Tune in to this week's Podship Earth, hosted by Jared Blumenfeld, California Secretary for Environmental Protection, and Sara Aminzadeh, California Coastal Commissioner and former Executive Director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance.
Baykeeper's Jen Kalt talks about the Humboldt Bay area, which is experiencing twice the rate of sea level rise as the state average.
Staff members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — at least those well-spoken gentlemen who hosted a public meeting on Aug. 26 at the Wharfinger Building — would assure you that the nuclear waste should be very far down on that worry list. But some members of the public would tell you otherwise. That clash of viewpoints made for a very interesting two hours.
The original purpose of the meeting was to satisfy some pro forma requirement for public interaction, a necessary task to check a box on a bureaucratic to-do list. However, not a half hour in, some very concerned folks had seized control of the agenda and were letting the NRC and the PG&E public relations officer know exactly what they thought — and feared — about the legacy of Humboldt's experiment with nuclear energy.
In the 1950s, atomic energy was touted as the solution to all America's energy needs. In 1960, PG&E began construction of a nuclear power plant next to its existing conventional power plant at King Salmon. It went on line in 1962 at a cost of $33 million. Fifteen years later, PG&E took the plant off line, estimating at that time the cost of decommissioning would be $382 million. Fortunately, rate-payers had been contributing to this fund each month as we paid our monthly power bills. Apparently, we will continue to be paying for quite some time, as the final cost of decommissioning is now estimated at more than $1 billion.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission called a meeting in Eureka this week to collect community input about the Community Advisory Board’s (CAB) efforts to assist with the Humboldt Bay Power Plant’s decommissioning. CABs typically consist of an organized group of citizens interested in safe decommissioning practices and spent fuel management, and are usually sponsored by the local licensee or mandated by the state legislature. Responsibilities may include reviewing decommissioning plans, providing feedback, serving as a forum for public education, making recommendations and considering plans for future reuse of the site.
Ultimately, after similar meetings across the country, the NRC will create a report for Congress to guide the development of future community advisory boards. Community members generally praised PG&E’s engagement, but called for better education of board members. “Any future CAB should have an educational framework,” longtime Humboldt Bay CAB member Mike Manetas said. “It’s such a complex and complicated issue.”
Jen Kalt of Humboldt Baykeeper, CAB member since 2013 and longtime Surfrider ally, sent an email blast out prior to the meeting, noting that the underground casks containing the spent fuel rods and dismantled nuclear reactor were designed to last about 50 years, and the PG&E Decommissioning Fund is only funded through 2025.
“What will happen after that?” Kalt asked. “What are the NRC's plans in case of an emergency?” At the meeting, she highlighted the risks posed by sea level rise, relaying how planners ignored the North Spit tidal gauge measurements when building the storage facility that would house the spent fuel. The readings spun so far above expectations that researchers assumed the gauge was wrong – and then further studies proved the opposite. Not only is the sea rising, but the lands around Humboldt Bay are sinking. “King Salmon is literally ground zero,” Kalt said.
The community advisory board that provides input on the decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant has involved a diverse group of elected officials, experts and community residents comprised of school principals and members of environmental groups, said Jennifer Kalt, director of Humboldt Baykeeper. The main way that community advisory board, or CAB, could be improved is by including tribal representation.
That’s the main input locals gave representatives from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at a meeting at the Wharfinger Building on Monday night. The representatives were seeking input on the best practices for establishing and operating community advisory boards for decommissioning nuclear power reactors.
“There’s a real need to broaden the stakeholder base in general,” said Jennifer Savage, of the Surfrider Foundation, a nonprofit that has been working to get nuclear waste off the state’s coast.
The city has annexed its first piece of property since the 1980s, but there may be issues with flooding on the property down the line.
After years of talking about it, the city of Eureka has extended city limits to include about 100 acres just north of the city along U.S. Highway 101 known as the Brainard site. The area is currently the home to property owned by the California Redwood Company, which is zoned for industrial uses; a portion of a Highway 101 right-of-way; and a railroad right-of-way owned by Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company.
“This was driven by the property owner because right now they’re not connected to water or wastewater systems,” said Robert Holmlund, Eureka’s director of development services. “The city cannot really connect to properties outside of city limits.”
There are no current plans to extend water or wastewater service to the property, but that would likely need to happen if new development was proposed on that land. At that time, the Coastal Commission would need to approve any changes, but the commission expressed concern that the area is going to become inundated as the sea level rises.
“I fundamentally disagree with the Coastal Commission,” Holmlund said. “We’re talking about 80 years from now. That’s generations of businesses.”
One local sea-level rise expert, Aldaron Laird, has speculated there could be as much as a foot of sea-level rise by 2030, two feet by 2050 and more than five feet by 2100.
