America's $15 Billion Nuclear Waste Failure

Is there another option to get the nuclear waste out of San Onofre? – San Diego Union-Tribune

Can Reprocessing Save San Onofre?

San Diego County breaks ranks with federal impasse, seeking to transform radioactive waste into advanced reactor fuel as Yucca Mountain remains abandoned and 91,000 tons of spent fuel languish nationwide

TL;DR

• San Diego County unanimously approved exploring reprocessing of 3.55 million pounds of nuclear waste stranded at San Onofre since the plant's 2013 closure

• The federal Yucca Mountain repository project consumed $15 billion before termination in 2010, leaving 91,000 metric tons of spent fuel at 35 states with no permanent disposal solution

• France successfully reprocesses spent fuel while Finland and Sweden have opened permanent repositories, but U.S. banned reprocessing in 1977 over weapons proliferation fears

• Silicon Valley startups like Oklo are developing proliferation-resistant reprocessing for advanced reactors, potentially transforming waste into AI-powering energy resources

• County initiative reflects growing frustration with federal inaction as bipartisan Nuclear Waste Administration Act seeks independent agency to finally resolve the crisis

---

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

San Diego County has unanimously approved a resolution to explore reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, joining a growing national conversation about whether America should reverse its 1977 ban on fuel reprocessing. With 91,000 metric tons of spent fuel stranded at 35 states and the Yucca Mountain repository project terminated after $15 billion in expenditures, counties and states are seeking alternatives as advanced reactor technologies and AI-driven energy demands create new opportunities for what was once considered waste. The move comes amid renewed bipartisan interest in nuclear energy and questions about whether the U.S. should follow France's decades-long example of commercial reprocessing or revive Yucca Mountain for permanent disposal.

---

Three and a half million pounds of nuclear waste sits trapped between the Pacific Ocean and Interstate 5 at San Onofre, a monument to America's four-decade failure to solve its radioactive waste problem.

But on December 9, San Diego County decided to stop waiting for Washington.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution directing county officials to explore reprocessing the spent fuel currently stored at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)—potentially transforming radioactive liability into advanced reactor fuel.

"We've talked about this problem for more than a decade," said Supervisor Jim Desmond after the vote. "We can't keep waiting. It's time to turn this challenge into an opportunity."

The county initiative reflects mounting frustration with federal paralysis on nuclear waste. The designated permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada consumed at least $15 billion before the Obama administration terminated it in 2010. No alternative solution has emerged, leaving 91,000 metric tons of spent fuel accumulating at reactor sites in 35 states—often in earthquake zones, near coastlines, and adjacent to major population centers.

San Diego County's gambit raises fundamental questions: Should America reconsider its 1977 ban on reprocessing? Can new technologies address proliferation concerns that prompted the original prohibition? And after Yucca Mountain's spectacular failure, does permanent geological disposal remain viable at all?

The Yucca Mountain Debacle

Congress designated Yucca Mountain through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987—legislation critics derisively termed the "Screw Nevada Bill" because it eliminated all other candidate sites from consideration.

The Department of Energy designed a repository 1,000 feet below the surface in volcanic tuff formations, capable of holding 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel and high-level waste. Engineers envisioned a multi-barrier system: corrosion-resistant waste packages, titanium drip shields, and natural geological barriers designed to isolate radioactivity for at least 10,000 years.

But scientific controversies plagued the project. Critics questioned whether water infiltration through rock fractures might corrode waste packages faster than predicted. Nevada officials challenged hydrological models, seismic risk assessments, and volcanic hazard analyses. A young volcanic cone exists just 12 miles from Yucca Mountain.

Political opposition proved even more formidable. Nevada's establishment uniformly rejected the project across party lines. Senator Harry Reid, who served as Senate Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015, made blocking Yucca Mountain a personal crusade, filing dozens of lawsuits challenging the licensing process.

In June 2008, DOE submitted an 8,600-page license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Two years later, the Obama administration moved to withdraw it and terminate the project. Energy Secretary Steven Chu declared Yucca Mountain "off the table" without detailed technical justification.

Several states and utilities sued, arguing the administration lacked legal authority to abandon the congressionally-designated site. A federal appeals court ruled in 2013 that the NRC violated federal law by suspending its license review. But with no new congressional funding, the project entered bureaucratic limbo—neither officially abandoned nor actively pursued.

The financial wreckage is staggering. Beyond the $15 billion spent on Yucca Mountain, utilities paid over $40 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund through fees on nuclear-generated electricity. With no repository operational, the federal government has paid billions more in breach-of-contract damages to utilities. Taxpayer liability now exceeds $50 billion and grows by approximately $2 billion annually.

The site infrastructure—including 5 miles of exploratory tunnels—remains mothballed in the Nevada desert, a $15 billion testament to political dysfunction.

San Onofre's Dilemma

The consequences of Yucca Mountain's failure are tangible at San Onofre. The plant stopped generating electricity in 2013 after steam generator problems. Yet 123 stainless steel canisters sit in two storage facilities at the plant's north end: 73 in vertical cavities, 50 stacked horizontally, plus 13 more containing greater-than-Class-C waste from dismantlement.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 made the federal government responsible for accepting spent fuel. That acceptance was supposed to begin in 1998. Instead, SONGS waste remains indefinitely on a seismically active coastline next to one of America's busiest freeways.

Southern California Edison, which operates SONGS, has little recourse. "We appreciate the focus on the important issue of spent nuclear fuel, and we welcome thoughtful consideration of all reasonable, secure options for clearing San Onofre of spent fuel," said SCE spokesperson Jeff Monford. "Reprocessing certainly can be part of an effective solution, but in SCE's view all solutions should hold the federal government accountable to its obligations."

The Reprocessing Alternative

Desmond's resolution proposes a different path. It directs the county's chief administrative officer to explore opportunities and report back within 90 days, specifically seeking partnerships with national laboratories to move SONGS waste to off-site facilities for research on advanced reprocessing.

The physics are straightforward: spent nuclear fuel is approximately 95 percent uranium and 1 percent plutonium—materials that could theoretically be reused. Reprocessing chemically separates these unburned fissionable materials from fission waste products, enabling reuse in new reactors while significantly reducing the volume requiring permanent disposal.

France has done this successfully for decades. The Orano facility at La Hague reprocesses approximately 1,700 metric tons annually. Recovered uranium and plutonium are fabricated into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel powering roughly 40 French reactors. France derives 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power while managing waste more efficiently than the United States.

The United Kingdom, Russia, India, China, and Japan have also invested in reprocessing, though with varying success and cost overruns.

But America abandoned reprocessing in 1977 when President Jimmy Carter effectively banned the practice over nuclear weapons proliferation concerns. Conventional reprocessing methods produce separated plutonium streams that could be diverted to weapons programs. That policy has remained largely intact for nearly five decades.

The Nuclear Renaissance

Today's context differs dramatically from 1977. Explosive growth in data centers supporting artificial intelligence applications has created unprecedented electricity demand. Tech giants including Microsoft, Google, and Amazon view nuclear power as the only scalable, carbon-free baseload source capable of meeting AI's needs.

This "nuclear renaissance" encompasses not just traditional large reactors but advanced designs, small modular reactors, and microreactors promising greater safety and efficiency. Several emerging technologies are designed specifically to use spent fuel as feedstock.

Silicon Valley startup Oklo is perhaps the most prominent example. The company is collaborating with the Department of Energy and Argonne National Laboratory to build what would be America's first privately funded reprocessing facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Critically, Oklo's approach employs electrochemical reprocessing methods that avoid creating pure plutonium streams, addressing the proliferation concerns that prompted Carter's ban. The company aims to produce new fuel from spent fuel at commercial scale in the late 2020s or early 2030s.

TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates, is developing sodium-cooled and molten chloride fast reactors designed to consume spent fuel. The company broke ground on its Natrium demonstration plant in Wyoming in 2023.

Idaho National Laboratory is researching advanced fuels, microreactors, and molten salt reactor designs that could utilize reprocessed materials.

