FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Nuclear Waste Dump Formerly Known as San Onofre?

by RUSSELL D. HOFFMAN

Southern California Edison, the operator of the (non-operating) San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station, is running out of options.

Even the federal regulators are coming down hard on them.  The public remains deeply skeptical, while local elected officials continue to press for further investigations into the problems at the plant.

It ain’t over ’til it’s over, but yesterday SCE took a couple of hard blows.

First, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent Pete Dietrich, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at Southern California Edison, a letter requesting 32 clarifications regarding SCE’s risky — some would even say CRAZY (I would say that) — plan to restart San Onofre Unit 2 at 70% power as a five-month test.  And if that wasn’t enough, the NRC is also saying that SCE must prove that the plant could be operated safely at 100% power before approving a restart plan.  SCE’s proposal to prove they could operate safely at 70% power simply isn’t good enough.

This is exciting.

Edison felt they could show that operating for five months at 70% power was safe using “conservative” benchmarks, retraining the staff, adding additional monitoring equipment, and crossing their fingers for good luck.  The NRC’s demand will be virtually impossible to fulfill, considering that the plan to operate at 70% power was full of holes to begin with (resulting in the 32 points of clarification in yesterday’s letter from the NRC).

The U-tubes in Unit 2’s replacement steam generators are highly damaged, and they only ran for 22 months out of a planned 60-YEAR life expectancy (60 years was truly a pipe dream).  Unit 3’s new U-tubes only ran for 11 months before one of them burst, and the plant has been shut down ever since.

During the 22 months that Unit 2 operated successfully with the new steam generators, Fukushima happened, to warn Southern Californians of the consequences of failure at San Onofre.  The consequence would be the loss of our communities, our jobs, our families, and our lives.  Lost to cancer, deformities, heart disease, inflammation and many other ailments, the effects of radiation poisoning.  The lesson of Fukushima has not been forgotten among the populace, even if it’s been largely forgotten by the media.  But even the head of the NRC admits 100,000 families in Japan cannot return home because of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.  We don’t want that here.

What happened at Fukushima — or even far worse — can happen at San Onofre in a matter of seconds.  It can happen the instant they restart the reactor.

Every knowledgeable nuclear energy expert has been forced to admit that such disasters, once claimed to be impossible due to their extensive “defense-in-depth” technology, are not only possible, but cannot be prevented in some circumstances.  Foreseeable circumstances, even inevitable:  Earthquakes happen.  Tsunamis happen.  Valves stick open (or closed).  Pipes burst.  Operators make errors.  Oh, do they ever!  The combination will bring down a power plant somewhere, and it might be San Onofre.  Every expert now has to admit what they used to deny:  That accidents are possible.  In fact, they’ve introduced a new term into their vocabulary: Mitigation.  But that just means “move, quickly, and never come back.”  But we live in paradise here!  We don’t want to be forced to move!

One wonders, after Chernobyl and Fukushima — and a thousand near-misses here in America — why does the NRC allow the plants to operate at all?  How is that possible?  The answer is:  They are playing the odds.   Large accidents are deemed unlikely, such as a meteor crashing into it (or an airplane).  The NRC doesn’t require the power plants to protect themselves against earthquakes larger than a certain size, they deem them too unlikely to have to worry about.  Similarly for tsunamis higher than a certain size, or terrorist actions involving airplanes, or even numerous innocent operator mistakes.  Such events are deemed too unlikely and are considered to be “beyond design basis” and the utility company doesn’t have to plan for them at all.  The plant is built for a 7.0 earthquake, for example, not because an 8.0 is impossible, but because the possibility of an 8.0 is considered “remote.”

All other events, however, the utility must plan for and prove they can handle.  Southern California Edison is in a tight spot on that right now, because operation of Unit 2 at 100% power IS surely very risky.  They’ve even so much as admitted it in their request to operate at 70% power — they said that was what they could “conservatively” estimate was safe.  So now what can they say?

A brief history of steam generator problems at San Onofre:  Unit 1 was put down in the early 1990s for steam generator problems very similar to what happened in units 2 and 3.  New SGs were put in the two operating units, but one of Unit 3’s new SGs failed on January 31st, 2012, after only 11 months of operation, and that unit cannot be returned to service without replacing the SGs with an unknown design — which would presumably include a lengthy and unpredictable license amendment process.  Unit 2’s new replacement SGs are of identical design to Unit 3’s failed SGs and experienced unprecedented wear due to excessive vibrations in the 22 months they operated, but not as much wear as Unit 3 experienced.  The amount of wear in Unit 2 was extensive and well outside industry norms, but in many ways similar to the wear in Unit 3.

So it appears that the NRC has demanded the impossible of SCE, for how can SCE possibly prove that Unit 2 can be operated at 100% power safely?  (In this writer’s opinion, they cannot assert it at 70%, either, but they were trying.)  At 100% power it’s not only possible but probable that the problems that occurred in Unit 3 could occur in Unit 2.  And even if that doesn’t happen, they could occur during “design basis events” such as a “main steam line break.”

