Experts: San Onofre's nuclear waste isn't going anywhereOct 21 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Brooke Edwards Staggs The Orange County RegisterRoughly 150 activists gathered Saturday at a spiritual center in San Clemente, 9 miles from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Many of them fought for years -- some for decades -- to see the nuclear power plant shut down. With that goal realized, members of the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre came Saturday to hear from experts and strategize as the facility transitions from a nuclear-power generating station to a nuclear waste storage site. "This was a real victory of people power," said organizer Carol Jahnkow of Peace Resource Center of San Diego. "And we're going to need to continue that people power to deal with this nuclear waste issue and to make sure that the decommissioning goes faster and does what we want it to do, not what Southern California Edison wants it to do." The power plant's reactors have been offline since January 2012, when faulty steam generators led to a small leak of radioactive gas. Plant operator Southern California Edison permanently shut down the plant on June 7, citing mounting costs and uncertainty surrounding the restart. An estimated 1,400 tons of radioactive spent fuel are at the site, the remains from 40 years of generating power. Most of the spent fuel assemblies are cooling in steel-lined concrete pools. Others are in dry cask storage: stainless steel canisters housed in concrete. "The fuel is sitting there until there is a place to take it," Marvin Resnikoff, an international advisor on nuclear waste management issues, told the crowd. The canisters could be sealed in reinforced containers and loaded onto rail cars, he said. However, attempts to create repositories for the spent nuclear waste in the deserts of Utah or Nevada have so far failed. There's also ongoing debate about how long spent fuel can be safely stored at the site. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is rescheduling local meetings on the topic after delays caused by the government shutdown. Further complicating matters is that the power plant used high burn-up fuel, nuclear waste storage expert Arjun Makhijani said. That allowed the plant to run for longer before coming offline for refueling. It also takes longer to cool, he said, and there's less research on its long-term behavior. "There are known unknowns that we should worry about," Makhijani said. Southern California Edison has until June 2015 to submit a decommissioning plan. Coalition members looked to the experts Saturday for advice on influencing that plan. "Most people agree that dry storage is generally safer than spent fuel pools," Resnikoff said. An earthquake could crack the pools, for example, releasing radioactive contamination. Resnikoff also expressed overheating concerns with Southern California Edison's request to store 32 fuel assemblies in each cask, rather than the 24 approved now. And Makhijani said SCE could upgrade to storage containers that could better withstand a terrorist attack. "I don't know how else to say it except you have to continue to question authority," Resnikoff said, drawing applause from the crowd. ___ Contact the writer: 949-454-7343 or BStaggs@OCRegister.com http://www.energycentral.com/functional/news/news_detail.cfm?did=30376340& |