining that huge amounts of steam were coming off the plant and he thought it was very unusual as he commuted by in his car, and he had never in his life seen the monster shoot out steam, but then he reassured himself as he was driving by that surely if there was an accident the news alerts would be sounding, and perhaps the freeway would also be closed.
So here is my question. San Onofre spokespersons claim the "radiation steam leak" was inside the containment shelter, and none "leaked" out, so no need for concern. However, what they fail to mention is that they actually released all the radioactive steam, from "inside" the containment structure both to relieve the pressure, and to allow workers to get in there to see the damage issues. So this is my assumption based on common sense.
Therefore, we all may be exposed to the fallout from that steam. Also my bro passed by the plant in the late morning and then again on his way home about 4:30pm, I assume all of this time the plant was shooting out steam. At least 6 hours from what he witnessed.
What do you think ? How come no one is asking questions ?
Thanks for any insight you may post !
Answered above - go back and read
The answer is contained in the above post - you need to reread.
There was a leak as confirmed by Mitsubishi; but not in the unit that was discharging steam. There are 2 reactors at the plant, one had a leak but that one wasn't the one that was discharging steam.
Perhaps it is you who should
Perhaps it is you who should read the dates on the posts.
The post you are replying to was posted a year ago.
Cheers, Diemos
Is there a problem?
Is there a problem with responding to old posts?
This post came up to the top of the queue and I read it for the first time. I saw a misstatement and I replied. It sets the record straight for new readers such as I.
I was totally aware that the post was over a year old; but I wanted the "record" to reflect the reply.
No steam in containment
Your assumptions based on "common sense" are all wrong.
There's no steam in the containment. The steam is only in the secondary loop.
Steam is released from the secondary loop in order to cool the system down.
The reactor coolant loop in the containment is pressurized so that it doesn't turn to steam, and there's no need to vent the containment in order to allow workers to enter.
Steam....op here
Okay....if you say so. Thanks for the reply.
Overall I feel very frustrated, as many events unfold around nuclear plants and officials are not always forthcoming, it makes me very weary of what the heck is really going on behind the scenes.
I am glad that my brother didn't drive through something nasty.
G'nite
You also have to realize..
You also have to realize that many HYPE the incidents that happen at nuclear power plants for their own parochial political agendas.
Engineered systems have small faults all the time. The incident that happened at San Onofre is not unique, it has happened before, and the public just let the plant operator deal with the problem as they have always done. However, in the wake of Fukushima, the media is hyping even the most insignificant faults at nuclear power plants because either they want to get everyone on edge so as to tune in to their newcasts, or they are pushing an anti-nuclear agenda.
What happens when the captain of an airliner discovers a small fault in an engine? They call the mechanics, who open the cowling and fix the problem. I've witnessed that. Does it end up on the 11 o'clock news? Probably not, since nobody is pushing a anti-air travel campaign.
Nuclear power plants are designed to contain the effects of any faults or failures to the maximal degree possible. That's why they have containment buildings and isolation valves - the whole idea is to isolate the problem so that radioactivity doesn't spread.
Only in the most dire circumstances; like what happened at Fukushima will a nuclear power plant vent to the atmosphere. That is that absolute LAST choice. Fukushima got to that stage. At San Onofre, there are was no intentional venting. It's unlikely that any radioactivity actually escaped, but there was a possibility.
As an analogy, think of a retail store at the mall. At night, all the doors and access portals are secured; locked and alarmed. If in the morning, all portals are secure, then you know that nobody walked out with unpaid for merchandise. That's the way a nuclear power plant is supposed to operate; with radioactivity trapped behind secure barriers.
Now with the retail store, they open the doors. The portals are monitored by those sensors that you occasionally hear sounding off when the clerk forgets to deactivate the little tags attached to the merchandise. But what if the alarm doesn't go off. Can the chief of security say for absolute certain that nothing was stolen? NOPE! A clever thief might have gotten past the alarms and the door was open. It's not probable that something was stolen, but it is in the realm of possibility.
In the case of San Onofre, there was a leak ( like an unsecured door ). There was the potential for something to escape. Like the store, the exits are monitored, and they didn't see radioactivity escaping. Still, because of the leak there was a possibility; just as with the unsecured door on the store.
The technology is such that we can detect miniscule amounts of radioactivity. If some got out, it has to be really, really, small. Now some go high order if even the most insignificant amount gets out.
However, you have to realize that we are surrounded by radiation and radioactivity all the time. A good analogy is to germs. Suppose your local hospital improperly disposed of some material that had germs ( nothing like ebola or plague, but ordinary germs ). How upset are you going to be? Not very - because it just adds very marginally to what you are already exposed to.
Even IF something escaped from San Onofre, it was not intentional, and it was very small, and contributes insignificantly to the radiation exposure you are already receiving just because you live on this planet.
There are those that HYPE this for their own agendas. They "think" nuclear power is evil, and out to pollute the world. They've been manifestly gullible enough to accept the exaggerated risks by the professional anti-nuclear propagandists, and they didn't have the good science education that would help them realize they were being lied to by the propagandists.
HYPE vs HYPE - parochial agenda vs. corporate agenda
The real hype about nuclear power is that it is a safe and cost effective method of producing power. From mining, through power production to waste disposal the nuclear industry is plagued with risks and offers little benefit to society. Solar, Wind & Wave power have passed nuclear in terms of cost efficiency, and innovation is proceeding quickly with these technologies. What reasonable argument is there in favor of nuclear power at this point?
A worker fell in the fuel pool the other day at San Onofre, and this is not the first time. And these events go unreported. If the industry is so careless with it's workers and reporting, what gives the public any confidence they will safeguard public safety any better?