San Onofre Nuke plant; photo credit: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 & 3 Decommissioning Project
State Lands Commission to Hear Public Comments on San Onofre Decommissioning Plans at Meetings in Oceanside and San Clemente
Anti-nuke activists are mobilizing at two upcoming meetings of the California State Lands Commission in order to ‘speak out against the nuke dump’ at San Onofre. One is in Oceanside and the other is in San Clemente.
One of the meetings is today, Tuesday, August 7 at 6:00-9:00 pm at the Oceanside Civic Center Library Community Room, located at 330 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054.
The second meeting is for Wednesday, August 8, 1:00 pm, at the Holiday Inn Express North, Pier Ballroom, 35 Via Pico Plaza, San Clemente, CA 92672.
The California State Lands Commission is the lead organization conducting the Environmental Impact Report on the San Onofre decommissioning project. At both meetings – Tuesday in Oceanside and on Wednesday in San Clemente – the Commission is required to take public input on their *draft* Environmental Impact Report.
One of the activist groups involved, Citizens Oversight, ended up suing Southern California Edison, the largest stock owner of the nuke plant, to halt the waste dump. But the most they were able to get in the end was a set of six experts to develop plans to move the waste somewhere else and then to move it there, while they continued to move the fuel into the current facility on a temporary basis.
The group believes it may be that in order for Southern California Edison to complete their nuclear waste dump on the beach, the California Coastal Commission would have to approve the Environmental Impact Report produced by the State Lands Commission. But they also believe the lead agency should also have a say in what has happened in the decisions surrounding the waste dump, regardless of what they may say about their lack of jurisdiction.
Citizens Oversight also states the other big issues are :
- whether the spent fuel pools should be allowed to be demolished if they do not have any other alternative to deal with a leaking canister;
- whether to fully remove the large conduits that go out to the ocean (or just leave them buried under the water but made safe).
There is little dispute that the current site of the nuclear waste dump is perhaps the worst place that could be found to put such a facility. But, Citizens Oversight says getting consent at any other place will also be nearly impossible. No one really wants nuclear waste in their back yard.
Perhaps the best alternative place for the waste is to leave it in Camp Pendleton but farther away from the coast and higher in elevation.
There are many other details in the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) that the public needs to address in comments to the State Lands Commission. Here’s the draft EIR report
Activists urge supporters to please study it and provide comments that deal with the specifics of their plans as much as possible. They say the Lands Commission is already responding to pressure by having two local meetings. And they iterate:
You can choose to be present and observe the proceedings without speaking. If you choose to speak, it can be from your heart; no scientific data is needed.
You are at the meeting to defend your home; common sense can help you decide what to say. Your presence in the room makes an impact. You are needed!
Please come to Oceanside and to San Clemente, or be present at one of the meetings. There’s free parking at both locations.
Ray Lutz of Citizens Oversight said,
“To sneak approval of the nuclear waste dump, the environmental impact assessment was (we believe) improperly and perhaps illegally fragmented.
The first part was handled by the California Coastal Commission dealing only the nuclear waste dump part, while the State Lands Commission (which actually has official jurisdiction only on things under the water along the coast) took all the rest of the decommissioning project.
This sort of fragmentation is improper sleight of hand, and it was used to get the waste dump approved before the whole project was reviewed, and before the public could be alerted to the disaster of a nuclear waste facility only 100 ft from ocean.”
Here’s their facebook page for the event.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
The Wednesday meeting is at 1 pm, not 6 pm like you said. Check the link.
This is not an anti-nuke issue. This is a safety issue. Edison knows they are loading the fuel too hot. They know they cannot meet the requirements of their NRC. Their license requires the ability to unload the fuel back into the pools. At an earlier Community Engagement Panel meeting Tom Palmisano admitted this. Video at Sanonofresafety.org.
The state has a right to stop the EIR and revoke their permit. Edison did not disclose they could not meet the conditions of their license. Some of these canisters are already 15 years old and may have already started cracking. The NRC says once a crack starts it can grow through the wall in 16 years. Edison has been telling people they can store a leaking canister inside a sealed thick-wall cask. That is not true. It would overheat. The NRC has not approved such a thing for a good reason. No canister vendor has even submitted an application for such purpose.
The only option Edison and the NRC have left us is to build a hot cell and load all the fuel in thick-wall casks that can be maintained and monitored to prevent leaks and explosions. Moving this fuel anywhere before this is done is a plan for disaster.