SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

Proposed NRC rule includes scenario for “indefinite” storage 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. File photo
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. File photo

By Jim Shilander

Anti-nuclear activists attacked a new proposal for on-site storage rules of nuclear waste Monday at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting in Carlsbad.

The agency provided findings of a court-mandated review of nuclear waste confidence rules to about 100 attendees Monday.

Included in the NRC’s review is research into whether on-site storage facilities at nuclear power plants throughout the country, including the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, have the ability to safely house nuclear waste.

The report looked at short-term storage options, of 60 years beyond the licensed life of a nuclear reactor, first in spent-fuel cooling pools and then in dry-cask storage. It also addressed long-term storage, of an additional 100, as well as housing waste at shuttered plants permanently.

The indefinite storage consideration comes in light of the federal government not having a central repository for such waste. According to the report, in all three scenarios, continued storage of nuclear waste is expected to have “small” impacts on areas surrounding the nuclear sites.

In June, Southern California Edison announced in it would retire the San Onofre plant, south of San Clemente, permanently. The plant had been out of operation since January 2012 after tubes in one of its two active reactors ruptured due to wear. The utility tried to restart one of its reactors at a lower power, but delays in the process led to the closure decision.

Paul Michalak, the head of the NRC’s waste management and environmental protection division, said the federal regulatory agency tried to examine all possibilities.

“We’ve evaluated three different time frames. 60 years beyond the life of the reactor, 160 years and then we’ve looked at indefinite storage,” Michalak said. “The pools only exist in the 60-year time frame. We assume, after those 60 years, that the pools have been emptied and decommissioned, and the fuel is placed in dry casks.”

San Clemente Green President Gary Headrick addresses anti-nuclear activists before the NRC meeting in Carlsbad. Photo by Jim Shilander
San Clemente Green President Gary Headrick addresses anti-nuclear activists before the NRC meeting in Carlsbad. Photo by Jim Shilander

At the meeting, NRC officials announced they would complete work on a safety evaluation report on the Department of Energy’s proposal for a nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The project had previously been considered unfeasible.

Anti-nuclear activists, who also gathered for a press conference before the event, said the generic nature of the report was a major problem.

“This is totally unacceptable,” Donna Gilmore of San Onofre Safety said. “This is just a bunch of BS as far as I’m concerned.”

Gilmore and other activists primarily targeted the storage of high burnup fuel used at SONGS. The fuel, which is kept in reactors for a longer period, is typically hotter when removed and requires longer periods of time to cool. Others noted special circumstances facing the storage of nuclear fuel in Southern California, including earthquake and tsunami concerns. Rather than a generic plan to apply to everyone, local advocates pushed that site-specific plans be incorporated.

Gary Headrick, president of San Clemente Green, said in his mind, “There are legitimate concerns about the ways this waste has been handled.”

“It’s not safe to store and not safe to transport,” he said. “We’re all really a little bit underqualified and searching for answers. The system is not working the way it should.”

Members of the public can still weigh in on the discussion. Public comments can be submitted online at www.regulations.gov using docket number NRC–2012–0246 until Friday, December 20.

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAY
Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Dana Point Times

comments (1)

  • The NRC will not approve storing high burnup fuel in dry casks for over 20 years, because of safety concerns. Also, the NRC will not approve transportation casks for high burnup spent fuel. High burnup fuel is proving unstable and is damaging the protective cladding over the uranium pellets, causing the cladding to become brittle and fragile. The risk of it shattering and releasing radiation is a serious concern for both storage and transport of high burnup fuel. See government and scientific documents at SanOnofreSafety.org.

comments (1)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>