• Support
  • Advertise
  • Locations
  • Contact
Friday, March 31, 2023
No Result
View All Result
NEWSLETTERS
San Clemente Times
  • Calendar
    • Event Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Sections
    • Eye on SC
    • Soapbox
      • Submit a Letter
    • Getting Out
    • SC Living
    • Sports & Outdoors
    • SC Surf
    • Dana Point Times
    • Capistrano Dispatch
  • Digital Edition
  • Best of SC
  • Explore SC
  • Legals & Classifieds
    • Locals Only Business Directory
    • Classifieds
    • Submit a Classified
    • Obituaries
    • Announcements
    • Submit an Announcement
    • Legal & Public Notice Advertising
  • Special Publications
    • A New You
    • Aging Well – For the Young at Heart
    • Best of San Clemente
    • Crib to College
    • Festival of Whales Event Program
    • Go See Do
    • Holiday Happenings & Gift Guide
    • Money Matters
    • Summer Camp Guide
    • Swallows Day Parade & Mercado Event Guide
    • The Green Issue
    • Triton Football Preview
  • SC Guide
  • Real Estate
    • South County Real Estate Guide
    • Real Estate – Who’s Who
  • Calendar
    • Event Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Sections
    • Eye on SC
    • Soapbox
      • Submit a Letter
    • Getting Out
    • SC Living
    • Sports & Outdoors
    • SC Surf
    • Dana Point Times
    • Capistrano Dispatch
  • Digital Edition
  • Best of SC
  • Explore SC
  • Legals & Classifieds
    • Locals Only Business Directory
    • Classifieds
    • Submit a Classified
    • Obituaries
    • Announcements
    • Submit an Announcement
    • Legal & Public Notice Advertising
  • Special Publications
    • A New You
    • Aging Well – For the Young at Heart
    • Best of San Clemente
    • Crib to College
    • Festival of Whales Event Program
    • Go See Do
    • Holiday Happenings & Gift Guide
    • Money Matters
    • Summer Camp Guide
    • Swallows Day Parade & Mercado Event Guide
    • The Green Issue
    • Triton Football Preview
  • SC Guide
  • Real Estate
    • South County Real Estate Guide
    • Real Estate – Who’s Who
No Result
View All Result
San Clemente Times
No Result
View All Result

Court Tentatively Rules Against Nonprofit’s Challenge of Permit to Dismantle SONGS

Staff by Staff
June 18, 2021 10:22AM
in EYE ON SC, News Headlines
Charting a Path for Waste Removal

Southern California Edison last week rolled out its series of strategic plans related to the removal of spent nuclear fuel from its San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Photo: Shawn Raymundo

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

By Shawn Raymundo

A nonprofit’s petition challenging the 2019 coastal development permit (CDP) authorizing the dismantlement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) was tentatively denied by a Los Angeles County judge on Wednesday, June 16.

The lawsuit filed by the Samuel Lawrence Foundation alleged that the California Coastal Commission violated its own objectives and standards under the Coastal Act when it approved the CDP for Southern California Edison to deconstruct the power plant.

Judge Mitchell Beckloff, in his tentative ruling, found that the nonprofit failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the CCC violated its statutory requirements or that the agency’s findings related to the dismantlement of the plant were inconsistent with regulations.

“The Coastal Commission did not fail to proceed as required by law,” the tentative ruling stated before adding that the agency’s findings on whether the demolition of the plant’s spent fuel pools posed a risk to life and property were “supported by substantial evidence.”

In an emailed statement from the Samuel Lawrence Foundation, the nonprofit said, “This isn’t over,” noting that the court had heard its arguments Wednesday and has within 90 days to issue an official ruling.

“We are fully supportive of plant decommissioning,” the Foundation also said. “We want to make sure that it is done in a way that is most protective of coastal resources and the public. The California Coastal Commission has not given us those assurances.”

The coastal development permit that commissioners unanimously approved in October 2019 allows the utility company to deconstruct the plant’s above-grade structures—a roughly 8- to 10-year process that includes the dismantlement of the twin containment domes and the spent fuel pools, as well as removal of hazardous materials from the site.

“Southern California Edison has consistently maintained that the California Coastal Commission appropriately reached its unanimous decision granting the coastal development permit after rigorous analysis and review,” SCE spokesperson John Dobken said Thursday, June 17. “We look forward to the court’s final ruling on this matter.”

Dismantlement of much of the structures, including the containment domes, got underway in earnest last year, while Edison finished transferring its last bit of nuclear waste from the fuel pools into canisters, downloading them into the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, or ISFSI.

The Foundation, in its lawsuit, argued that the Commission’s approval wasn’t supported by evidence, and believes the deconstruction of the plant will have an impact on coastal resources such as San Onofre State Beach, the campground, Camp Pendleton and the terrestrial ecology.

“The project maximizes risks to life and property and threatens geologic stability along the bluffs,” the lawsuit stated, adding: “The Commission has also failed to address or completely address seismic and tsunami risks.”

As part of its argument, the Foundation pointed to two sections of the Coastal Act regarding the locations of new developments and the requirement that such projects minimize impacts on “life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.”

At issue is whether the state agency was required to consider the individual and cumulative impacts that the new development—the dismantlement of the spent fuel pools—would have on coastal resources prior to approving the 2019 CDP.

