Part 1 of 2 Parts
On May 26th of this year, the Voice of Orange County published an opinion piece written by professor emeritus Roger Johnson which explains why California rightfully decided in 1976 to ban construction of new nuclear power plants. He also wrote that recent calls to extend the license of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, the last operating nuclear power plant in California, is seriously misguided. In defense of his statement, he said, “nuclear power is the most expensive, the most unreliable, the most dangerous, and the most environmentally unfriendly form of energy production.”
John Dobken is a spokesperson for Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE is the operator of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Clemente. Also known as the Diablo Canyon plant, it was turned off in 2013 following radiation releases caused by failure of the steam generators. His rebuttal to Johnson, also published in the VOC, could be considered to be a lesson in the art of obfuscation (evasive, unclear or confusing.)
In his opening statement, Dobken mentioned examples of “new supporters” of nuclear energy including a Brazilian fashion model, an advocacy group headed by a singer-turned-nuclear-enthusiast, and unnamed “various community members who value service through membership in civic groups.” He also cited an online poll that showed increased support for nuclear energy among registered California voters. His listing of supporters obscures the fact that no nuclear experts are mentioned. The blockbuster joint statement issued in January by nuclear authorities from the U.S., France, Germany and Great Britain which detailed strong opposition to any expansion of nuclear power as a strategy to combat climate change is not mentioned by Dobken.
Next, Dobken claims that spent nuclear fuel is not dangerous because it has “never harmed anyone” and never will because “we isolate the material from the environment and people.” To support his argument, he says that no one was harmed when, in April, U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm’s entourage strolled through San Onofre’s outside storage pad containing dry storage spent fuel cannisters without wearing any protective gear. This bad logic confounds the risks of a casual stroll through the cannister storage pad with the repeatedly stated concerns of nuclear safety advocates in Orange and San Diego Counties.
Serious concerns about the San Onofre plant include:
1. That it is located in an earthquake zone which makes it vulnerable to earthquake damage and tsunamis such as the disaster at Fukushima in 2011 in Japan.
2. Sea levels with inevitably rise due to climate change and the cannisters are only one hundred feet from the shoreline and just eighteen inches above the level of ground water.
3. The storage cannisters are thin walled. They were never designed for long-term storage or transport. They are vulnerable to stress corrosion cracking from the marine environment.
4. There has been no technical or political progress on creating a permanent geological repository for the one hundred thousand tons of deadly spent nuclear fuel has turned San Onofre and other plants across the U.S. into de facto permanent nuclear waste dumps.
5. The storage cannisters at San Onofre are highly visible and are vulnerable to terrorist attacks such as airplane crashes, truck bombs, and land and sea launched rockets and missiles.
Dobken also obscures the dangers of nuclear waste by leaving out the uncontestable fact that spent nuclear fuel is far deadlier than the original fuel that is burned in reactors. Inhaling a tiny speck of dust that contains plutonium can kill you. Spent nuclear fuel is so deadly that it has to be isolated from humans, animals and the natural environment for a million years.
Dobken provides no evidence to support his claim that the failure of the federal government to find a solution for the nation’s spent nuclear fuel waste” “does not mean we don’t know how to safely store spent fuel on site at plants (operating or decommissioned) around the country.” This claim blurs the critical issue of timeframes when nuclear waste storage is being discussed. The half century that spent nuclear fuel has been accumulating is being confused with the million plus years that it needs to be secured. Dobken also obscures the important facts, such as the fact that the cannisters at San Onofre and most plants around the nation were never designed for more than very temporary storage. There is no plan in place to replace a failed cannister leaking radiation into the environment.
Please read Part 2 next