Lawsuit targets nuclear waste permit at beach
A permit to bury radioactive waste from the retired San Onofre reactors on low-lying land next to the Pacific Ocean was challenged in court Tuesday by a San Diego consumer advocacy group.
The California Coastal Commission approved a permit in October to bury nuclear waste in concrete bunkers within 125 feet of a seawall and the beach at the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear plant in northern San Diego County.
A lawsuit filed by Citizens Oversight in state Superior Court in San Diego accuses the coastal commission of neglecting its obligation to protect the coastline and marine life from hazardous waste, and for failing to require that nuclear plant operator Southern California Edison show it had exhausted other reasonable alternatives.
“No reasonable person would have granted a permit,” the lawsuit states, citing the storage site’s vulnerability to flooding, erosion.
Contacted Tuesday and shown the lawsuit, the commission declined to comment because it had not been officially notified. Edison also declined to comment.
Spent nuclear fuel is being stored at reactor sites across the United States indefinitely after the federal government scrapped plans for a permanent underground storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
The lawsuit asserts that the commission failed to provide a fair hearing on Edison’s waste-storage permit by engaging in private communications with the investor-owned utility. Edison hired a consultant that briefed several commissioners individually about its permit application in the days before the final public vote.
The lawsuit also contends that the commission was swayed by Edison’s agreement to indemnify the agency and its voting members against any future legal liabilities.
The lawsuit was signed by a second plaintiff, Patricia Borchmann, described as a participant in the coastal commission hearings. More information about Borchmann was not immediately available.
The lawsuit seeks to revoke the waste storage permit until Edison identifies and obtains an storage location further from coast.
The lawsuit suggests several alternatives storage sites further inland from the coast, including an existing site at the Palo Verde nuclear plant site in western Arizona near Tonopah. Edison owns a 16 percent stake in the plant.
Members of the coastal commission rejected suggestions during lengthy public comments that Edison should be forced to wait and explore other storage options.
At a public meeting in October, Edison’s Tom Palmisano, chief nuclear officer at San Onofre, warned the commission that rejecting the permit application would only serve to prolong the time nuclear spent fuel stays in cooling pools that are less fool proof than dry casks.
Nearly 2,700 spent fuel assemblies remain inside cooling pools adjacent to the San Onofre reactors, retired in June 2013 because of a botched generator replacement project.
The lawsuit says those safety dilemmas are of Edison’s own making, and that a waste storage permit should be revoked until the company identifies and obtains an off-site location. San Diego Gas & Electric owns a 20 percent stake in the shuttered San Onofre plant.
“There is a better alternative and the coastal commission is not protecting the coast by putting a nuclear waste site there,” said San Diego-based attorney Michael Aguirre, who filed the lawsuit. “The other options may not be convenient but they are still viable. The coastal commission should not abandon its responsibilities.”
The lawsuit cites safety concerns raised by coastal commission staff, who warned the storage site eventually might be undermined by shoreline retreat or subjected to flooding as a result of sea level rise, storm surges or a tsunami.
“These geologic forces would eventually result in a loss of stability and structural integrity, and cause the discharge of debris into the coastal ocean to the detriment of water quality and marine organisms,” agency staff wrote.
Edison has contracted with Holtec International to transfer the spent fuel into massive reinforced steel casks. Edison says the only viable location for now is a low lying plain where the plant’s original Unit 1 reactor once stood.
Edison could end up shifting the dry casks to higher ground where the Unit 2 and 3 reactors still reside and will be eventually torn down.
The commission permit is good for only 20 years. At that point, Edison has to report back and seek approval to either keep the waste at the site, relocate it elsewhere at San Onofre or set up a schedule for transferring the waste off-site.
Opponents worry that the waste casks might become more difficult or impossible to remove as decades pass and radiation and coastal weather take their toll.
The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for attorney’s fees and other costs.
