What shall we do about 37 tons of nuclear waste?




HUMBOLDT – There’s 37 tons of nuclear waste stored in concrete casks at Humboldt Bay and two Cal Poly researchers are encouraging the community to consider “potential futures” brought on by sea level rise.

In a Feb. 23 webinar presentation sponsored by the Schatz Energy Research Center and Cal Poly Humboldt, the results of “focus group convenings” on how to deal with the waste from a former PG&E nuclear power plant were described.

Jennifer Marlow, a Cal Poly assistant professor of environmental law, is the founder of the 44 Feet Project. The name of the community engagement and research effort refers to the nuclear waste site’s height above sea level.

That’s a measure of concern because by 2065, sea level rise is predicted to rise enough – by 3.3. feet – to at times turn the site “into an island that will be increasingly vulnerable to wave erosion, sea level rise and saltwater intrusion,” according to 44 Feet’s website.

Co-presenter Alexander Brown, a Cal Poly graduate research assistant and master’s candidate, said the PG&E nuclear waste storage site is the second smallest in the U.S. but is “classified as one of the most at-risk sites to climate change.”

There isn’t another storage site available and Brown said relocation is “speculative at this point.”

Meanwhile there’s “shoreline retreat” due to erosion. Brown compared a 1952 photo to one from last January showing how the shore slope at the site is “considerably smaller now.”

To cope with risk, Marlow said 44 Feet sought to “learn from community members” by organizing discussion groups.

The ultimate goal is local involvement “where knowledge is accessible and shared openly,” “coalitions can help fill technical and political gaps” and the public “can enjoy a safe and resilient Humboldt Bay without risk of radioactive exposure.”

PG&E’s website says the waste site is “safe and secure” and gets regular federal inspections. Spent fuel is stored in canisters “within transportation casks” and the company describes the entombment of the waste as “an interim onsite storage program.”

But some community members think the radioactive fuel rods aren’t going anywhere.

Marlow related quotes from the focus group discussions, including from Jana Ganion of the Blue Lake Rancheria, who said, “From what we know now, the waste is going to be there forever” and “that’s the paradigm we should plan for.”

County Supervisor Mike Wilson, who represents the county on the California Coastal Commission, has doubts about the site’s engineering in the face of future stresses.

Marlow showed a quote from Wilson in which he says new information about sea level rise “warrants reevaluation and potential redesign or reconfiguration.”

Drawing from the group discussions, 44 Feet came up with recommendations.

They include forming “collaborative partnerships,” gaining a better understanding of environmental risks, reviewing management and emergency plans, and forging “mutually beneficial relationships” with PG&E and federal regulators.

Also recommended is “exploring accident scenarios.” In one of the group discussions, Adam Canter, the natural resources director of the Wiyot Tribe, had said that he’s concerned about biological impacts “if something should go wrong with the storage facility” because “it would be catastrophic and take generations to recover.”

Wrapping up, Brown said the research project promotes teamwork and planning to “help us remove ourselves from this state of paralysis to a state of action.”

During a question and answer session, Jen Kalt of Humboldt Baykeeper said PG&E “assumes a static physical environment but we know the bay is changing and not always in ways we understand.”

She asked how communication between the public, PG&E and scientists can be increased.

Brown said bringing “disparate community members” together is a first step. “We are questioning the assumptions of PG&E, I think that goes without saying,” he continued, adding that the company has only “engaged at a minimum.”

Marlow noted that the 44 Feet team supported a PG&E application for sea level rise risk assessment funding.

She said the support included a call for forming an “independent science and technical advisory group” instead of “us just supporting PG&E’s own scientists to do the work internally.”

But she added, “I don’t know how receptive PG&E will be to that comment.”