October 8, 2019

We must demand that the Coastal Commission deny Edison a permit to destroy our only means of protection from a damaged or leaking nuclear waste canister at San Onofre and for transportation in the future.

Conditions exist that would require nuclear waste to be transferred back into the spent fuel pools from which they came, to be reloaded for transportation or if they are damaged or leaking before that time.
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board recently concluded that most nuclear waste containers in use today will need to be reloaded before transportation would be possible.
For these reasons alone, we must maintain the pools until all waste has been relocated or until a "hot cell" is built on site for the same purpose.

 We encourage you to oppose the Edison application when the Coastal Commission meets at 9 a.m. Oct. 17 at the Chula Vista City Council chambers, 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista.

Please email commissioners before
5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 11:

Subject: Thursday, Oct. 17, Item 12A,
App. # 9-19-0194 (Southern California Edison)

Suggested message:
Dear Commissioners,
Please DENY Application No. 9-19-0194 for the onshore portion of decommissioning of Units 2 and 3 at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. In light of serious, documented defects with its dry storage system, Southern California Edison must not be granted a permit to destroy its spent fuel pool until its dry storage containers can meet requirements for the waste to eventually be transported away from the facility. Otherwise, a "Hot Cell" must be constructed on site for the same purpose. Stranding the nuclear waste on the coast would be a direct violation of the terms upon which the Coastal Commission approved the plans for the interim dry storage facility in 2015.

You can also sign our petition which will be presented to the Commissioners and other elected officials.

Documents recently provided through Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) reveal the actual damage that is being ignored. In regards to the NRC granting Edison a green light to continue damaging canisters in the downloading operations, one of their own objected. Lee Brookhart, (NRC Region IV, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Senior ISFSI Inspector) said. “... Essentially the change (in methodology) is adding an alternative to the code to not have to do inspections and repair these new defects.”

In other words, instead of actually fixing the problem they simply changed the rules to make gouged canisters acceptable.

Gouges and surface abrasions meet approval of those
responsible for our safety, the NRC.

When Edison says they have made "Visual Assessments" of eight canisters and found nothing to be concerned about, this is what they saw.

They are careful to point out that this is not a formal "ASME Inspection" of the nuclear fuel assemblies or conditions of the thin stainless steel shell. It is only showing surface defects which will need to be addressed before transportation can take place.

Be aware that Edison often refers to these as "inspections", which is very misleading and not even possible with current technology.

We want to participate in this year's National Grassroots Activist Summit on Radioactive Waste
in New Mexico and could use some help getting there. Your donations will allow us to develop a local strategy in conjunction with several other leaders of similar groups
from all across the country.

Thank you!