San Diego Union Tribune: Why reprocessing San Onofre nuclear waste is not a short-term fix
The 3.6 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel stored at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) are a symptom of a national failure that has left nuclear waste stranded at more than 80 sites across the country. Nuclear waste was never meant to stay at SONGS long term. But because the United States still has no permanent repository for spent fuel, we have been left with no other option.
One of my first actions after being elected to Congress in 2018 was to convene the SONGS Task Force with scientists, regulators, tribal leaders and community voices to build expert consensus around what would actually reduce risk and move fuel.
That effort led to the creation of the bipartisan Spent Nuclear Fuel Solutions Caucus, which I co-chair with Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn. Together, we have restarted a bipartisan national conversation that had stalled for years.
I have worked with the Department of Energy under both Presidents Trump and Biden to restart a collaborative program to relocate our nuclear waste. This approach follows the principle that durable solutions require transparency, trust and voluntary community participation because past proposed solutions have failed due to community opposition. I have helped secure more than $148 million to advance this work, with an additional $55 million coming in the next government funding bill. When paired with the recently completed Atlas railcar to safely transport spent fuel, the country is closer than it has been in decades to addressing this problem.
That said, I welcome San Diego County’s renewed focus on this issue through a resolution directing county staff to explore whether off-site reprocessing research and development could play a role in relocating SONGS’ spent fuel.
But the reality is we have been exploring reprocessing for many years. Reprocessing was included in bipartisan research and development legislation I sponsored and passed in 2020. Experts have studied when reprocessing makes sense, for which fuels, at what cost and under what safeguards.
I’d like to urge some caution about reprocessing as a solution for SONGS. This reflects what I have been told for years by nuclear engineers, fuel-cycle experts, academics, and Biden and Trump officials.
In the narrow technical sense, the fuel at SONGS can likely be reprocessed. But when experts consider strong candidates for commercial reprocessing, they weigh cost, logistics and benefits compared to other options. On those measures, I have repeatedly been told that SONGS’ fuel is not a strong candidate compared to other spent fuel across the country. Factors like its age, physical structure, burnup characteristics and the fact that it is already sealed in canisters designed for storage and transport — not chemical separation — all matter.
There are other challenges to reprocessing, including that today, the U.S. does not have a commercial reprocessing industry; even after spent fuel is reprocessed, radioactive waste remains and must be disposed of in a permanent repository; and if not addressed, reprocessing can pose security and nuclear weapons proliferation risks.
That does not mean reprocessing should be taken off the table. The current administration supports reprocessing, and if reprocessing research helps find a new site for the waste away from our coast, so be it. What matters to me are results.
But treating reprocessing as a near-term fix for SONGS distracts from the work that experts agree is unavoidable.
That is why Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, and I introduced the bipartisan Nuclear Waste Administration Act to create a new, single-purpose, independent organization to manage nuclear waste. Following expert recommendations, it establishes a community-driven process and prioritizes removal of spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites like SONGS. This is what sustained federal leadership looks like.
The spent fuel at SONGS will not move because one county passes a resolution, or because one technology is framed as a silver bullet. It will move when the federal government has clear and consistent policy, reliable funding, and community buy-in. That is the work I have prioritized since my first term in Congress.
We owe the public honesty about what will actually reduce risk at SONGS. Only a national solution will solve a national problem. And for the first time in decades, we are on a credible path towards one.
By: Rep. Mike Levin
Source: San Diego Union Tribune