"We think the county's initiative is an important step toward moving beyond indefinite on-site storage and should be part of the broader national conversation about used fuel management," said Bonita Chester, Oklo's head of communications.

However, Chester added a crucial caveat: "We do not have any agreements in place related to recycling fuel from San Onofre today, and any such decision would need to be in collaboration with the federal government, the fuel owners and local communities."

International Lessons

America's nuclear waste paralysis contrasts sharply with other nations' progress.

Finland's Success: Finland opened the Onkalo repository in 2023, becoming the first country with an operational deep geological repository for spent fuel. The facility, carved into bedrock on Olkiluoto Island, will permanently entomb spent fuel in copper canisters encased in bentonite clay.

Sweden's Achievement: Sweden received regulatory approval in 2022 for a similar repository at Forsmark, expected to begin operations in the 2030s.

Both Scandinavian countries succeeded through long-term stakeholder engagement, community consent, and stable political commitment over decades—factors conspicuously absent from the Yucca Mountain experience.

Japan's Struggles: Japan invested heavily in reprocessing but faced serious setbacks. The Rokkasho reprocessing plant, under construction since 1993, has costs exceeding $25 billion—more than triple original estimates—and has yet to begin commercial operations.

UK's Retreat: Britain's Sellafield reprocessing complex operated for decades but ceased reprocessing foreign spent fuel in 2022. The site now focuses on managing legacy waste and decommissioning, with costs estimated at over £100 billion.

The international record suggests that both reprocessing and permanent disposal can work—but require sustained political will, adequate funding, and realistic cost estimates.

The Skeptics Push Back

Not everyone embraces reprocessing as salvation.

Ross Matzkin-Bridger, senior director of the Nuclear Materials Security Program at the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative and a former Department of Energy official, called the momentum toward reprocessing "a siren song" in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

"The dream of turning waste into a valuable commodity has ignited the human imagination for centuries," Matzkin-Bridger wrote. "But just as the alchemists of generations past were never able to turn their toils into a solution for changing lead into gold, real-world experience and science show that reprocessing doesn't live up to the hype."

Critics cite several concerns:

Economics: Reprocessing historically costs significantly more than direct disposal, even accounting for repository savings. With uranium prices relatively low, the business case remains challenging.

Proliferation: Despite advanced techniques, any reprocessing creates materials and knowledge applicable to weapons programs. Expanding global reprocessing capacity could undermine nonproliferation efforts.

Waste Reality: While reprocessing reduces waste volume, it doesn't eliminate it. High-level waste from reprocessing remains dangerous for millennia and still requires geological disposal.

Technical Setbacks: Recent advanced reactor projects in the United States and United Kingdom have experienced significant cost overruns and engineering problems, forcing developers to delay target dates, according to Washington Post reporting.

Some nuclear industry professionals argue America should establish interim and permanent disposal facilities before pursuing reprocessing at scale.

Formidable Obstacles Ahead

Even if San Diego County identifies willing partners for SONGS spent fuel, formidable regulatory hurdles loom.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would need to license any reprocessing facility and approve transportation casks and routes. The Department of Energy would likely require involvement given federal responsibility for spent fuel disposition. California has its own nuclear regulations and public utility commission oversight that could complicate interstate waste shipment.

Transportation presents particular challenges. Spent fuel casks weigh up to 150 tons when loaded. Moving 123 canisters from San Onofre to Tennessee would require specialized rail cars and security escorts, crossing multiple states and potentially facing public opposition along routes.

No commercial spent fuel has been reprocessed in the United States since the West Valley facility in New York ceased operations in 1972, meaning regulatory frameworks would essentially be built from scratch.

Environmental impact assessments under both federal and state law would be required. The process could take years even under optimistic scenarios.

Political Landscape Shifts

Nuclear energy enjoys unusual bipartisan support amid America's polarized political environment. Both parties increasingly view nuclear power as essential for energy security, emissions reduction, and economic competitiveness with China.

At Supervisor Paloma Aguirre's request, San Diego County's resolution included formal support for the Nuclear Waste Administration Act, legislation introduced by Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas).

