skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

What’s Going To Happen To San Onofre’s Nuclear Waste?

Above: An aerial view of the San Onofre Generating Station, May 2012

San Onofre's nuclear reactors were permanently shut down earlier this year. Fully dismantling the plant will take years, probably even decades. But one of the problems facing San Onofre is going to stick around even longer. What to do with all its nuclear waste?

Aired 11/18/13 on KPBS News.

At a meeting on Monday, San Diegans will have their chance to talk about the reality that waste will be staying at the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Stations for decades—and possibly centuries.

At a meeting hosted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, San Diegans will have their chance to discuss the reality of the nuclear waste that will stay on site for decades—and possibly centuries.

However long the waste stays at San Onofre, there's won't be any debate about sending it elsewhere. Leaving it on site is the only option. Victor Dricks, spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, says that's for a very simple reason.

"There is no other place to ship it to at this point," Dricks explains. The United States currently doesn't have anywhere to permanently store commercial nuclear waste, which will remain dangerous for many, many thousands of years.

We came close to putting a national repository in Nevada, deep underground beneath Yucca Mountain. But in 2010, the Obama administration canceled those plans.

Alpine resident Rosemarie Alley is the co-author of a book on nuclear waste called Too Hot to Touch. And she sees a huge irony in how plants around the country are handling nuclear waste.

"There's no way you can guarantee safety for any repository site — Yucca Mountain or anyplace else on the planet," she says. "So the fallback has become, well it's too dangerous to put it underground, so let's leave it lying above ground all over the country."

Without a national repository, it's up to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to gauge the safety of leaving waste at sites like San Onofre for extended periods. Dricks says the NRC has determined waste could stay here for quite awhile.

"We have concluded that even over the next 300 years, the fuel could be safely stored on site," he says. "And that's part of the rule we're putting out here for public comment."

San Onofre's cooling pools currently hold thousands of spent fuel assemblies.

At Monday's meeting, San Diegans will have that chance to comment.

Currently, most of San Onofre's spent fuel is held in cooling pools, huge warehouse-sized tanks measuring about four stories tall. Thousands of spent fuel rods are mechanically inserted into the pools, where they need to cool down for at least five years. Eventually, they'll need to be taken out and inserted into dry casks.

I wanted to know how long that process will take. So I asked Maureen Brown, who handles media relations for Southern California Edison, the utilities company operating San Onofre. She couldn't provide a firm timeline.

"I'm just so reluctant to project out any specific dates," she says. "The best I can say based on our current planning is we would hope to have decommissioning completed within 20 years."

Even dry casks — basically long tubes made of concrete and steel — aren't a true long-term solution, though. They're only designed to contain radioactive waste for about 50 years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says waste would have to be transferred into new casks after 100 years. But Brown says Edison isn't planning that far ahead.

"It's not a priority for us to contemplate many decades in the future," Brown says, explaining that decommissioning the plant has taken precedence for Southern California Edison.

Edison didn't expect to be left handling this waste for so long. The federal government was supposed to take responsibility for it back in 1998. Fifteen years later, they still haven't.

Which brings us back to Monday's meeting. With a long-term repository nowhere near completion, how do Southern Californians feel knowing nuclear waste could be sitting on earthquake-prone coastal bluffs, near major cities, for generations?

Rochelle Becker will be at the meeting to voice her own lack of confidence. She heads up the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. And she wonders who will be keeping an eye on all this waste long after San Onofre is decommissioned.

"I probably will not be alive then," she says. "It will be incumbent upon the public to continue to pressure the Department of Energy to make sure there's a permanent waste repository somewhere. And that our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren aren't living with nuclear waste on the seismically active coast of this state."

Monday's meeting in Carlsbad is one of several the NRC is holding around the country. But whatever the public has to say, the nuclear waste at San Onofre won't be going anywhere soon.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Eddie89'

Eddie89 | November 18, 2013 at 7:34 a.m. ― 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Why didn't people think of a long term solution for nuclear waste before building the nuclear plant in the first place?

How heavy are these nuclear rods?

Perhaps they could be put on a rocket and sent into space, towards the sun. And let the sun destroy them.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'joemamma42'

joemamma42 | November 18, 2013 at 8:12 a.m. ― 10 months, 2 weeks ago

"We have concluded that even over the next 300 years, the fuel could be safely stored on site,"
They also concluded that it would be safe to put a nuclear power plant in the middle of millions of people. And they promised us that it would be handled in the most responsible way possible. Yet when it came down to it, money took precedence over maintenance. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | November 18, 2013 at 9:12 a.m. ― 10 months, 2 weeks ago

joemamma it is not like any of us are going to be around in 300 years anyway, so why do you care so much?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'TMail'

TMail | November 18, 2013 at 10:02 a.m. ― 10 months, 2 weeks ago

I can only wonder how John Muir would react to all this.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 18, 2013 at 11:23 a.m. ― 10 months, 2 weeks ago

E89... no, an accident at launch would spread an already contained hazard. besides there are very productive uses to which it might be put.

If you want to handle the problem, build reactors to use the 'waste' as fuel. PUREX the recoverable waste and recycle it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purex

For nuclides not suitable for inclusion in recycled fuel cast them in vitreous blocks as RTG fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioiso...

It is only waste if you can't use it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Lance'

Lance | November 18, 2013 at 7:04 p.m. ― 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Looks like the NRC is reconsidering Yucca Mountain after all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste_n_4297273.html

@JeanMarc: No, those of us reading this article now won't be here in 300 years, but is this really the legacy we want to leave our descendants? We're responsible. We can and must do better than this.

@Eddie89: Sending the nuclear waste to the sun is a great concept, but if the rocket malfunctioned the results would be disastrous to all life on Earth.

( | suggest removal )