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 DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.
By Edward (Ted) L. Quinn, Dana Point
In response to Roger Johnson’s letter to the editor from Aug. 22, (“Edison Plan Does Not Properly Address the Issues”) I completely disagree with his position except in one point, as I will outline below. I don’t understand his disrespect for local and national hardworking representatives in our government as well as the review process for Southern California Edison’s draft documents, which only began a few weeks ago.
As a member of the San Onofre Community Engagement Panel, I am disappointed in Mr. Johnson’s quick dismissal of the process and the integrity of all those involved. Good technical engineering and project management comments are welcomed in the process by the CEP. Fear-mongering attacks are a detriment to the process and certainly to Mr. Johnson.
The documents from Edison are the Draft Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, the Draft Environmental Impacts Evaluation and the Draft Decommissioning Cost Estimate, which were just issued for review by the CEP and posted on the public SCE webpage less than three weeks ago.
As a member of the CEP, we are in the middle of our review and will have a public meeting on Aug. 28 in Oceanside to address the CEP and public comments to these documents. The schedule is also under review and the emphasis in the schedule is to move the fuel from the spent fuel pool to dry cask storage as soon as possible.
The charge by Mr. Johnson that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved casks are unsafe is blatantly untrue. The NRC cannot, under its federal mandate, approve the installation of an unsafe cask. His statement also questions the installation of other casks by the same NRC approved manufacturer around the United States, which have provided safe operation for the plants and public around those plants.
The challenge that I make to Mr. Johnson is to work within the process and provide comments thru the CEP to the three documents that are currently under review.
I agree with Mr. Johnson that the role of the federal government should be to accept transfer of the spent fuel and move it to a centralized storage facility as soon as practicable, as noted in the President’s Blue Ribbon Panel report, dated Jan. 26, 2012. We have recommended within the CEP that we request the support of all local and national political representatives of Southern California to petition the Congress to address this important issue in the near term.