Is there a chance that the tons of nuclear waste at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) could finally get moved to another location?
Prompted by a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, confidential negotiations are under way that may be exploring just that possibility.
[…]
How much nuclear waste is at the plant?
SONGS officials say there are 1,609 metric tons, which equals 3.55 million pounds.
Is that a lot?
It represents about 2 percent of the total amount of the spent fuel from all of the nation’s nuclear power plants, according to the most recent figures from the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group.
SONGS accounts for about half the amount of nuclear waste that has accumulated at plants in California.
[…]
What exactly is spent fuel?
Inside a nuclear reactor, enriched uranium sustains a series of controlled nuclear reactions that unleash quantities of energy that is converted to steam that drives turbines that generate electricity.
After about four to six years, nuclear fuel loses its efficiency and is considered “spent.”
But the spent fuel is still thermally hot and emits a great deal of radiation — enough to kill someone within minutes if that person is not adequately shielded — and remains radioactive for thousands of years because of the long half-lives of some of its radio-isotopes.
To keep the fuel cool, nuclear plant operators transfer the waste to what is called “wet storage,” where it is placed in a metal rack in a deep pool of water, typically for at least five years.
After the fuel has been cooled it may be transferred to a dry storage system.
SONGS hasn’t produced electricity since January 2012 and there are 8.4 million people within a 50-mile radius of the plant. So why does its spent fuel stay on site?
Because, to put it bluntly, the federal government has dropped the ball. Under the Waste Policy Act, passed by Congress in 1982, the U.S. Department of Energy was given responsibility for the long-term storage of nuclear waste.
[…]
Why not send spent fuel to Yucca Mountain?
That was the original plan.
The government spent anywhere between $9 billion and $15 billion to build the repository that would store the fuel deep underground in the Nevada desert, about 100 miles from Las Vegas.
From the moment Yucca Mountain was first discussed on Capitol Hill back in the 1980s, lawmakers in Nevada fought against it. Nonetheless, the Department of Energy recommended opening Yucca and in 2002 the site was approved by then-President George W. Bush.
But the Obama administration cut funding for Yucca Mountain, delighting Nevada’s Harry Reid, who became the Senate Majority Leader after the 2008 elections.
Now, however, there are indications that Yucca is back on the table.
The Trump administration has called for spending $120 million on storage projects that include reviving Yucca Mountain.
[…]
If Yucca Mountain came back online, is it big enough to handle all the nation’s nuclear waste?
Yes and no.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the repository was designed to hold 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste with 63,000 metric tons reserved for commercial waste. The total amount of waste from nuclear plants across the country has reached 78,590 and the industry adds about 2,200 tons each year. So in that respect, Yucca by itself would not be big enough to house all the nation’s spent fuel.
But the Nuclear Energy Institute says the 70,000-ton limit is not a design constraint but a restriction that was legislatively imposed. Originally, Congress envisioned the construction of not one (Yucca Mountain) but two national repositories and wanted to make sure the nation’s nuclear waste would be equitably distributed between them.
NEI officials say Yucca Mountain could “safely accommodate four to nine times” the 70,000 figure.
[…]
Two sites have been discussed.
One is in a sparsely populated area in West Texas, operated by a company called Waste Control Specialists. The facility stores low-level radioactive waste and the company wants to dramatically expand the site, which has a 14,000-acre footprint.
But two months ago the company in charge of the project put its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on hold due to financial problems.
Waste Control Specialists executives had earlier discussed constructing the facility by 2019 but suspending the NRC’s review of the application will almost certainly delay the project, if it ever gets built.
The other possible site is in eastern New Mexico and it would be a big one — proposed to hold about 120,000 metric tons of waste. Representatives of the project appeared at the most recent San Onofre engagement panel and said the plan has the support of local governments.
[…]
There’s a third site on the radar screen as well.
Former San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre has lobbied for moving SONGS waste to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona, located about 50 miles from Phoenix.
[…]
Who does the waste belong to — the federal government or Southern California Edison?
The spent fuel is the responsibility of Southern California Edison but according to the details of the Waste Policy Act, the waste eventually will be handed over to the U.S. Department of Energy. The agency takes title at the gate when the fuel leaves the site and owns it from that point on.
Do other nuclear power plants store their waste on-site like SONGS does?
Yes, since the federal government has not come up with a site to deposit spent fuel.
Does SONGS have the most spent fuel on site of any other plant in the country?
Not the most, but it’s in the top 10.
[…]
Where, exactly, is the spent fuel at SONGS?
At San Onofre, the rods in wet storage are placed in a concrete structure 40 feet deep that is lined with steel and filled with water.
