NEWS RELEASE -- MEDIA ADVISORY --
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PUBLIC MEETING ON SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR WASTE: ENCINITAS, MAY 25 6:30pm
Citizens Oversight vs. California Coastal Commission Lawsuit may block permanent dump at San Onofre only 100 ft from the ocean
Utilities have agreed to settlement negotiations. Now we need your input!
Thursday, May 25, 2017 (6:30 pm, gather for social networking at 6pm) WHERE:
Seaside Center for Spiritual Living, 1613 Lake Dr, Encinitas, CA 92024 WHO:
All concerned public, govt officials, utility reps are invited. SPEAKERS:
> Ray Lutz
, National Coordinator for Citizens Oversight will provide thorough
presentation on the issue (This is an updated presentation.)
> Attorney Maria Severson
of Aguirre & Severson LLP (attorneys for Citizens Oversight)
> and Tes Kempner will provide vocal entertainment
> The PUBLIC <-- YOUR input is requested! INFO:
Details of the case: http://citizensoversight.org/StopNukeDump
(RECENTLY UPDATED!) RSVP: https://www.facebook.com/events/1893927600877493/ ACTIVISTS:
CALL OUT TO CONCERNED CITIZENS -- please join us
May 24, 2017 (Encinitas) -- The California Coastal Commission (CCC) inexplicably approved the permit to bury 3.6 million pounds of high-level and deadly nuclear waste only 100 feet from the beach and only inches over the high-tide mark.
Dr. Tom English, formerly the program manager for the high-level nuclear waste team from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, conducted studies for the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy, the government of Sweden, the California Energy Commission, and NASA.
Dr. English said in his comments to the Coastal Commission on May 11, "We learned from the melt-downs at Fukushima that it is essential to remove the high-level nuclear waste from the spent fuel pools. It just doesn't make sense to keep them there forever. However, when you make a move like that, the waste must not be moved to a site where the overall risk is far greater. I think that is a reasonable condition. It's hard to imagine a worse choice for "interim dry storage" than the current site. It's very close to the ocean, and it will be stored a few inches above water. Furthermore, the risk of terrorist attack at the approved site is much greater than leaving the waste in the current spent fuel pool. When we make a decision, we should make a decision that makes things better, as opposed to worse, and especially, far worse."
Ray Lutz, Founder of Citizens Oversight, Engineer, said, "After careful review of the CCC permit, I became thoroughly convinced that the construction of this nuclear storage facility (ISFSI) at this location should be blocked, so we filed this lawsuit shortly after approval on October 6, 2015. By blocking this permit, we can take a closer look at all the options and hopefully, avoid this ridiculous decision."
The utilities have agreed to negotiate with us in a settlement process that must be largely confidential due to the evidence code. However, we do not want the public to be silent! We are looking for ideas, thoughts, concerns, etc. and are looking to the "wisdom of crowds" to combat the insanity of the experts.
On Thursday May 25, Citizens Oversight will conduct one of a series of public events to gather input from the community that can be fed into the settlement process. All comments will be transcribed and included in the public file. This meeting will be at the Seaside Center for Spiritual Living in Encinitas, and features Maria ("Mia") Severson with a short overview of the case, followed by Ray Lutz who will present a (surprisingly humorous) overview of the topic, with rave reviews at other events in San Juan Capistrano and Oceanside. Gather at 6pm for social networking, with the event starting at 6:30. Following the presentation, we will have comments and Q&A, including action brainstorming. WHY THIS IS A BAD IDEA: WASTE EXTREMELY DEADLY --
for up to 250,000 years. Some isotopes have half-lives of 9 million years (forever)! WRONG PLACE:
This location, is near 8.4 million residents within 50 miles, a ten-lane freeway, and active railroad line, and thus represents a prime terrorist target.
OTHER OPTIONS NOT INVESTIGATED:
There are many options that have not been explored. Edison, the plant operator, has explored only the default solution, which results in nuclear waste being stored right on the coast in an area where no one would choose to put it.