“To the extent the Coastal Commission did not consider such impacts and make required findings, Petitioner argues the Coastal Commission abused its discretion because it failed to proceed as required by law,” the tentative ruling summarized.

It went on to note that the Coastal Commission did not make specific findings concerning the dismantlement’s individual and cumulative impacts on coastal resources, and did not err “because it was not statutorily required to consider such impacts.”

Citing the Coastal Act’s language, the tentative ruling stated that the Commission is required to consider those impacts “only where new development will not be located at or near existing development.”

“That the Project is a new development, however, does not mandate consideration of individual and cumulative impacts, because the new development is located in ‘existing developed areas able to accommodate it,’ ” the judge said in the tentative ruling.

“The new development—including the dismantling of the spent fuel pools—will occur where there is existing development,” the court continued.

As to whether the CCC considered the geologic, flood, and fire hazards of the area, the court pointed to the agency’s staff report for the October 2019 Commission meeting that imposed a series of special conditions on SoCal Edison.

However, the Foundation, the tentative ruling noted, believes the Commission’s analysis to be flawed because it relied on an environmental impact review from the California State Lands Commission.

The Foundation argued that the impact report’s focus on the potential hazards associated with the dry storage of spent fuel “requires an analysis other than whether the Project proposed minimizes the risk to life and property” and should include a “more focused analysis.”

While the court agreed with the Foundation that the impact report didn’t include an “analysis or reach conclusions required under the Coastal Act,” the Commission isn’t precluded from relying on the impact report’s findings.

The court went on to also note that the environmental report did address the impacts related to dismantling spent fuel pools, finding that the use of dry storage has been around for more than 30 years in the U.S., “and there has never been a need to replace any major component of the dry storage systems.”

Furthermore, the court added that the Commission also relied on findings from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding spent fuel pools, specifically that they “are not necessary to ensure safe on-site spent fuel storage and eventual off-site transport.”

Within the next 90 days, the Los Angeles County Superior Court is expected to issue a final ruling.

SR_1Shawn Raymundo
Shawn Raymundo is the city editor for the San Clemente Times. He graduated from Arizona State University with a bachelor’s degree in Global Studies. Before joining Picket Fence Media, he worked as the government accountability reporter for the Pacific Daily News in the U.S. territory of Guam. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnzyTsunami and follow San Clemente Times @SCTimesNews.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Tags: California Coastal CommissionCoastal Development PermitCourtsDecommissioningFeaturedLawsuitLos Angeles County Superior Courtnonprofit organizationNuclear Power PlantNuclear WasteOrange CountyPower Plantradioactive wasteSamuel Lawrence FoundationSan ClementeSan Onofre Nuclear Generating StationSoCal EdisonSONGSSouthern California EdisonSpent Nuclear Fuel
ShareTweetPin
Staff

Staff

Related Posts

Doheny Crazed

Surfing & Shenanigans: ‘Doheny Crazed’ Shares Stories of the Golden Age of Surfing

March 31, 2023
Net Energy Metering Program to Change April 14

Net Energy Metering Program to Change April 14

March 31, 2023
Local NFL Player Speaks to Students About Life Choices, Perseverance

Local NFL Player Speaks to Students About Life Choices, Perseverance

March 30, 2023
PHOTOS: SCHS Competitive Cheer Host SoCal STUNT Tournament

SCHS Girls Lacrosse, Competitive Cheer Win CIF-SS Academic Championships

March 30, 2023
Next Post
Surveillance Footage of Man Carrying Airsoft Gun Through Downtown Leads to Weapons, Drug Charges

Surveillance Footage of Man Carrying Airsoft Gun Through Downtown Leads to Weapons, Drug Charges

Discussion about this post

No Result
View All Result

SC Times Daily
Get important news and updates delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up here.

Subscriptions
Don’t get the SC Times delivered to your home? Subscribe today.

Advertising
Get new customers and drive traffic to your business. Advertise with us.

Support Local Journalism
For less than the cost of a couple of cups of coffee a month, become an “Insider” member and continue to get “Local News You Can Use” from the only independently owned, dedicated local news organization in South Orange County.

Contribute today.

Picket Fence Media is a proud member of the SoCal Media Network.

  • Archive
  • Contact Us
  • Dana Point Times
  • The Capistrano Dispatch
  • Terms of Use
  • About Us

© 2023 Picket Fence Media

No Result
View All Result
  • Calendar
    • Event Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Sections
    • Eye on SC
    • Soapbox
      • Submit a Letter
    • Getting Out
    • SC Living
    • Sports & Outdoors
    • SC Surf
    • Dana Point Times
    • Capistrano Dispatch
  • Digital Edition
  • Best of SC
  • Explore SC
  • Legals & Classifieds
    • Locals Only Business Directory
    • Classifieds
    • Submit a Classified
    • Obituaries
    • Announcements
    • Submit an Announcement
    • Legal & Public Notice Advertising
  • Special Publications
    • A New You
    • Aging Well – For the Young at Heart
    • Best of San Clemente
    • Crib to College
    • Festival of Whales Event Program
    • Go See Do
    • Holiday Happenings & Gift Guide
    • Money Matters
    • Summer Camp Guide
    • Swallows Day Parade & Mercado Event Guide
    • The Green Issue
    • Triton Football Preview
  • SC Guide
  • Real Estate
    • South County Real Estate Guide
    • Real Estate – Who’s Who

© 2023 Picket Fence Media