Recent intense waves and coastal erosion along Southern California’s coastline have renewed discussions about the nuclear waste stored on the beach near San Clemente at the former San Onofre nuclear power plant. Oceanographer Kim McCoy, a former wave dynamics researcher and longtime advocate against beach storage of nuclear waste, noted that rising sea levels, storm waves, and El Niño events could threaten a section of the walkway protecting the seawall, with waste canisters located just 100 feet away.
While most experts agree the risk of erosion damaging the nuclear waste storage system is "extremely low" in the near term, geology professor James Day of UC San Diego emphasized the need for long-term geological consideration. Professor Day stated that San Onofre is situated on "fairly young rocks in a seismically active region," which he called an unsuitable location for nuclear waste given its longevity, lasting "for hundreds, if not thousands, of generations." Concerns raised at a recent symposium included the potential for collapsing beach slopes to increase tsunami vulnerability and the corrosive effects of ocean air on the steel canisters holding the waste. Greg Jaczko, former head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, suggested that Southern California Edison (Edison) could increase its monitoring efforts beyond current practices, which involve tracking air temperature and radioactivity, checking external canister cracks, and inspecting test canisters.
Southern California Edison, the plant’s owner, maintains confidence in its current protective measures. Manuel Camargo, principal manager of decommissioning for Edison, described the system as an "extremely robust system," noting that the maximum credible tsunami would not overtake the seawall and the system is designed to withstand a 7.0 magnitude earthquake, which would produce "about half of what this system is designed to withstand." Mr. Camargo also stated that state data from the California Ocean Protection Council indicates the seawall would not be inundated before 2050. Edison has committed to the California Coastal Commission to relocate the waste to higher ground on-site should modeling predict future challenges from sea level rise and erosion.
Despite the plant appearing operational from Interstate 5 due to its twin domes and flashing red lights, behind security it is a demolition site. The plant was shut down in 2013 following a scandal involving faulty steam generators. Most of the office buildings, steam turbines, diesel generators, control rooms, cooling pools, and water treatment plants have already been dismantled and shipped to sites in Utah, Texas, and Arizona. The iconic twin domes, which once housed the reactor cores, are scheduled for demolition early next year. However, 3.6 million pounds of high-level radioactive waste are set to remain indefinitely in the coastal community.
Even with confidence in its safety protocols, Edison seeks to move the waste as soon as possible, citing the high cost of the current storage arrangement. From 1982 to 2014, Edison customers, like ratepayers nationwide, contributed to a federal fund for a promised permanent nuclear waste storage site. However, plans for a deep geological repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada crumbled in 2011 due to local opposition. This failure means utilities across the United States now sue the federal government annually to recover storage expenses, with these lawsuits reportedly costing taxpayers $2 million per day, according to Mr. Camargo. He remarked that the waste is "so safe that it's almost a problem," suggesting a lack of urgency for some to move it.
The Trump administration’s Department of Energy (DOE) is now proposing a new approach: creating "campuses" in multiple states for waste storage. These locations would receive funding to develop various aspects of the nuclear cycle, including fuel creation, power generation, and potentially fuel recycling. This initiative aims to address waste currently stored at 80 reactor sites nationally and accommodate waste from planned new reactors, as several states, including California, prohibit new nuclear power until permanent federal storage is established. The DOE announced memoranda of understanding with Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Indiana in July to explore their potential as host sites. Congressman Scott Peters and Mike Levin, whose district encompasses San Onofre, support this concept. Mr. Camargo confirmed Edison is in discussions with Utah and Tennessee to assist these efforts. Proponents of the campus model, such as Tim Kowalchik, research director at Utah’s Office of Energy Development, suggest this plan differs from previous failed attempts by incorporating principles of "consent-based siting" developed under the Obama administration and offering community benefits like funding and jobs. However, not all in Utah agree. Carmen Valdez, radioactive program manager with the nonprofit Heal Utah, expressed concerns over "very limited community engagement and transparency" regarding these plans, noting that Utah communities have consistently opposed becoming a waste site. Internationally, Finland is reportedly nearing completion of a deep, permanent geological storage facility for nuclear fuel.
