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.

SCSQUARED halfMike Aguirre, San Clemente

You are being asked to approve an independent spent fuel storage installation for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which will store below sea level up to 3,600,000 pounds of high-level nuclear waste permanently on the shoreline of North County San Diego. While Southern California Edison is representing this complex is for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel as solid, reactor-related, greater-than-Class-C waste and other associated radioactive materials, in fact it will be the first major permanent nuclear fuel dump in California.

There is no sound reason to approve this proposal. The Germans have learned how to safely move nuclear fuel. We should do the same and move it to the Palo Verde nuclear site in Arizona. The No. 1 finding of Diet’s report on the Fukushima nuclear disaster was that it was the product of collusion amongst utility and government officials who worked together to provide rationales for bad decisions leading up to the accident. SCE has proven it cannot be trusted. The Brown Administration has proven it cannot be trusted. Please act differently than the CPUC and deny the permit. We all need to unite to save our great State of California from a catastrophic nuclear accident at San Onofre.

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 (9)

  • I wholly agree with Mike, remove this nuclear material and send it to the waste site in Arizona.

    • For clarification, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona is NOT a “waste site” — it is an operating energy generation facility. In fact, it produces more energy each year than any other generating facility in the country, serving the energy needs of more than 4 million people in Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico. Palo Verde is not licensed for storage of used fuel from other facilities.

  • so they can accept other fuel from other locals , good grief , we all new the spent fuel storage problem would happen some day better sooner than later

    the fuel makes it so we cant use existing transformers , switches and transmission lines with alternate power generating because of the danger the spent nuclear fuel creates

  • Has everyone lost their minds? Homeland Security, NRC, Mayors, Congressmen, CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, DARRELL ISSA, San Clemente City Council, etc.
    Have you forgotten the people, places and things you are supposed to serve and protect? The military families of Camp Pendleton, the citizens up and down the Coastline from San Diego to Los Angeles.

    Storing nuclear waste at failed reactor site that is STILL cooling down for the next 20 years in earthquake country AND your solution is to store the CONTAMINATED waste ONSITE next to a MILITARY BASE!!! Then to top that genius … add lack of urgency to find another location … keep this located between two highly dense Counties of in ONE OF THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATE within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA where millions of productive workers and business reside not to mention the military bases are and you begin to wonder just how serious we take NATIONAL SECURITY AND CITIZENS SECURITY, HEALTH AND WELFARE!!!!

    So whose interests does this serve? Edison’s or the people of California?

  • “Has everyone lost their minds?”

    Have you lost YOUR mind?

    First, San Onofre is NOT a failed reactor site!

    Second, the fuel has been stored on site since 1968, are you just now waking up?

    “…productive workers…”

    The productive workers got laid off from San Onofre, remember? 1200 good paying jobs flushed because madame Barbara Boxer, catering to the tin foil hat wearing anti-nuclear groups, back stabbed the nuclear workers, the city, and the state of California.

    Did you enjoy the power outage San Clemente suffered on Sept. 20th? Had San Onofre remained on line, there would have been no outage.

    San Onofre has always been operated in a safe manner and it is even safer today. The NRC, who regulates the industry, maintains that San Onofre is safe. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations which certifies the level of excellence of nuclear plants, says San Onofre is safe. The fuel is a solid, inside zirconium cladding, inside a stainless steel multipurpose canister which is then placed inside a cavity enclosure container, and this is surrounded by concrete and topped with a further 2 feet of concrete. It can with stand earthquakes greater than any ever experienced in California. Evelyn, if this is not safe enough for you, science, engineering and common sense can’t help you…you should simply move.

  • “which will store below sea level up to 3,600,000 pounds of high-level…”

    The used nuclear fuel will NOT be stored below sea level!

  • Both San Onofre and Palo Verde are nuclear waste sites and Palo Verde continues to generate more waste. Both store highly radioactive nuclear waste in thin stainless steel containers (1/2″ to 5/8″ thick) that the NRC admits are subject to stress corrosion cracks. Each canister contains more radiation (cesium-137) than released from Chernobyl.

    It takes about 20 years for cracks to go through the wall of the containers. That’s why none have leaked yet. The thick concrete overpacks have vents, so do not protect us from radiation released from thin canister leaks.

    NRC’s Mark Lombard admitted they have no way to inspect them and the Holtec canister manufacturer president, Dr. Singh, admitted they cannot be repaired without introducing another corrosion factor and in the face of millions of curies of radiation being released into the environment from even microscopic cracks. See videos of their statements at

    Edison convinced many that we needed San Onofre for power, but reality shows we don’t. They said the steam generators would last 40 to 60 years, but they wore out in one to two years leaving ratepayers will a multi-billion dollar bill. Local concerned citizens warned we don’t need San Onofre and that the steam generators were going to fail.

    Now we are warning that those thin canisters at San Onofre may start leaking after about 20 years and Edison has no plan in place to stop or remediate this if they do. Some canisters have been installed since 2003, so may already be cracking. Edison must be forced to use thick casks (10″ to 20″ thick) that can be inspected, maintained and are transportable. Instead, the Coastal Commission plans to grant them a 20-year permit to use an inferior thin canister system ($1.3 billion) with only a promise they will be transportable in the future and with full knowledge that these thin canisters cannot even be inspected or repaired.

    NRC regulations states canisters with cracks (even small cracks) CANNOT be transported. The Coastal Commission should NOT believe Edison when they say there are no other options.

