Press "Enter" to skip to content

Federal action vital to get nuclear waste off San Onofre’s beach, report says

San Onofre’s dry storage systems for radioactive waste — derisively dubbed by critics as the “nuclear dump by the sea”  —  are so close to the ocean and groundwater table that they could suffer structural degradation over time, a new report says.

The failings here, and nationwide, are plentiful, the report maintains: Safety procedures employed by the military haven’t been applied to civilian nuclear plants. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t sufficiently quantify risk, failing to live up to its mandate to protect public health and safety.

While other countries place spent fuel systems inside hardened, enclosed buildings to enhance safety, the U.S. has no such requirement. And the federal government’s decades-long paralysis over a finding a safe, permanent repository for nuclear waste is unacceptable, potentially putting communities, coastlines and other natural resources at risk.

After more than a year of study and debate, the task force convened by U.S. Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano, released its lengthy report laying out ideas on how to propel nuclear waste off San Onofre’s beach — and away from scores of other commercial plants nationwide.

But some members refused to sign on to different sections of the report, particularly those related to technical issues rather than federal policy, illustrating how difficult the issue can be.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating on Tuesday, August 27, 2019. (Photo by Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register/SCNG)

A major proposal involves stripping responsibility from the NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy and giving it to a new federal Nuclear Waste Administration. That idea — first floated by President Barack Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in 2012 — would create an agency whose sole focus is managing the radioactive waste stream and ending the disposal dilemma. Failure must not be an acceptable option for the new agency, as it has been up to now: There must be “teeth” in the legislation to exact penalties for failures to meet real deadlines, the report said.

Another echo of the Blue Ribbon panel’s work comes in the recommendation that, rather than attempting to place permanent storage sites where there’s vociferous objection from locals  — such as the moribund Yucca Mountain project in Nevada — a collaborative, consent-based process should be used to partner with communities that actually want to host the waste.

“Abandoning spent nuclear fuel at more than 65 sites in 30 states puts the health and safety of people and the environment at risk for generations,” the report said.

Aging concerns

The task force was led by U.S. Navy retired Rear Adm. Leendert “Len” Hering Sr., who specializes in energy and environmental issues, and by Gregory B. Jaczko, former chairman of the NRC.

More than 30 people served on the panel, some sharply critical of San Onofre operator Southern California Edison and the NRC.

One of the major concerns is how dry storage systems will withstand the test of time. Mankind has never tried to store nuclear waste for the long term, and there are gaping holes in our understanding, the report said.

“These vulnerable on-site storage configurations are intended to be stewarded through individual aging management plans proposed by utility owners, which consider storagetimeline, cost, and uncertainties,” the report said.

Workers practice loading a canister into the Holtec dry storage system at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

“As of yet, these storage plans and subsequent aging management plans are only now being released and have not stood widespread, independent scrutiny or the test of time. More research is needed to understand how … storage sites can be engineered to be climate resilient and climate ready, and also to define the true risk of radiation exposure from dry cask storage, over decades.”

It urged more science and investment in technical innovations to understand and address aging issues.

“We’re saying the rules and regulations provided by NRC are insufficient to provide the protections necessary, and that they have continued to relax them over and over again on the behalf of industry itself,” Hering said during a news conference on Wednesday, June 24.

“What we are suggesting is that the rules need to be analyzed in a much more deliberate fashion, money needs to be put aside and safety needs to be the driving factor in how the industry moves forward in the storage of spent nuclear fuel. That’s the bottom line.”

Congress should encourage collaboration on best practices between military and civilian nuclear fuel-handling authorities; the NRC should conduct a review of international practices related to storing spent fuel inside hardened, enclosed buildings; and San Onofre’s dry storage systems should be moved farther from the coastline, to a technically defensible facility with more levels of redundancy to reduce threats, the report said.

“SONGS was never intended to be a long-term storage location for SNF. The proximity to the coastline, susceptibility to geologic instability, and location within a densely populated area make it a very poor location,” it said.

“With increasing rates of coastal erosion, sea level rise, and likelihood of more frequent and severe storms due to climate change, the long-term storage of (spent fuel) on the coastline amounts to an unacceptable risk to the communities and resources at stake.”

Reaction

Among those closely evaluating the report was David Victor, an international law professor at UC San Diego and also chair of San Onofre’s volunteer Community Engagement Panel — a volunteer group convened by Edison that advises on the plant’s teardown.

People walk on the sand near the shuttered San Onofre nuclear power plant. AP FILE PHOTO

“The good: the report is focused on how to get the spent fuel out of San Onofre and other sites safely. That has been a singular mission of nearly everyone affected by the closure of the plant,” Victor said by email.

“The key roadblocks are at the federal level, and this report underscores the need for federal action. Mike Levin has been working hard in the same direction.”

The puzzling: The report does not lay out a clear political strategy for how to get more action at the federal level, and it largely ignores the single most important action for moving spent fuel from the retired San Onofre plant in the shorter-term — interim, or temporary, storage sites, which are proposed in New Mexico and Texas, Victor said. Instead, it focuses on permanent storage facilities — “an important topic, but one that has led to gridlock in Washington for decades,” he said.

The NRC said it is the process of reviewing the report and declined comment.

Edison, meanwhile, said it strongly supports federal legislation and appropriations for spent  fuel storage, and appreciated Levin’s engagement on a complex issue.

“Congressional action is vital to finding a solution,” spokesman John Dobken said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing our discussions with Rep. Levin.”

Edison is developing a plan to analyze potential alternative sites for San Onofre’s spent fuel, and is preparing a “conceptual transportation plan” for moving it. Both are slated for release early next year.

San Onofre’s dry storage systems were designed with extreme events in mind, from missile strikes to earthquakes to tsunamis, Dobken said. It’s going above and beyond NRC requirements with canister inspections starting more than a decade earlier than required, and demonstrating an on-site repair protocol that can be used if degradation is identified on a canister.

“The message to the local community is, the spent nuclear fuel will be safely stored as long as it is on site at San Onofre,” Dobken said.


Source: Orange County Register

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *