The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

San Clemente Times

The quarterly Community Engagement Panel (CEP) meeting, which involves many governmental and energy company interests at informational forums regarding San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), will take place Thursday, Sept. 14, in Oceanside at the QLN Conference Center, located at 1938 Avenida Del Oro.

The main topics of discussion on the agenda will focus on dry-cask storage of spent nuclear fuel, which is slated to be stored at the shuttered nuclear power plant campus beginning in the next year or so.

“Speakers will include Lisa Edwards, a senior program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, who will address industry efforts to advance inspection methods and aging management guidance for passive dry cask storage of used nuclear fuel,” a press release from Southern California Edison stated.

Recently, Edison, the majority stakeholder in SONGS and watchdog group Citizens’ Oversight Projects reached a settlement agreement in a lawsuit regarding the legality of the permit issued by the California Coastal Commission to store the spent fuel. The settlement requires Edison to search for additional locations for temporary or permanent storage, as well as inspect the dry-cask storage units more frequently than originally proposed.

Informational booths will be available from 4:30-5:30 p.m. The meeting is planned to be live-streamed on the CEP website, If you can’t watch the live stream of the meeting, the San Clemente Times will provide updates on Twitter at @SCTimesNews.

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Staff

comments (1)

  • The settlement doesn’t require Edison to do anything different than they are alreadying doing. They are doing what is “commercially reasonable”, which means profits over safety. And it isn’t about more frequent inspections. It is to find a way to inspect these canisters, which they can’t. Many of the current 51 canisters may already be cracking and Edison has no clue if they are cracking or a plan in place to deal with cracking or leaking canisters. Edison ignored the Nuclear Regulatory Commission data that a comparable container (a Koeberg water tank) leaked in only 17 years. Instead, they want to load 73 more inferior thin-wall canisters.

    This is the same company that brought us poorly designed reactor steam generators they promised would last 40 to 60 years, but leaked in only 11 months, resulting in permanent shut down of San Onofre. We will never know how much radiation leaked into the environment.

    The NRC cited Edison for mismanagement, yet are allowing them to load canisters that cannot be inspected, repaired, maintained or monitored to PREVENT leaks. We will only know AFTER they leak. We expect these requirements in a car!

    Edison only promised an “inspection and aging management plan” that meets NRC requirements. The NRC allowed Calvert Cliffs a license renewal in spite of the fact they cannot inspect, repair, maintain or monitor their canisters to PREVENT leaks.

    The only solution is to buy proven thick-wall casks that meet all the above requirements, but Edison refused to do this. Instead they bought (with our money) a new experimental system they plan load in soggy ground close to the beach. Each of these new 73 canisters is a Chernobyl disaster in a can, containing as much lethal radioactive Cesium-137 as was released from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Today they plan to tell us a leak won’t be that bad. I have evidence that shows otherwise. I asked Tom Palmisano for evidence if his claims, but he is ignoring my email. That’s what he doe when he doesn’t have a good answer. Why is the Coastal Commission allowing a permit for non-transportable canisters? They should revoke the San Onofre permit before it’s too late. The problem is now and it affects all of us.

comments (1)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>