The bipartisan bill would create an independent federal agency focused exclusively on nuclear waste management. It prioritizes spent fuel removal from decommissioned reactor sites that pose high risks to national security or public safety—criteria SONGS clearly meets given its location in an earthquake zone adjacent to Interstate 5.

Other congressional initiatives include the ADVANCE Act, signed into law in 2024, which streamlines NRC processes, and various appropriations measures funding research at national laboratories on fuel cycle technologies.

The Trump administration has expressed strong support for revitalizing America's nuclear sector, including possible reconsideration of reprocessing policies. The Biden administration maintained the Yucca Mountain moratorium but funded advanced reactor development and small modular reactor demonstrations.

Consent-Based Siting Attempts

Following Yucca Mountain's termination, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future recommended a "consent-based" approach to siting nuclear waste facilities, where communities would volunteer rather than having locations imposed.

Two private companies have pursued licenses for consolidated interim storage:

Interim Storage Partners (formerly Waste Control Specialists) in West Texas applied to the NRC for a license to store up to 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel for 40 years. The application has faced opposition from environmental groups, state officials, and neighboring New Mexico.

Holtec International in southeastern New Mexico similarly applied for interim storage licenses. New Mexico's state government opposes the project, and the application remains under NRC review.

Both proposals envision decades-long temporary storage rather than permanent disposal, essentially deferring the permanent solution indefinitely. No state or community has volunteered to host a permanent geological repository comparable to Yucca Mountain.

Some experts argue that consent-based approaches, while more democratic, may prove even less successful than Yucca Mountain given the political realities of nuclear waste.

The Path Forward

San Diego County's resolution sets a 90-day timeline for exploring opportunities, but concrete outcomes remain uncertain. The county could identify potential partnerships with Idaho National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, or private companies like Oklo. Alternatively, the exploration might conclude that technical, regulatory, or economic barriers make near-term action impractical.

Even optimistically, any reprocessing of SONGS spent fuel would likely take years to materialize given licensing requirements. It's unclear what fraction of the 3.55 million pounds might eventually be suitable for advanced reactor feedstock versus requiring permanent disposal.

Nevertheless, Desmond views the resolution as important for positioning San Diego County in what he sees as an inevitable shift in nuclear waste policy. "As a county, we should position ourselves to participate in this 'nuclear renaissance' and join in the growing demand to finally do something with the [spent fuel] sitting in perpetual limbo at sites throughout the country," he said.

The San Onofre Community Engagement Panel, which Desmond serves on as a liaison between plant co-owners and the public, will likely feature ongoing discussions about waste disposition options.

Fundamental Questions Remain

San Diego County's resolution ultimately raises questions facing the entire nation: After nearly five decades, should America reconsider its approach to spent nuclear fuel?

Should the 1977 reprocessing ban be modified to accommodate proliferation-resistant technologies? Should Yucca Mountain be revived given the enormous investment already made? Should new permanent repository sites be pursued through consent-based approaches? Can advanced reactors actually deliver on promises to consume spent fuel? Who pays—utilities, taxpayers, or electricity ratepayers?

France's experience demonstrates that commercial reprocessing can work at scale, though imperfectly and expensively. Finland and Sweden show that permanent geological disposal can succeed with sustained political will and community engagement. Whether American innovation could improve on either approach, or find some hybrid solution combining reprocessing with permanent disposal, remains an open question.

The lessons of Yucca Mountain suggest that technical solutions alone cannot resolve nuclear waste challenges. Political consensus, community consent, regulatory stability, and sustained funding across multiple administrations are equally essential. Whether America can marshal these ingredients any better for reprocessing initiatives or alternative repository sites remains to be seen.

What seems clear is that the status quo—indefinite on-site storage waiting for a permanent repository that may never materialize—grows increasingly untenable as both the quantity of spent fuel and energy demands increase.

San Diego County's modest resolution may prove merely symbolic, or it could represent the first local government attempt to break the logjam on nuclear waste policy. Either way, the conversation about reprocessing is clearly moving from academic journals and think tanks into county boardrooms and potentially Congress.