Q: Are there other places for the waste that would be better than San Onofre?
A: Absolutely! Here are some possibilities:
1. The Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, near Phoenix, which is already licensed as a nuclear waste storage facility, is probably the most attractive alternative. It needs to be expanded, and licensing paperwork done. Transportation is feasible. (Our lawsuit focuses on this option.)
2. Mojave Desert, far from civilization. We investigated this option and initially suggested the railroad stop called "Fishel CA". see: http://copswiki.org/Common/M1732 for a review of this option. Our conclusion was that this specific location is perhaps too remote as services (roads, power, internet, etc.) are required, and really all of California is seismically active.
3. Camp Pendleton, not optimal but still better: A location about 3 miles inland avoids ocean dangers, is on a secure military base, and transportation risks are minimized, but is still in an earthquake zone and near high population centers. Problem is getting NAVY buy-in.
4. Consolidated or off-site Interim Storage facilities being proposed in TX and NM.
TIME SCALES OFF - MAY NEVER MOVE:
The permit by the Coastal Commission is for 20 years. But the Commission knows the ISFSI will be in place for at least 35 years, even given the best-case scenario. There is a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for such an ISFSI that allows it to remain in place indefinitely -- for 100 years or more. Given our history of taking care of nuclear waste, it may never move once this facility is built, and the Coastal Commission admits it may stay for decades if not centuries.
TOO CLOSE TO THE WATER:
The ground level is so close to the water level, they plan to build the structure half out of the ground but even then, the ground water level is within inches. Any increase in ocean levels in the next 100 years will likely raise the ground water to exceed the bottom of the structure. Coastal Commission admits that the coast is likely to erode up to the ISFSI location within that time as well, and they prohibited any improvement in the seawall to protect the ocean.
CANISTERS TOO BIG, HOT, THIN:
The canisters currently being used are too heavy, when coupled with the transportation over-pack, to be placed on conventional train cars or semi-trucks. They are too hot and large to be compatible with any future geologic repository, and too thin to resist ocean-air corrosion for very long. The NRC license for these canisters is only for 20 years. We believe the Coastal Commission must take the overall risk into account.
Even though we know the relatively thin 5/8" steel canisters will likely corrode in the ocean salt air, there is no requirement for inspections in the permit period and inspection technology does not yet exist.
NEWLY DISCOVERED FAULTS:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography just completed an extended study of the faults nearby and determined the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon fault is capable of a (very strong) 7.4 magnitude earthquake. Earthquakes frequently result in ground liquefaction. Additionally, some geologists predict the coast will sink about three feet in a future quake.
PROCESS TOO QUICK:
Why, when the waste will be deadly for at least 250,000 years and the facility may be there for decades or centuries, should we have only one short public meeting, where speakers were limited to only two minutes, and where there was no real opportunity to provide information or testimony in opposition? That Coastal Commission meeting was designed to fly under the radar. It was never announced or reviewed at the Community Engagement Panel meetings, which are supposed to provide information to the public. Wrong!
The Coastal Commission met with the applicant, Southern California Edison, for about a year and a half with no public involvement, and to top it off, most of the commissioners had improper secret ex parte meetings with SCE. Wrong again!
WE MUST STOP THIS INSANITY!
If we are successful, the permit will be blocked and we can process this important decision correctly. There ARE other options, if we allow additional paperwork to be done, rather than optimizing for near-term corporate profits.
See all related information at this project link: http://citizensoversight.org/StopNukeDump
Activist Signup: http://citizensoversight.org/signup
Madge Torres -- 760-613-7035 or 760-753-1886 / firstname.lastname@example.org
Ray Lutz -- 619-820-5321 / email@example.com
Citizens' Oversight Projects (COPs)
771 Jamacha Rd #148
El Cajon, CA 92019 CitizensOversight.org
-- ------- Ray Lutz Citizens' Oversight Projects (COPs) http://www.citizensoversight.org 619-820-5321
Post a Comment