Nuclear waste isn't an isolated problem with nuclear power...

Nuclear waste isn't an isolated problem with nuclear power...

July 31, 2022

Prior to SanO's shutdown, few SoCal residents, including most activists, worried much about the waste, only about shut-down.

We know the waste is a problem, but even for us, here in Southern California, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant being open is STILL a far more likely cause of our own problems, let alone California's and America's. DCNPP should be closed *immediately*, not in two or three years, and should certainly not have its license extended under any circumstance. I would estimate that right now, DCNPP is at least a hundred to a thousand times more likely to be the cause of our having to move, or suffering health effects, than San Onofre's waste is. An operating reactor is incredibly more dangerous than ten year old spent fuel.

Read up on how far Chernobyl radiation spread in Kate Brown's Manual for Survival. We can use the problem with San Onofre's waste to push for closure of DCNPP. Once DCNPP is permanently closed, the entire state will finally (hopefully) be interested in solving the waste problem. Until ALL the reactors in America (and globally) are closed, "solving" the nuclear waste problem only helps to keep the reactors operating!

Nuclear waste scattered throughout the country is a major problem for many reasons, including terrorism, accidental airplane strikes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. etc..

Transporting nuclear waste multiple times is also a major problem for many reasons, including accidents, terrorism, human error, etc.. It should be moved at most only once, if possible.

Neutralization of the Pu and U isotopes is possible on-site. It's even a patented process! Read up on it in case you missed my report (see link, below). The industry doesn't like the idea because they want to reprocess the waste. That's ALSO why the industry is pushing so hard for one central location.

Moving nuclear waste through highly populated areas is a major problem which the U.S. government is well aware of. That is the reason they wanted to build a direct route from San Onofre to Yucca Mountain.

As a 20% owner of Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona, Southern California Edison (SCE) could either move the waste there (except for the problems mentioned above, plus the fact that AZ doesn't want our waste, only their own). SCE could at least pull out of PVNPP entirely if AZ won't take the waste.

There are many bridges, close to or even more than 100 feet high, between San Clemente and the Chocolate Mountains location that Roger J. is recommending. Moving 123 canisters over those bridges is extremely risky since the containers are NOT designed to withstand a drop of that height. It's unlikely, IMO, that they can even survive the claimed drop heights of a few dozen feet. I drove over the Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut twice daily, when it "suddenly" collapsed, killing three people. Bridge collapses DO happen. And maintenance is shoddy at best. I HEARD the Mianus River Bridge screech in the days before the pin fully sheered off. Residents had been calling the (ir-)responsible state agencies about the noise for weeks prior to the collapse.

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

What is spent fuel neutralization and why is it the best solution?
https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-is-spent-nuclear-fuel.html

Also don't forget where we've been on these issues:
https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html

---

Roger responded as follows:

On 07/31/2022 11:01 PM PDT RJ wrote:

Ace,

Where are the data on how many bridges there are? I may be wrong but I think you could get there without crossing any bridges.

I read that the max weight a helicopter can lift is about 25 tons which is about half of the weight of a canister. Does anyone know if it is possible to airlift a canister on a helicopter? Wouldn't it be nice if a helicopter could scoop it up at San Onofre and take it directly to a storage site? I suspect that some consider consider helicopter transport more dangerous than truck transport. Could the canisters be reloaded into twice as many canisters at half the weight?

Cargo planes can easily carry that but where would they take off and land?

If aircraft are too dangerous, we need to figure out truck tor train ransport routes. There are rail lines right to Chocolate Mt.

Of course, all of this is worthless if the military refuses to do it.

rj

---

Hi Roger,

YOU could get there without going over the bridges on I-8 but they would have to use treacherous mountain roads; roads that aren't designed for such heavy vehicles so no.

You want to AIR LIFT the canisters? No to that, too. And no to the extra steps needed for repackaging. And half the fuel load would still require the enormously heavy container. So you'd need way more than twice as many loads.

No rail lines go direct to Choc. Mtn, you'd have to go through very heavily populated areas.

Heavily populated areas are enormous security risks as well as impossible to evacuate after an accident.

Ace

---