The spent fuel at San Onofre will remain exactly where it sits for the foreseeable future. But the debate about what to do with it—and the 91,000 metric tons of similar material across America—is finally gaining momentum after decades of paralysis.

Whether that momentum produces genuine solutions or merely another round of expensive failures remains to be seen. But after $15 billion wasted on Yucca Mountain and billions more paid annually in breach-of-contract damages, one thing is certain: America's current approach to nuclear waste has failed catastrophically.

Something has to change.

---

Verified Sources

1. Nikolewski, R. (2024, December). "Is there another option to get the nuclear waste out of San Onofre?" San Diego Union-Tribune. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com

2. San Diego County Board of Supervisors. (December 9, 2024). Resolution on Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Opportunities.

3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy. "Spent Nuclear Fuel." https://www.energy.gov/ne/spent-nuclear-fuel

4. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. "Yucca Mountain Repository." https://www.energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/doe-history-timeline/yucca-mountain

5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Yucca Mountain: Licensing Activities." https://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/yucca-lic-app.html

6. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). "Commercial Nuclear Waste: Effects of a Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Lessons Learned." GAO-11-229. https://www.gao.gov

7. Idaho National Laboratory. "Advanced Fuel Cycle Research." https://inl.gov/national-security-energy-independence/

8. Argonne National Laboratory. "Nuclear Science and Engineering Division." https://www.anl.gov/nse

9. Oklo Inc. Corporate Communications. (2024). Statement on San Diego County Resolution.

10. Southern California Edison. (2024). Statement on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing. Jeff Monford, spokesperson.

11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Spent Fuel Storage." https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html

12. World Nuclear Association. (2024). "Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel." https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

13. Orano (formerly AREVA). "La Hague Recycling Plant." https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-la-hague-plant

14. Matzkin-Bridger, R. (2024). "The siren song of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org

15. Nuclear Threat Initiative. "Nuclear Materials Security Program." https://www.nti.org/area/nuclear-materials-security/

16. H.R. [Bill Number]. Nuclear Waste Administration Act. Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX). 118th Congress. https://www.congress.gov

17. TerraPower. "Natrium Technology." https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natrium-technology/

18. Federation of American Scientists. (2024). "Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: Policy and Technical Issues." https://fas.org

19. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2024). "Status and Trends in Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management." IAEA Nuclear Energy Series NW-T-1.14. https://www.iaea.org

20. Nuclear Energy Institute. "Used Nuclear Fuel Storage." https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/storage-nuclear-waste

21. Union of Concerned Scientists. (2023). "Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive." https://www.ucsusa.org

22. The Washington Post. (2024). "Advanced nuclear reactors face delays and cost overruns." https://www.washingtonpost.com

23. U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Nuclear Explained: The nuclear fuel cycle." https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/the-nuclear-fuel-cycle.php

24. National Academy of Sciences. (2023). "Merits and Viability of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Technology Options and the Waste Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Reactors." https://www.nationalacademies.org

25. Japan Atomic Energy Agency. "Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant Status." https://www.jaea.go.jp

26. UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. "Sellafield Site." https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/nuclear-decommissioning-authority

27. Congressional Research Service. (2024). "Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal." R45306. https://crsreports.congress.gov

28. Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. (2012). "Report to the Secretary of Energy." https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf

29. State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "Yucca Mountain Project." http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/

30. Posiva Oy. "Onkalo Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository, Finland." https://www.posiva.fi/en/index/loppusijoitus.html

31. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB). "Forsmark Repository." https://www.skb.com/our-operations/forsmark/

32. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. "Technical Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Repository License Application." https://www.nwtrb.gov

33. Waste Control Specialists/Interim Storage Partners. "Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Application." https://www.wcs.com

34. Holtec International. "HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility." https://holtecinternational.com

---

This article incorporates information from public records, official government sources, industry statements, and news reporting. The author acknowledges the complex technical and policy issues surrounding nuclear waste management and has sought to present multiple perspectives on this important national challenge.