    Tell the Coastal Commission the permit should be revoked. Write to Tell your local and state elected officials to get involved before it’s too late.

    • Correct Coastal Commission email address is

    • “Edison convinced many that we needed San Onofre for power, but reality shows we don’t. ”

      We lost power to parts of San Clemente on Sunday, September 20th BECAUSE there was not enough power being generated and 150 MWs of load had to be shed. Had San Onofre remained on line, San Clemente would NOT have lost power. So, let the citizens who lose power decide whether San Onofre was necessary or not.

      “It takes about 20 years for cracks to go through the wall of the containers.”

      Remember this statement from independent investigator and chairman of the CEP, David Victor?

      “Finally, I want to underscore that I am deeply concerned about some claims and numbers that have been widely reported and re-reported in the press because I have found no robust basis for those numbers. In particular, I note that there are claims that cracks could begin as early as 30 years. However, none of the data reviewed above provide any evidence for that number, and the number itself seems to emerge from an unrecorded verbal exchange at a meeting with two NRC officials. Yet having reviewed all the presentations by those officials on that topic, and having included them in an extensive array of email exchanges, I do not find any robust support for that number.”

      Again from his report:

      “Based on an extensive review and re-review of all the evidence I don’t see any support for these rapid corrosion, cracking and through wall penetration scenarios. Moreover, I note that EPRI has recently released a report that examines exactly this scenario. That report looks at the scenario that would unfold after conditions for cracking had been established and after a crack had initiatited. How long would it take for a crack, then, to travel through the walls if the crack were not detected and stopped? EPRI’s answer is about 80 years.31 In addition, the NRC has stated that if they knew that the conditions for cracking existed in the first place they would require mitigation of those conditions. Based on what we know reliably, I do not see these scenarios of SCC and through-wall cracking as credible.”

      And again from his report:

      “Results from an actual cask that has been allowed to leak slowly for 2 years show, as well, that intrusion of water and the formation of hydrogen gas can’t reach explosive levels (section 4.4.3, page 4-25). I learned two things from this work. First, there is simply zero basis for the highly emotive statements that I have seen in the press and various other locations for the view that long-term storage of the fuel on site at SONGS has put “another Fukushima” or “another Chernobyl” in our backyard. We do the public a disservice with such emotive language since it creates images that are not in any way rooted in the technical assessment of the real risks.”

      That statement, of course, is directed at YOU and the exaggerated claims you continue to make.

      Here, from the NRC on Dry Cask Storage:

      Here is a quote from the above NRC site:

      “Since the first casks were loaded in 1986, dry storage has released no radiation that affected the public or contaminated the environment. There have been no known or suspected attempts to sabotage cask storage facilities. Tests on spent fuel and cask components after years in dry storage confirm that the systems are providing safe and secure storage. The NRC also analyzed the risks from loading and storing spent fuel in dry casks. That study found the potential health risks are very small.”

      “The thick concrete overpacks have vents, so do not protect us from radiation released from thin canister leaks.”

      Your statement above is false. The fuel is a solid, inside zirconium cladding and the canister itself, even IF, IF it developed a crack would still provide shielding as would the concrete overpack. IF the crack developed in a canister holding a damaged fuel assembly, if there were any gases left in the damaged assembly or if they had contaminated the helium inside, over time, they MIGHT make there way out the tiny crack and out the vent. This would still pose no danger to the public.

      “Edison must be forced to use thick casks…that can be inspected, maintained and are transportable.”

      As has been pointed out to YOU many times, these casks were REFUSED a license to transport when it was attempted years ago. SCE would risk getting stuck with casks they could never transport and would be forced to buy the very canisters they are buying right now in order to ship the fuel out when a repository becomes available. In addition, as has also been pointed out to YOU many times, the casks are too heavy for SONG’s crane equipment, a fact YOU continue to ignore.

      “…an inferior thin canister system…”

      That is YOUR opinion, an opinion NOT shared by the NRC nor the industry. The canisters SCE will be using are licensed by the NRC for storage AND transport and are used all over the US; the casks YOU want SCE to use are NOT!

      On your video, Safety Over Profits, at about 2:50 and again about 4:00, you say that if O2 gets into the canister, an explosion can result. Can you describe for me the mechanism of that explosion? You say this explosion will be on the scale of Fukushima, really? From one canister? I’ve asked you this question three or four times and the silence from you is deafening. Will you be providing documentation for these claims in a future post?

      You and your anti-nuclear hired gun, Marvin Resnikoff, once made a big deal about High Burn Up fuel. Have you finally backed away from those alarmist claims particularly in light of the statements by Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear safety officer, David Lochbaum? Here is what he had to say on the subject:

      “In this case, the self-serving conclusion by the researcher has spawned an army of activists around the country who contend that high burn-up fuel in dry storage is the greatest risk to humanity yet created. That’s so far from the truth that the truth could not be seen using the Hubble telescope (with a good lens).”

      Full article can be viewed here:

      In conclusion, you are still misleading the people of the community and have failed to answer many questions put to you. I can say without fear of contradiction that those who have lost their jobs as a result of your (collectively) false statements, claims, and exaggerations, are not appreciative of your efforts to delude the public. Sticking to the facts means sticking to ALL the facts, not the ones you selectively point out.

      I leave the readers with the image of what renewables production leads to, right now, without any natural disasters required:

comments (9)

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>