The Irvine City Council on Sept. 30 convened a study session to examine public‑safety considerations for the 123 spent‑fuel canisters stored at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Presenters included a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman, university public‑health experts and Southern California Edison officials; dozens of residents and advocacy organizations urged the council to commission a locally focused plan to move the canisters inland.

Gregory Jaczko, who served as chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2009 to 2012, told the council that while federal responsibility for a permanent repository has stalled, “there is too much acceptance” that existing permits and authorizations will simply be extended indefinitely. He said the fuel must be moved and recommended studying options for removal and interim storage sooner than currently assumed.

“We should be more ambitious,” Jaczko said, arguing the goal should be to remove fuel “as close as possible to the expiration of the Coastal Commission’s permits in 2035.” He described a conceptual “plan B” that would relocate canisters from the coast to a fortified inland facility on higher ground, such as Camp Pendleton, where monitoring and repackaging capabilities could be provided while the nation continues to pursue federal solutions.

David Richardson, associate dean of research at the University of California, Irvine, provided a public‑health perspective. Richardson said risk assessment for dry storage facilities combines the probability of an initiating event with the health consequences if releases occur. Using published risk models, he told the council that even a small fraction of canister material released could meaningfully increase cancer risk across exposed populations and that children would be especially affected.

“The material that’s stored is somewhat well characterized in terms of its radiological hazards,” Richardson said. “Small risks over large populations can have really substantial impacts.” He offered UCI expertise to assist a local planning effort and recommended transparent monitoring and public engagement as part of any strategy.

Southern California Edison representatives described the storage systems at SONGS and the inspections and monitoring programs the utility has implemented. Frederick (Fred) Dailey, vice president for Generation and chief nuclear officer at SCE, said the facility’s canisters are stainless steel, welded shut, housed in reinforced concrete bunkers and were designed with thicker walls for the marine environment. “The spent fuel is safely stored where it is,” he said, adding SCE’s inspections have not found canister degradation that requires repair.

Dan Stetson, chair of the SONGS Community Engagement Panel, described the panel’s role and said the issue of spent fuel storage has been the central topic of quarterly public meetings. Stetson and other commenters encouraged cities to join the Spent Fuel Solutions Coalition, a regional advocacy group that includes numerous local governments and supervisors and is co‑chaired by Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley and San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond.

Dozens of residents, scientists and advocacy groups urged the council to sponsor or commission an independent, expert study that would identify near‑term options to improve the safety of SONGS’ spent fuel. Speakers cited the beachfront location, sea‑level rise, earthquake and tsunami exposure, and the canisters’ exposure to marine air and chloride stress corrosion cracking as reasons to move the fuel inland while a federal program is developed.

“Move them away from the shore while they still have enough structural integrity,” said Sarah Mosko, a nuclear‑safety advocate who lives in Laguna Beach.

Speakers also described federal options and timelines. Several presenters referenced federal legislation and DOE timelines that could mean large‑scale consolidated interim storage facilities would not be available until the late 2030s and a permanent deep geologic repository might not be operational until the 2060s—projections that speakers cited as motivation for local planning now.

The council did not take formal action. The mayor said the meeting was intended to inform the council’s future work and suggested the city could commission or help fund an expert plan — a “plan B” — that would cost on the order of several hundred thousand dollars to prepare, depending on scope. The mayor said the council planned to return to the matter in the fall or winter and explore possible follow‑up steps, including regional coordination.

What’s next: Council members asked staff to evaluate options for follow‑up work; no contract, study or appropriation was approved at the Sept. 30 meeting. Community groups and elected‑official offices present at the session urged Irvine to join existing coalitions and to consider helping fund or facilitate a regional study to identify near‑term interim storage strategies.