Featured Topics / 特集
-
A nuclear power plant in Byron, Illinois. Taken by photographer Joseph Pobereskin (http://pobereskin.com). カレンダー
-
Latest Posts / 最新記事
- 広島原爆の日の式典、周辺での「平和運動」を締め出しへ 公園一帯で「入場規制」、プラカードやのぼりは禁止 via 東京新聞 2024/07/31
- U.S. Solar and Wind Power Generation Tops Nuclear for First Time via OilPrice.com 2024/07/15
- The long path of plutonium: A new map charts contamination at thousands of sites, miles from Los Alamos National Laboratory via Searchlight New Mexico 2024/07/09
- LANL plans to release highly radioactive tritium to prevent explosions. Will it just release danger in the air? via Searchlight New Mexico 2024/07/09
- US Spent $98,000 Per Minute on Nuclear Weapons in 2023, New Report Says via Truthout 2024/06/17
Discussion / 最新の議論
- Leonsz on Combating corrosion in the world’s aging nuclear reactors via c&en
- Mark Ultra on Special Report: Help wanted in Fukushima: Low pay, high risks and gangsters via Reuters
- Grom Montenegro on Duke Energy’s shell game via Beyond Nuclear International
- Jim Rice on Trinity: “The most significant hazard of the entire Manhattan Project” via Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
- Barbarra BBonney on COVID-19 spreading among workers on Fukushima plant, related projects via The Mainichi
Archives / 月別アーカイブ
- July 2024 (4)
- June 2024 (3)
- March 2024 (1)
- February 2024 (6)
- January 2024 (4)
- November 2023 (8)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (7)
- August 2023 (5)
- July 2023 (10)
- June 2023 (12)
- May 2023 (15)
- April 2023 (17)
- March 2023 (20)
- February 2023 (19)
- January 2023 (31)
- December 2022 (11)
- November 2022 (12)
- October 2022 (7)
- September 2022 (6)
- August 2022 (22)
- July 2022 (29)
- June 2022 (15)
- May 2022 (46)
- April 2022 (36)
- March 2022 (47)
- February 2022 (24)
- January 2022 (57)
- December 2021 (27)
- November 2021 (32)
- October 2021 (48)
- September 2021 (56)
- August 2021 (53)
- July 2021 (60)
- June 2021 (55)
- May 2021 (48)
- April 2021 (64)
- March 2021 (93)
- February 2021 (69)
- January 2021 (91)
- December 2020 (104)
- November 2020 (126)
- October 2020 (122)
- September 2020 (66)
- August 2020 (63)
- July 2020 (56)
- June 2020 (70)
- May 2020 (54)
- April 2020 (85)
- March 2020 (88)
- February 2020 (97)
- January 2020 (130)
- December 2019 (75)
- November 2019 (106)
- October 2019 (138)
- September 2019 (102)
- August 2019 (99)
- July 2019 (76)
- June 2019 (52)
- May 2019 (92)
- April 2019 (121)
- March 2019 (174)
- February 2019 (146)
- January 2019 (149)
- December 2018 (38)
- November 2018 (51)
- October 2018 (89)
- September 2018 (118)
- August 2018 (194)
- July 2018 (22)
- June 2018 (96)
- May 2018 (240)
- April 2018 (185)
- March 2018 (106)
- February 2018 (165)
- January 2018 (241)
- December 2017 (113)
- November 2017 (198)
- October 2017 (198)
- September 2017 (226)
- August 2017 (219)
- July 2017 (258)
- June 2017 (240)
- May 2017 (195)
- April 2017 (176)
- March 2017 (115)
- February 2017 (195)
- January 2017 (180)
- December 2016 (116)
- November 2016 (115)
- October 2016 (177)
- September 2016 (178)
- August 2016 (158)
- July 2016 (201)
- June 2016 (73)
- May 2016 (195)
- April 2016 (183)
- March 2016 (201)
- February 2016 (154)
- January 2016 (161)
- December 2015 (141)
- November 2015 (153)
- October 2015 (212)
- September 2015 (163)
- August 2015 (189)
- July 2015 (178)
- June 2015 (150)
- May 2015 (175)
- April 2015 (155)
- March 2015 (153)
- February 2015 (132)
- January 2015 (158)
- December 2014 (109)
- November 2014 (192)
- October 2014 (206)
- September 2014 (206)
- August 2014 (208)
- July 2014 (178)
- June 2014 (155)
- May 2014 (209)
- April 2014 (242)
- March 2014 (190)
- February 2014 (170)
- January 2014 (227)
- December 2013 (137)
- November 2013 (164)
- October 2013 (200)
- September 2013 (255)
- August 2013 (198)
- July 2013 (208)
- June 2013 (231)
- May 2013 (174)
- April 2013 (156)
- March 2013 (199)
- February 2013 (191)
- January 2013 (173)
- December 2012 (92)
- November 2012 (198)
- October 2012 (229)
- September 2012 (207)
- August 2012 (255)
- July 2012 (347)
- June 2012 (230)
- May 2012 (168)
- April 2012 (116)
- March 2012 (150)
- February 2012 (198)
- January 2012 (292)
- December 2011 (251)
- November 2011 (252)
- October 2011 (364)
- September 2011 (288)
- August 2011 (513)
- July 2011 (592)
- June 2011 (253)
- May 2011 (251)
- April 2011 (571)
- March 2011 (494)
- February 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
Top Topics / TOPトピック
- anti-nuclear
- Atomic Age
- Capitalism
- East Japan Earthquake + Fukushima
- energy policy
- EU
- France
- Hanford
- health
- Hiroshima/Nagasaki
- Inequality
- labor
- Nuclear power
- nuclear waste
- Nuclear Weapons
- Radiation exposure
- Russia/Ukraine/Chernobyl
- Safety
- TEPCO
- U.S.
- UK
- エネルギー政策
- メディア
- ロシア/ウクライナ/チェルノブイリ
- 健康
- 公正・共生
- 兵器
- 再稼働
- 労働における公正・平等
- 原子力規制委員会
- 原発推進
- 反原発運動
- 大飯原発
- 安全
- 広島・長崎
- 廃炉
- 東京電力
- 東日本大震災・福島原発
- 汚染水
- 米国
- 脱原発
- 被ばく
- 資本主義
- 除染
- 食の安全
Choose Language / 言語