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

Public comment is now available for a portion of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) final environmental impact report (EIR) regarding the Unit 2 and 3 offshore conduits that were used to pull in ocean water to keep generators cool.

The proposed project will “remove offshore components and install mammal exclusion barriers for the Units 2 and 3 conduits, place temporary solid covers on top of the mammal exclusion barriers on the Unit 2 discharge conduit to allow for future use, if needed”; and it will “remove navigational and environmental monitoring buoys and anchors,” according to the executive summary of the EIR.

The State Lands Commission will meet to review, consider, and receive public

comment on certification of the final EIR, and, if it is certified, the board will take action on

the proposals on March 21 in Southern California. Details will be provided as they become available on the State Lands website:

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 (4)

  • The California State Lands Commission unleashed its “FEIR” (Final Environmental Impact Report) on the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station with a deadline for public comments of March 21, just 6 weeks away.

    Here are 6 reasons why this process isn’t fair to the public:

    The new “Part III” of this document is more than 750 pages. The public is only being given six weeks to review it.

    Southern California Edison had three years to prepare the original document. CLSC, the California State Lands Commission, hired expert consultants to help its large staff update the documents. What’s more, it took CLSC more than six months to rewrite the final report.

    The record appears to be silent on the subject of the dangerous safety accidents that have occurred at San Onofre.

    The CLSC was required to consider new information that it was unaware of in the crafting of the first two drafts. At San Onofre, there were two “unsecured load events” that the NRC described alternatively as “near-hits” and “near-misses” yet the report is silent on these safety lapses.
    But what is most unfair, is the short amount of time the public is being given to read and evaluate this report before the CLSC votes on it on March 21 in San Diego.

  • What does fuel loading have to do with a Final Environmental Impact Report beyond you, again, attempting to alarm the public? There were no “accidents”, stop engaging in hyperbole and stop masquerading as a public watchdog. Your cartoonish mask has slipped off.

    What do you propose the States Lands Commission do?

  • Holtec and Edison damaged every nuclear waste canister due to Holtec’s defectively designed downloading system. The walls of every 54-ton canister is being scraped and gouged as it is downloaded into each storage hole, shortening the life of these canisters. Edison admits each canister contains the radioactivity of a Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Edison allowed loading of fuel in 29 canister in spite of knowing canisters would be irrepairably damaged from the downloading system. Edison wants to download and damage 44 more canisters into the storage holes

    In addition the 51 aging older Areva NUHOMS thin-wall canisters likely have cracks from the corrosive marine environment.

    No EIR should be approved until Edison moves all the nuclear fuel waste to proven thick-wall transportable storage casks that don’t crack and can be maintained and monitored to prevent problems.

    No thin-wall canisters can be inspected or repaired according to the NRC — technology doesn’t exist to find or characterize the cracks. Even Holtec’s President admits it’s not feasible to repair them even if you could find the cracks

    Until these inferior thin-wall storage systems are replaced no EIR should be approved and the Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission should revoke Edison’s current permits.

    Edison has $4 billion in our ratepayer Decommissioning Trust Fund. Some of this money can be used to replace the defective untransportable thin-wall canisters. I warned of cracking problems in thin-wall canisters in my intervention in the CA Public Utilities Commission Commission Unit 2 and 3 Decommissioning proceeding, but the Commission ignored this information. Now we have a new Governor. He should require a full investigation involving these three state agencies. This is an emergency situation.

    Edison should demand their money back from Holtec. Instead, they plan to keep the defective Holtec system in order to save millions in overhead costs and to get their hands on that $4 billion dollars. Edison admitted in a trade article how much the can save in overhead costs by expediting fuel out of the pools. Sign petition and learn more at Our future depends on it.

    David Davison, employed by Edison, tends to ignore or deny these and other inconvenient facts.

  • Fact: Thick walled casks do not have a license for storage in this country.
    Fact: Thick walled casks are NOT transportable because they not only don’t have a license to transport, they were refused a license by the NRC due to their fears that they might shatter if dropped in cold weather.
    Fact: Thick walled casks are too heavy for SONGS’ crane equipment so they cannot be used.
    Fact: Thick walled casks use an inferior mechanical seal that REQUIRES them to have a Helium monitoring system. Gilmore has attempted to fob off this weakness as a strength and dishonestly attempts to fool the public into believing that the system monitors the contents of the cask, it does NOT. It only monitors the area between the two mechanical seals, seals which are required precisely because they’re inferior to welds.
    Fact: The Holtec and Areva canisters that SCE is using are double welded shut so this superior sealing medium does NOT require a Helium monitoring system.
    Fact: Donna refuses to acknowledge and address the above facts.
    Fact: The Holtec and Areva canisters SCE is using have NRC approval for both storage and transport. When Donna says they cannot be transported, she is lying.
    Fact: Donna Gilmore consistently misrepresents, mischaracterizes, or just plain lies about what the NRC, SCE, or other parties have said.
    Fact: I’ve challenged Gilmore repeatedly to support her allegation that loaded canisters are “damaged” but she is too busy making other false statements to support this false statement. She needs to post the study or report where this supposed statement is made including the very quote she is basing her claim on. Her continued silence will confirm she is again, lying.
    Fact: Gilmore has zero evidence nor is there any basis for her claim that the Areva canisters “likely have cracks”. Her grand example she originally based her claims on, the Koeberg NP tank, was debunked some two years ago as she is well aware but she continues to dishonestly peddle this canard, indeed, it is still on her website (last I checked). She farcically claims that through-wall cracks will cause an explosion AND simultaneously suggested canisters may already have through-wall cracks. If so, where are the explosions YOU, Donna, claimed would occur?

    When Donna claims the NRC said canisters can’t be inspected or repaired, she is lying. She also lied claiming Kris Singh, Holtec owner, said canisters can’t be repaired, a statement he never made. When she says the technology doesn’t exist, she is lying, the technology was demonstrated at a CEP meeting she attended, a meeting that also featured films of actual inspections.

    Gilmore has no expertise or experience in the relevant fields necessary to be recommending anything to anybody regarding canisters.

    Gilmore lied about Vermont Yankee nuclear station claiming they said they wouldn’t use the untried and experimental system SONGS is using, words they never uttered. If she disagrees with any of my statements here, she is free to post the statements by these various parties to verify they said what she claimed they said.

    “David Davison, employed by Edison, tends to ignore or deny these and other inconvenient facts.”

    Yes, I’ve been employed at SONGS for over 34 years but I speak as an individual citizen and I represent only myself. I do not have either the permission nor the blessing of SCE nor do I particularly care what their position is on these matters; I’m only debunking the false statements and lies by zealots whose words and actions do not benefit the citizens they claim to represent. The public needs accurate information to be able to assess the best way forward and propaganda from zealots, ie., Gilmore’s group, is not accurate or even honest.

    The numerous replies I’ve made to Gilmore’s false claims are proof positive I have NOT ignored her statements and just because she claims something is a fact, doesn’t make it so…indeed, her unfamiliarity with the truth militates against such a conclusion.

comments (4)

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>