Will my teenagers be dead before nuclear waste is removed from the bluffs at San Onofre?
That rattles the mind as one contemplates the latest attempt by U.S. Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano, to shake some action out of his brethren in Congress. In what might be read as an acknowledgement of facts on the ground — i.e., the snail’s pace at which the U.S. Department of Energy progresses on this extremely divisive national issue — Levin has introduced, again, the “100 Year Canister Life Act.”
It would do exactly as it says: require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license only storage systems that can safely contain nuclear waste for an entire century.
That would more than double the required lifespan for temporary storage systems like the ones at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,(and more than 70 nuclear plants like it across the nation). Right now, these waste storage systems must last 40 years.
“As I’ve said ad nauseam, the waste at San Onofre is the symptom of a greater problem,” Levin said on a webinar Feb. 2 hosted by the Samuel Lawrence Foundation. “The problem is that we lack a cohesive, comprehensive strategy to deal with spent nuclear fuel across the entire United States.”
More than 3.5 million pounds of nuclear waste are stored at San Onofre, near active faults, some 10 million people and the Camp Pendleton Marine base.
Nationwide, the problem is magnified by nearly a hundred-fold: Commercial reactors have generated some 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel to date, and those still operating could generate another 50,000 metric tons by 2060. That’s nearly 309 million pounds of highly radioactive nuclear waste “temporarily” strewn across some 75 sites nationwide, according to the DOE.
And about one-quarter of those sites no longer have operating reactors, resulting in “stranded waste,” like we have at San Onofre.
‘Raise standards’
The bill’s co-sponsor is U.S. Rep. Salud O. Carbajal, D-Santa Barbara, whose district includes California’s only operating nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon. Diablo was slated to close soon, but won a longer lease on life to help the Golden State meet energy demands.
“As we continue working towards long-term solutions… it is important to raise the standards for on-site nuclear waste storage,” Carbajal said in a prepared statement. “Raising these standards will also raise the confidence that nearby communities have in the safety of nuclear power plants, and until there is an agreement on the final storage site for these fuels, this change isn’t just a good precaution, it’s a necessity.”
The good news is that there’s almost $48 billion in the federal Nuclear Waste Fund to fund a permanent solution, already paid by consumers. It earned some $1.7 billion in interest last year.
The not-so-good news is that the DOE has been working on this for nearly half a century, and has little more than the moribund Yucca Mountain to show for it.
“We’re in this situation because the federal government tried to establish a long-term repository for the waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada without getting the permission or obtaining the consent of the state and all the affected localities and tribes,” Levin said on the webinar. “That was a recipe for failure. And it’s why all the fuel is still sitting in San Onofre today.”
On the upside, the DOE has resurrected a consent-based siting initiative that could, maybe, move waste off the bluffs in about 15 years. But DOE was supposed to have a permanent disposal site up and running by 1998, so you can’t blame folks for being a bit skeptical. That’s why more robust requirements for temporary storage make sense, supporters say.
Temporary?
“The whole design philosophy behind these canisters is that they were there essentially to be a temporary storage until the fuel would be moved to a permanent repository, but that is now an open-ended time frame,” said Gregory B. Jaczko, a physicist who once chaired the NRC, on the webinar.
“So these temporary canisters are now essentially permanent canisters for all intents and purposes, but they’re only licensed for a finite period of time, 40 years. And it’s largely expected that … the canisters will have to last longer than 40 years. So there’s just a lot of hand-waving about both from the agency and from the industry, about how you address that question.”
The systems may well will last longer than 40 years. “But at some point, whatever that time frame is that they will eventually no longer be able to meet their safety requirements and their safety standards … something will have to be done to repackage and remove the fuel and put it in new canisters,” Jaczko said. “Which is why I think Congressman Levin’s 100-year licensing for canisters is such an important piece of legislation because it really tackles that issue head on. And while 100 years may not even be sufficient in some cases, at least it’s more realistic.”
Activists who want the waste moved, pronto, have been worrying as storms eat away the dirt road leading to the surfing beach at San Onofre.
“This may be a good time to reflect on who is really in charge,” said a recent appeal from San Clemente Green. “The laws of nature always prevail. … Do you think it might be the right time to consider moving 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste to higher ground while we still can? I’d say Nature is moving faster than we are in this often unrecognized RACE AGAINST TIME.”
The NRC tends to keep quiet about these sorts of proposals. San Onofre’s operator, Southern California Edison, is as eager to get it off the bluff as anyone.
“We appreciate the support of Reps. Levin and Carbajal of our focus on the safe, on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel,” Edison spokesman Jeff Monford said. “We remain committed to making off-site storage and disposal a reality so that we can clear the San Onofre site of the spent fuel, finish the decommissioning process and restore the land for unrestricted use by the Navy.
“Spent fuel has been safely stored at San Onofre for more than 50 years and stored in dry canisters for more than 20 years. We are committed to its safe storage as long as it remains at San Onofre.”
Levin said it’s critical that the best technology be used to keep communities as safe as possible. “I’m going to be pushing very hard for this bill to become law,” Levin said. “It’s not going to happen overnight, but we’ve got to keep at it.”
Here’s hoping my 19 and 13 year old girls will still be alive when that happens.
