The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

Mike Levin

By Rep. Mike Levin

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) just took a critical step toward addressing the nation’s spent nuclear fuel challenges, and it could have significant implications for the waste stranded at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

The DOE has finally issued a request for information to restart the consent-based siting process for locations that could store the spent fuel currently distributed across the country at nuclear plants like San Onofre.

Consent-based siting means the community that receives the waste agrees beforehand to take it, which is key to securing a location for the waste, because it reduces the possibility of opposition after a site has been chosen.

This is an important step for everyone who has been fighting to find locations to move the waste out of our community, and it’s something I’ve been pushing the DOE to do for a long time.

Last year, my colleagues and I fought to secure much-needed federal funds to jump-start a related consolidated interim storage program at the DOE. A consolidated interim site would serve as a temporary storage location for spent nuclear fuel until a permanent repository site can be established.

As we wrote to members of the House Appropriations Committee last year, we believe that the DOE program should initially focus on accepting fuel from closed nuclear plants while accounting for site-specific environmental factors.

Both of those criteria favor removing fuel from SONGS and align with my Spent Fuel Prioritization Act, which would require the DOE to prioritize the removal of spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned nuclear sites in areas with large populations and high seismic risk.

With more than nine million people living within 50 miles of San Onofre and with Southern California experiencing some of the greatest seismic hazards in the country, the bill would make SONGS one of the highest-priority sites in the nation for the removal of spent nuclear fuel.

Late last year, we took another step closer to achieving those priorities when Congress passed, and the President signed, government funding legislation that included $20 million that my colleagues and I had requested for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. Now, the DOE is using that funding to restart a consent-based siting process.

According to DOE, the information gathered by its request for information will be used to further develop the department’s consent-based siting process and overall waste management strategy in an equitable way.

In its announcement, DOE stated that it is “committed to a consent-based siting approach that makes communities and people central in the process to give the nation its best chance at success in solving the nation’s decades-long stalemate over how to effectively manage our spent nuclear fuel.”

The federal government has a responsibility to address the nation’s spent nuclear fuel challenge, but history has shown us that without the consent of the communities that will be involved, we are unlikely to succeed.

The DOE’s announcement shows that we can address these issues directly and correct the mistakes that have led us to the current nationwide spent-fuel impasse.

U.S. Representative Mike Levin represents the 49th Congressional District, which includes the South Orange County cities of Dana Point, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano. He was reelected for a second term in 2020 and resides in San Juan Capistrano with his wife and two children.

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Staff

comments (1)

  • Until the highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste is repackaged from unsafe thin-wall canisters into thick-wall metal casks that meet American safety standards (ASME N3) none of us are safe. Focusing on location without first replacing the unsafe thin-wall canisters will no more make us safe than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic would have stopped it from sinking. Details and technical references at

    If you disagree with this share your technical references — not just your opinions.

    I was invited to speak by the NRC Commissioners at their February 2021 monthly meeting regarding dry storage and transport issues. All other speakers represented the nuclear industry. I’ve studied these dry storage issues for over a decade. Until Congress mandates that the NRC require ASME N3 certification for dry storage and transport of spent nuclear fuel we will continue to be at major risks. ASME N3 certification is designed specifically for storage and/or transport of nuclear pressure vessels containing highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. If someone tells you otherwise, they are ignorant or are being deceitful.

    Other countries use thick-wall metal casks that can meet ASME N3 safety codes. Why does the NRC give exemptions to ASME N3 safety codes? Why didn’t Edison choose containers that meet ASME N3 certification requirements? These are minimum safety standards, including the ability to inspect for cracks, maintain, repair and monitor in a manner to PREVENT major problems. We wouldn’t buy a car that didn’t meet these basic safety requirements.

    Both the DOE and NRC are aware of these problems and are aware the only current solution is to replace the unsafe 1/2″ to 5/8″ thin-wall canister with thick-wall metal casks that are 10″ to over 19″ thick and meet all ASME N3 safety requirements.

    We need Congress to prioritize resolving this issue now with better legislation. Instead current federal legislation is proposing to gut basic critical safety standards out of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

comments (1)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>