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

February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
Eoin Higgins
Please Clap: the Jeb Bush Campaign Pre-Mortem
Joseph Mangano – Janette D. Sherman
The Invisible Epidemic: Radiation and Rising Rates of Thyroid Cancer
Andre Vltchek
Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder
Jack Smith
Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again
Robert Fantina
As Goes Iowa, So Goes the Nation?
John Grant
Israel Moves to Check Its Artists
Dean Baker
Market Turmoil, the Fed and the Presidential Election
John Wight
Who Was Cecil Rhodes?
David Macaray
Will There Ever Be Anyone Better Than Bernie Sanders?
Christopher Brauchli
Suffer Little Children: From Brazil to Flint
JP Sottile
Did Fox News Help the GOP Establishment Get Its Groove Back?
Binoy Kampmark
Legalizing Cruelties: the Australian High Court and Indefinite Offshore Detention
John Feffer
Wrestling With Iran
Rob Prince – Ibrahim Kazerooni
Syria Again
Louisa Willcox
Park Service Finally Stands Up for Grizzlies and Us
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail