San Onofre nuclear waste issues still unsettled for many environmentalists

Today’s article will present two press releases with somewhat different points of view on Southern California nuclear waste situation. Let ROSE know what you think.


Deal Struck to Move Nuclear Waste from San Onofre

Citizens’ Oversight settles with Southern California Edison in a
“practical solution that respects safety concerns”

SCE, experts will investigate alternatives to move spent fuel from SoCal beach to an alternative site

SAN DIEGO (2017-08-28) — Citizens’ Oversight today announced that it has reached a deal with Southern California Edison that requires the utility to use its efforts relocate the approx. 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste from the San Onofre beach. The agreement sets up an overarching plan, including the use of top experts in spent nuclear fuel transportation, nuclear engineering, spent fuel siting and licensing, and radiation detection and monitoring to advise on issues related to proposed relocation to an offsite storage facility away from the delicate ocean ecosystem.

Ray Lutz, founder of Citizens Oversight and an engineer, said, “Leaving the spent fuel only 100 feet from the ocean with no other options being developed is simply unacceptable. Our agreement plots a prudent strategy aims to moving the fuel off our coast more promptly and avoids the possibility that it would just be left on the beach indefinitely due to inaction. This is a practical solution that respects safety concerns.”

On October 6, 2015, the California Coastal Commission voted to approve a permit to install and use a new “Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation” (ISFSI, also called “spent fuel dry storage”) only 100 feet from the seawall at San Onofre. After speaking in opposition at the meeting, Citizens Oversight founder Ray Lutz joined with activist Patricia Borchmann and the law firm of Aguirre & Severson LLP, to file a lawsuit against the Coastal Commission to revoke the permit. Southern California Edison (SCE), the majority owner of the failed San Onofre nuclear plant, is the party of interest in the case. The lawsuit asserts that the permit was improper due to lack of public review, numerous ex parte meetings, and lack of consideration of technical issues.

Just one week before the court hearing scheduled for April 14, 2017, the parties agreed to settlement discussions. With the ISFSI in the process of being built, a cooperative settlement process was considered to be the best alternative.

But even with this agreement, moving the nuclear waste to a better location is not a done deal. The agreement does not attempt to reach conclusions on the actual implementation plan, which is to be determined by a set of experts which will be hired by SCE. The expert team will investigate alternative sites and develop a transportation plan and a strategic plan to move the waste using “commercially reasonable efforts.” The agreement requires reporting at regular intervals so that Citizens Oversight can monitor the progress, inform the public, and can turn to the court if necessary to enforce the deal.

SCE must evaluate at least two options: Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona near Phoenix, which is partially owned by SCE, and “consolidated interim storage” (CIS) sites which have been proposed for western Texas and eastern New Mexico. But the agreement does not limit the review of considered sites to just those two. In that regard, Citizens Oversight plans to propose to the expert team to review all other feasible sites, including two which were suggested by the public in recent public meetings:

1) several miles from the coast in Camp Pendleton, and
2) somewhere between San Onofre and Yucca Mountain along the rail line and far from dense populations, ocean corrosion, delicate aquatic ecosystems, seismic fault lines and tsunami risks.

Another big win in the settlement is the requirement that SCE develop: 1) an “inspection and maintenance program” and 2) a written plan addressing contingencies for damaged or cracked canisters at an accelerated schedule from that originally required by the Coastal Commission permit. These must be done in 2020, according to the settlement agreement, and must be developed in accordance with NRC regulations.

We are cautiously encouraged by the recent announcements of “consolidated interim storage” options under development in the eastern New Mexico and western Texas region. These options must be carefully evaluated by the expert team in the robust “commercially reasonable” standard. In addition to scientific and technical factors, safety is a leading consideration in the evaluation of potential offsite options for facilities.

Key to the success of this settlement will be the long-term monitoring of the agreement and continued involvement by the public. Citizens Oversight is the only environmental or watchdog organization that stepped up to the plate on this extremely important issue. We must ensure that Citizens Oversight will continue to be a viable concern for years to come so we may continue our watchful eye over this agreement and continue to be a conduit of information. We, therefore, offer the opportunity for members of the public to help support this project by becoming a member of Citizens Oversight and participating in a recurring contribution plan. Please visit for details.

We believe we, as a nation, must begin to seriously address these nuclear waste problems. With this settlement agreement, we will no longer say “we’ll figure it out later.” It is later. We must figure this out now.

WHAT: Press Conference
WHERE: Steps in front of the San Diego Superior Court, 330 W. Broadway, San Diego
TIME: 4:30 pm, Monday, 2017-08-28
Facebook Event (RSVP):
More information can be found at this web page:

Citizens’ Oversight Projects (COPs) 619-820-5321

For Immediate Release: August 28, 2017
Contact: Denise Duffield, 213-689-9170 office, 310-339-9676 cell, dduffield@

Physicians Organization Objects to San Onofre Deal

A deal struck today between Citizens’ Oversight and Southern California Edison encouraging the utility to use its efforts to relocate the highly irradiated spent nuclear fuel may dramatically increase health and security risks for communities in Southern California and the SouthWestern United States.

With the exception of one option (on Camp Pendleton away from the beach) all potential sites could make matters worse. And they would require transporting the waste twice, once to the temporary location and then again to a permanent facility, essentially doubling the transport risk.

“Our review of the transport routes possible indicates that moving the fuel from San Onofre would entail transporting it through highly populated areas of Orange County or San Diego, where an accident or terrorist event could be devastating,” said Denise Duffield, associate director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-:LA.)

PSR-LA agrees with the widespread view that Southern California Edison’s plan to bury the waste on the beach is inappropriate, given the risk of sea level rise and the daunting problem of protecting it from terrorist attack in such an accessible location.

However, a core principle of environmentalism, as of medicine, is “first, do no harm.” One must take great care to be sure that one’s alternative does not increase rather than decrease risks. Most of the alternatives suggested in the deal may in fact do harm, and potentially worsen rather than diminish safety.

A second core principle is to not do unto others that which one doesn’t wish done to oneself. Yes, one wishes there were no spent fuel in the San Onofre area, that the people of Southern California were not faced with the risk from it. But transferring that risk to people in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, or Nevada is not on its face appropriate. Were people in those states to propose sending their irradiated fuel to San Onofre, for example, Californians would understandably be opposed.


U.S. nuclear waste policy has been broken for decades. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the identification of a large number of candidate sites for a repository, to be examined scientifically to narrow the list to the two best sites, given geological characteristics, with the highest likelihood of retaining the waste over the extremely long periods for which it is dangerous. On the other hand, it continued the federal pre-emption of nuclear matters, essentially barring states from having any say.

Politics immediately entered the picture and the act’s requirement to examine numerous potential sites in the eastern and western parts of the U.S. and pick the best site geologically was jettisoned. Instead, because Nevada at that time had very little political clout in Washington, the other states got their states removed from consideration entirely and the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada was designated as the sole one site to evaluate, with the proviso that if it turned out to be unsuitable, the process would begin again for a new site.

Quickly the science demonstrated Yucca was unsuitable. Rather than being dry, large amounts of water were discovered within the mountain where the waste would go. That water was also discovered to infiltrate and migrate quickly. Nuclear waste would be corroded by water which could carry the radioactivity long distances. The plan was eventually abandoned, because of the scientific flaws in the proposal.

Current Push to Reopen Yucca Mountain Project and to Establish Consolidated Interim Storage

Now, however, there is a concerted effort by the nuclear industry and others to reopen the Yucca Mountain project and simultaneously move to establish “interim” consolidated storage sites. The two prime candidates have been a controversial “low level” radioactive waste site in Texas and a site across the border in New Mexico, near the Waste Isolation Pilot Project that recently failed, with an underground explosion and fire that resulted in plutonium being released into the atmosphere. There is significant opposition to either location becoming an interim storage site.

Potential sites listed in the deal include moving San Onofre’s waste to the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona or to Ward Valley or some nearby location in eastern California. Ward Valley was proposed decades ago as a “low level” waste site, triggering a long and furious fight, in part due to its apparent hydrologic connection to the nearby Colorado River, the main water source for much of the Southwest. State law now bars its consideration for waste disposal. And the Palo Verde plant has numerous potential problems as well. These include the use of a different storage design and a history of terrorist threats. Palo Verde is closer to downtown Phoenix than San Onofre is to downtown San Diego.

The national environmental community opposes the efforts to establish consolidated interim storage and to reopen the Yucca project. “Interim” runs the risk of becoming permanent, as there is diminished incentive to come up with a scientifically defensible long term solution; if there is a permanent repository, as there needs to be, one would have to move the waste twice, increasing the transport risks. There is concern that an agreement to send San Onofre waste to interim consolidated storage would be used by nuclear proponents to further push for these destructive national policies.

A Reasonable Alternative

PSR-LA believes there is only one sensible alternative that should be examined thoroughly. Right now the spent fuel is on land leased from the Marine Corps’ Camp Pendleton. Serious consideration should be given to a different location on Pendleton away from the ocean and at a higher elevation.This could have numerous benefits. It would address the issue of sea level rise. It would dramatically increase the ability to protect the spent fuel from a terrorist attack. The current location is easily accessible, including by sea, with ready public access to very close to the facility. One of the greatest risks associated with irradiated fuel is terrorism; it is hard to think of a better location to protect it that further within a Marine base. The issues associated with the cask and facility design should also be reviewed, to determine the best possible cask and physical array.

PSR-LA is concerned that an agreement to ship San Onofre waste elsewhere for consolidated interim storage may increase rather than decrease safety risks. It would merely entail putting that risk on someone else, an ethically fraught proposition. It would require transporting the waste twice, doubling the risk of accident or terrorist attack. It would undercut environmental efforts nationally for a sensible national policy. While we agree that the proposal to bury the waste on the beach is troubling, the alternatives of dumping it on some other state area also troubling, and we believe the Pendleton alternative identified above should be the focus of serious consideration.

PSR-LA has grave concerns about shipping San Onofre’s waste to a consolidated interim storage site elsewhere. One must first do no harm, and also not do unto others that which we don’t want done to ourselves.


Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-LA) is the largest chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the American recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. See for more information.

Denise Duffield
Associate Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles
617 S. Olive Street, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90014
213-689-9170 ext. 104
310-339-9676 cell

About residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment

Vision for ROSE Working for the good of the Mother Earth. To provide a safe and clean planet for our children and grandchildren, and the seven generations to come. Working to support Ethically Sound Environmental decisions for the future. We hold the power of our vision in our own hands.
This entry was posted in Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.