So is the game over?  Will SCE announce that they’ll decommission the reactor, permanently shutting it down?  Maybe, but it hasn’t happened.  One person suggested to me that the NRC’s “top guns” are handling San Onofre’s problems now, not just the NRC Region IV guys, who have been coddling the corporations, ignoring the activists, and failing in their duties here for years.  (Management retaliation problems against the workers have persisted at the plant, even as it is unable to get back on its feet and start making money for its owners.)

Yesterday’s letter from the NRC does not force decommissioning.  It does not force SCE to move the used reactor cores to a “safe” storage place.  None exists — the last viable option for SCE, the “Private Fuel Storage” (PFS) facility proposed for the Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah, has been cancelled (as it should be — it was a terrible idea).  Yucca Mountain, the nation’s former proposed repository, is unworkable politically and geologically.  Transportation of nuclear waste is extremely difficult and there’s nowhere to go with it anyway.  Dry cask storage is not “hardened” in any way.  Spent fuel pools are full and expensive to maintain.  There are no good options for the waste.

Mining the raw uranium is a health hazard to the miners who dig it out of the ground, but used reactor cores are millions of times more dangerous, pound for pound, than fresh, unused reactor fuel.  It stays that way for hundreds of thousands of years.

It’s time to stop making more and more of this deadly waste.  It’s time to stop risking a Fukushima disaster in Southern California.  It’s time to demand now, more than ever, that SCE shut San Onofre forever.

Tomorrow SCE might announce that they are going to decommission San Onofre, but a nuclear reactor license is a multi-billion-dollar asset, so don’t hold your breath.  If SCE can rebuild the steam generators over the coming years — and better yet, bill the ratepayers for the delay — that’s exactly what they’ll do. (They’ve made that clear in a recent filing with the California Public Utilities Commission, who normally gives SCE all the money they say they need to operate the plant at a profit, including $5 billion dollars in rate increases earlier this month.)

So even with the NRC’s letter demanding so many things of SCE, and even with so many other problems, the battle is not over.  It’s only over when the plant is demolished and the waste removed, the land restored, and the licenses to operate have been revoked forever.  Only then is it over for the local residents — but someone will still have to mind the waste for thousands of generations.  The smaller the pile we leave them, the better.

Russell D. Hoffman lives in Carlsbad, California. He is an educational software developer and bladder cancer survivor, as well as a collector of military and nuclear historical documents and books. He is the author and programmer of the award-winning Animated Periodic Table of the Elements. He can be reached at: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
Ben Debney
The Swimsuit that Overthrew the State
Ashley Smith
Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution
Andrew Stewart
Did Gore Throw the 2000 Election?
Vincent Navarro
Is the Nation State and Its Welfare State Dead? a Critique of Varoufakis
John Wight
Syria’s Kurds and the Wages of Treachery
Lawrence Davidson
The New Anti-Semitism: the Case of Joy Karega
Mateo Pimentel
The Affordable Care Act: A Litmus Test for American Capitalism?
Roger Annis
In Northern Syria, Turkey Opens New Front in its War Against the Kurds
David Swanson
ABC Shifts Blame from US Wars to Doctors Without Borders
Norman Pollack
American Exceptionalism: A Pernicious Doctrine
Ralph Nader
Readers Think, Thinkers Read
Julia Morris
The Mythologies of the Nauruan Refugee Nation
George Wuerthner
Caving to Ranchers: the Misguided Decision to Kill the Profanity Wolf Pack
Ann Garrison
Unworthy Victims: Houthis and Hutus
Julian Vigo
Britain’s Slavery Legacy
John Stanton
Brzezinski Vision for a Power Sharing World Stymied by Ignorant Americans Leaders, Citizens
Philip Doe
Colorado: 300 Days of Sunshine Annually, Yet There’s No Sunny Side of the Street
Joseph White
Homage to EP Thompson
Dan Bacher
The Big Corporate Money Behind Jerry Brown
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
DNC Playing Dirty Tricks on WikiLeaks
Ron Jacobs
Education for Liberation
Jim Smith
Socialism Revived: In Spite of Bernie, Donald and Hillary
David Macaray
Organized Labor’s Inferiority Complex
David Cortright
Alternatives to Military Intervention in Syria
Binoy Kampmark
The Terrors of Free Speech: Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act
Cesar Chelala
Guantánamo’s Quagmire
Nyla Ali Khan
Hoping Against Hope in Kashmir
William Hughes
From Sam Spade to the Red Scare: Dashiell Hammett’s War Against Rightwing Creeps
Raouf Halaby
Dear Barack Obama, Please Keep it at 3 for 3
Charles R. Larson
Review: Paulina Chiziane’s “The First Wife: a Tale of Polygamy”
David Yearsley
The Widow Bach: Anna Magdalena Rediscovered
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail