Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Just make sure it's a nice beach in 37 years
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility leery of Edison
San Onofre
Piling on to issues already faced by the failed San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and the state agencies that regulate it, including the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Coastal Commission, nuclear watchdog group Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility has filed new public commentary critical of planning figures cited in the CPUC's 2015 Draft Integrated Energy Policy Report.
A first offense, says the group, is an assumption that San Onofre's former operator, Southern California Edison, will "complete the full decommissioning process within 20 years. California further requires the decommissioned plant site be restored to its original condition; this requirement involves additional activities beyond what the NRC may require."
Alliance counsel John Geesman argues that a true "decommissioning" of the plant involves removal of all spent nuclear fuel from the site and a restoration of the grounds to their natural state, a stipulation present in a long-term land lease with the Navy.
The rosy picture painted in the report can't be accurate, Geesman continues, because Edison uses "optimism premised on the federal government beginning to take delivery" of San Onofre's nuclear waste sometime in 2024, with all waste removed from the site by 2049 and an actual site decommissioning date of 2052 — that's 37 years from now.
Sources have predicted in the past that nuclear waste could end up sitting along San Diego's northern shoreline for as long as 600 years or more if plans to build a federal nuclear waste dump don't come through.
The delays in moving the radioactive waste off site could lead to massive cost overruns as compared to the CPUC's assumptions — according to Geesman, Edison says a ten-year delay in moving the waste would increase storage costs by $149 million (in 2014 dollars), and that a 100-year delay would cost upward of $1.5 billion.
Another argument hinges on Edison's contract with the Navy to return the land to its original condition before construction of the power plant. While Geesman says that ratepayer contributions to a decommissioning trust are sufficient, Edison "nevertheless is attempting to remove the requirement from a renegotiated agreement with the Navy....
"About 42 percent of the $346 million cost of compliance is due to the requirement that all clean concrete and demolition debris be disposed of at an out-of-state Class III landfill pursuant to State of California executive Order D-62-02.18.68," continues Geesman. "The final [report] should condemn any notion of abandoning subsurface debris, ineligible even for deposit in a California landfill, on what may one day become a heavily visited public beach."
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility then turns its attention to Diablo Canyon, the state's last active nuclear power plant, which itself is facing difficulties in trying to renew its operating license amid many of the same concerns that would have plagued San Onofre had it not failed before filing renewal applications, including questions about earthquake fault lines running close to the plant.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Just make sure it's a nice beach in 37 years
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility leery of Edison
Just make sure it's a nice beach in 37 years
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility leery of Edison
San Onofre
Piling on to issues already faced by the failed San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and the state agencies that regulate it, including the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Coastal Commission, nuclear watchdog group Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility has filed new public commentary critical of planning figures cited in the CPUC's 2015 Draft Integrated Energy Policy Report.
A first offense, says the group, is an assumption that San Onofre's former operator, Southern California Edison, will "complete the full decommissioning process within 20 years. California further requires the decommissioned plant site be restored to its original condition; this requirement involves additional activities beyond what the NRC may require."
Alliance counsel John Geesman argues that a true "decommissioning" of the plant involves removal of all spent nuclear fuel from the site and a restoration of the grounds to their natural state, a stipulation present in a long-term land lease with the Navy.
The rosy picture painted in the report can't be accurate, Geesman continues, because Edison uses "optimism premised on the federal government beginning to take delivery" of San Onofre's nuclear waste sometime in 2024, with all waste removed from the site by 2049 and an actual site decommissioning date of 2052 — that's 37 years from now.
Sources have predicted in the past that nuclear waste could end up sitting along San Diego's northern shoreline for as long as 600 years or more if plans to build a federal nuclear waste dump don't come through.
The delays in moving the radioactive waste off site could lead to massive cost overruns as compared to the CPUC's assumptions — according to Geesman, Edison says a ten-year delay in moving the waste would increase storage costs by $149 million (in 2014 dollars), and that a 100-year delay would cost upward of $1.5 billion.
Another argument hinges on Edison's contract with the Navy to return the land to its original condition before construction of the power plant. While Geesman says that ratepayer contributions to a decommissioning trust are sufficient, Edison "nevertheless is attempting to remove the requirement from a renegotiated agreement with the Navy....
"About 42 percent of the $346 million cost of compliance is due to the requirement that all clean concrete and demolition debris be disposed of at an out-of-state Class III landfill pursuant to State of California executive Order D-62-02.18.68," continues Geesman. "The final [report] should condemn any notion of abandoning subsurface debris, ineligible even for deposit in a California landfill, on what may one day become a heavily visited public beach."
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility then turns its attention to Diablo Canyon, the state's last active nuclear power plant, which itself is facing difficulties in trying to renew its operating license amid many of the same concerns that would have plagued San Onofre had it not failed before filing renewal applications, including questions about earthquake fault lines running close to the plant.
Comments