SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
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.
Gary Headrick, San Clemente
Southern California Edison’s Community Engagement Panel (CEP) has convened for the past three years to discuss the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. I will be speaking at the next CEP meeting, 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 10 at the Doubletree Hotel, located at 34402 Pacific Coast Highway, in Dana Point. The topic will be “from the perspective of the last three years, what have you seen—and where should we be headed for the next three.”
To put it bluntly, they have been doing a lot of talking but not much listening. Instead, they should be investigating the community’s concerns and exploring other options. The plan that the CEP is going along with only works if Edison can predict the future accurately. The most recent proof of that not being the case is the failed steam generator replacement project, which led to the shutdown. How can this body, whose primary core principle is public safety, even consider a plan that relies on technology that has yet to be invented, tested and proven?
Our request will be to allow other experts who disagree with Edison’s plan to make presentations and take questions from the panel and the community at large. There are some very well-qualified professionals in this field who think it is a bad idea to bury nuclear waste inches above the water table, 100 feet from the waves, in an earthquake/tsunami zone using containers that are known to develop cracks in a marine environment, but that can’t be monitored and can’t be repaired if they leak radiation or attain “criticality” (an uncontrollable nuclear reaction).
While the CEP is not a decision-making body, Edison likes to say that “the Community Engagement Panel and a number of community stakeholders have aligned to support their proposals.” That just might be because they have only heard one side of the story. Please attend to show support for this reasonable request to hear from other experts before it is too late. Edison’s current plan is unacceptable. There are far better options that Edison may not favor, but need to be considered for the sake of all.
Gary Headrick is the founder of San Clemente Green.