Drafting a safe plan for San Onofre's nuclear waste

The day Southern California Edison announced it was shutting the troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant -- June 7, 2013 -- was a big day for the Angeles Chapter’s San Onofre Task Force. The Chapter played a part in the decision, but there was little time to celebrate. The focus shifted immediately to the 3,000-plus radioactive rods of spent fuel on site at San Onofre.

The Chapter is one of only two environmental organizations represented on the Citizen Engagement Panel (CEP) that monitors the San Onofre shutdown and cleanup. From the start we have advocated for a “better outcome" than the nationwide practice of storing fuel waste at plants for decades.

The Chapter spoke out for two reasons. First, the San Onofre site is wedged between Interstate 5 and the California coast, in an earthquake zone. It’s the last location anyone would choose for a nuclear waste dump. Next, for more than 30 years the Sierra Club has advocated remote storage of waste in one or more geologic repositories, as required by federal law.

Last fall the Chapter joined with two front-line groups, ROSE (Citizens Organized for a Safe Environment) and San Clemente Green, in producing a white paper as an action framework.

We urged "defense in depth" – backup systems at each nuclear plant to deal with human error or technology failure. The paper also called for development of “consent-based” siting of facilities that would consolidate waste from several plants. And we advocated a 10-year national effort to give remote safe storage of nuclear waste the same standing as the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb.

The timing was good. The D.C.-based Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is launching an initiative on the same issue with similar design elements. The action framework came to their attention, and we were invited to take part in two days of intense discussion held January 27-28 in Orange County.

The dialog was filled with front-line reports from committed activists. We distilled these examples into a “game plan” or road map. The work is being shared online by the BPC and the CEP. Here are highlights from “Taking Action to Address Nuclear Waste”:

Key finding: The federal government should act – or give states the power to act.

Basic principle: There must be political will and a sense of urgency. It has been 70 years since reactor waste was first generated. The U.S. has no safe disposal, and more than 100 nuclear plants are still generating spent fuel.

Track I: The federal government acts

A stand-alone entity is created with a dedicated source of funding and the sole mission of long-term management of nuclear waste. An independent panel is set up to provide oversight of the entity’s policies and actions.

The entity launches a process to identify up to 3 geologic repositories. Congress authorizes collection of fees to support remote sites and protects these funds for their intended use while specifying that payments are made in return for results.

Track II: States are empowered to act

Congress gives states meaningful regulatory authority to address environmental issues related to nuclear waste storage sites.

Congress gives states authority to execute federal laws even in areas where the federal government has not relinquished control.

Congress gives states authority to develop consolidated interim storage sites. States determine how much waste each site can handle. States apply this authority within their own borders, regionally, and with non-contiguous states.

On either track:

The government should give priority to spent fuel at decommissioned reactors -- “stranded sites” -- for consolidated interim storage and / or long-term storage. At each site, expedite transfer from fuel pools to dry storage and from open to secure storage.
 
The white paper concluded with these words:

“An ongoing commitment cleaned up the nation’s waters and vastly improved air quality. A similar commitment can address and master an environmental risk of comparable proportions. This outcome would relieve host communities of grave concerns and serve as a source of national pride at a time when such achievements are appreciated. Let’s get on with the job.”

The work is now in the hands of the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Citizens Engagement Panel. The Chapter will stay on the case to keep national direction on course while urging action to remove nuclear waste from San Onofre.

Glenn Pascall is chair of the San Onofre Task Force for the Angeles Chapter.