Coastal Commission approves nuclear storage facility at San Onofre

[bananas]

Source: Fox 5 San Diego

The California Coastal Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to grant Southern California Edison a 20-year permit for an expanded nuclear waste storage facility at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in northern San Diego County.

Officials at Rosemead-based Edison, which operates and is the majority owner of the idled nuclear plant, said the current 14-year-old storage area is nearing capacity.

SCE estimated that it will need up to 80 more steel-and-concrete-encased canisters, a technology known as dry storage. About two-thirds of San Onofre's used fuel is currently stored on site in steel-lined, concrete storage pools known as wet storage.

Environmental groups argued that it makes no sense to store the spent fuel right next to the shoreline in an earthquake-prone area.

<snip>

Read more: http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/10/06/coastal-commission-approves-nuclear-storage-facility-at-san-onofre/

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R for exposure.

[bananas]

9. State OKs burying nuclear waste at beach

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/06/nuclear-waste-permit-approved/

State OKs burying nuclear waste at beach
By Morgan Lee | 9:38 p.m. Oct. 6, 2015

State regulators have approved a controversial plan to bury nuclear waste in concrete bunkers within 125 feet of a seawall and the beach at the shuttered San Onofre nuclear power plant.

<snip>

Ray Lutz, a nuclear safety activist with Citizens Oversight Projects, highlighted the commission’s own findings about coastal erosion at the storage site, and urged the commission to force Edison to look for a solution away from the coast.

“Once they put it in here, it will probably never come out,” he said. “We need to stop this permit now.”

Calculations by commission staff found the shoreline could move 29 feet inland over the next 35 years — still only one-third of the distance to the storage site.

The staff report said that over time, the new waste site “would eventually be exposed to coastal flooding and erosion hazards beyond its design capacity, or else would require protection by replacing or expanding the existing San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station shoreline armoring (sea wall).”

“Retention of the (fuel storage site) beyond 2051 would have the potential to adversely affect marine and visual resources and coastal access,” the agency’s analysis stated.

<snip>

[SunSeeker]

11. I can't believe the Coastal Commission allowed that shit. nt

[flamingdem]

2. That's just great

and then we'll get an earthquake and tsunami..

[Wilms]

3. Nowhere else to put it, and neither is it safe to move anyhow.

What a mess.

[passiveporcupine]

7. And yet people keep arguing that nuclear energy is safe

Balderdash!

[shadowmayor]

4. What could go wrong?

How 'bout we pack it up and "temporarily" store this crap underground at the corporate headquarters? Or at least park it in Jackass Flats where hundreds of bombs have been detonated. Something about coastlines and earthquake zones reminds me of something? Oh year, Fukushima!!!! Now back to Donald Trump and the "real" news.

[Mnemosyne]

5. Real genius move. nt

[RobertEarl]

6. Nukes are safe. And the power is too cheap to meter!

What a great fantasy that was, eh?

Now the reality sinks in and we know we were f'n lied to and stole from.

How far down this hole will we go before technology can save us from the wretched lies? Or can it even save us? After billions spent on waste disposal, none of it has been disposed, and we make more waste every day. Uh-oh.....

[dreamnightwind]

8. That is so messed up

When the big one hits, and it will, it's just a question of when, what happens?

Nuclear power is an insane way to boil water, and its waste is deadly for a very long time.

I've been camping, more than once, in a beach campground right next to this facility. Beautiful area, ocean, dunes, amazing, but this crime on nature is sitting right next door, on an earthquake fault no less.

[JDPriestly]

10. That is the most irresponsible decision.

I have ridden past San Onofre many, many times. It is almost right on the Pacific Ocean. If that ocean rises, San Onofre will be under water, I should think. To say nothing of the danger of earthquakes.

They are setting the stae for a possible Fukushima.

It won't necessarily happen, but it well could.

Utterly irresponsible.