.
Feedback

San Onofre Should Stay Shut, Environmental Group Says

Friends of the Earth will run advocate their message via an ad campaign on cable TV in San Diego and Los Angeles.

An environmental organization called Friends of the Earth was running advertisements on cable television news channels this week demanding that the troubled San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station remain shut
down.

According to FOE, which opposes nuclear power plants, the ads will run ``in heavy rotation'' in San Diego and Los Angeles.

The nuclear power plant in northern San Diego County has been inoperative since a small leak from Unit 3 at the end of January.

Subsequent pressure testing last month revealed that three of the more than 19,000 steam generator tubes in the unit showed excessive wear.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered the plant to remain closed until its troubles are diagnosed. Unit 2 was already shut down at the time for scheduled maintenance.

``The Nuclear Regulatory Commission knows these reactors need to stay offline, and Southern California families know it too, but Southern California Edison is pushing ahead,'' said Damon Moglen of Friends of the Earth.

Edison's Jennifer Manfre denied any rush to get the plant back on line.

“We have stated constantly that we will not return these units to
service until we and the NRC say they are safe,'' Manfre told City News
Service.

The FOE ad opens with a brief black screen while a narrator says, ``A
nuclear crisis.''

Various still photographs of power lines, a man in a contamination suit
and nuclear plant equipment are displayed as the narrator continues.

``A defective tube ruptures, leaking radiation, causing an emergency
reactor shutdown, but it's not Fukushima, Japan,'' the narrator says.

He goes on to suggests that SCE is trying to reopen the plant to pursue
profits.

The Friends of the Earth organization recently hired Fairewinds Associates, a firm that specializes in nuclear engineering and safety analysis, to review the San Onofre plant. The Fairewinds report accuses Edison of a lack of transparency about the problems and blames the utility for making modifications that led to the leaks.

Manfre insisted the utility has been open with the NRC and provided it
with all information regarding the plant.

—City News Service

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Beef Eater April 2, 2012 at 10:47 pm
FOE do everyone a favor and just go hug a tree
Gary Headrick April 3, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Nothing could be more important to California than keeping this plant closed. The generator issue is just the tip of the iceberg. There is tremendous financial pressure to restart these reactors regardless of how Edison wants to play that down in the press. Together, with the help of the NRC, they will do everything in their power to fire up the reactors, unless the public stands up against the reckless behavior that led to these circumstances in the first place. Call Edison at (626) 302-1212 to tell them to move on to modern technologies that are safe, reliable, and profitable, and tell them to keep this most dangerous plant in the USA closed for the safety of more than 8 million people. There is plenty of work for employees at San Onofre for the foreseeable future just securing with the extremely dangerous 4000 tons of nuclear waste on site, and finding a permanent disposal site for it ASAP.
Sally Pla April 3, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Thanks to Mr. Headrick for the above comment, and I will make that call to Edison at 626- 302 -1212. If that hazardous, aged, leaking nuclear facility -- a disaster waiting to happen -- has a serious issue, imagine evacuating 8 million people in San Diego/Orange counties. Insanity.
jennymofo April 3, 2012 at 12:35 pm
It is uncomprehensible that we would risk a Fukushima scale disaster for 5% of CA's power which could come from other sources. Employment at SONGS would continue for decades with decomissioning. Let's do the right thing with this 40 year old plant and not risk ruining Southern California from LA to San Diego. Be on the right side of history and decomission while there is still time!
Larry Ansley April 3, 2012 at 01:05 pm
I say the same, FOE, GO HUG A BIG TREE!!
CARLA MAYS April 5, 2012 at 04:14 am
My mother and many Carlsbad residents have died of cancer. We have a couple of different cancer clusters that we need to look at SONGS as a possible source. Its is well document that folks who live within 50 radius risk higher cancer risk. Now, that its giving up the ghost, we need to look into it. Remember SONGS was due to close in 2013. That loan guarantee did no favors to us in North County! SONGS is not an old car that can be just fixed up. We need to demand for real time radiation data that's real time, open source and with easily accessable APIs on air, tap water, ocean water and local ag NOW!!!!
CARLA MAYS April 5, 2012 at 04:20 am
I advocated in the North County Times and on Channel 10, that we have Federal Hearing on the upgrades back in 2009. 10News came to my Carlsbad home to conduct the interview. We feared that SONGS would begin to give up the ghost. I don't believe for a second we have the whole story on the release. How many Carlsbad residents have to died or fight cancer before something is done?????
Sandy Thurlow April 5, 2012 at 11:04 pm
It would be completely irresponsible for SONGS to be given the green light to begin generating nuclear energy (waste) again with the risk to millions of lives at stake. Our priorities must change. We must consider human life, health and safety above corporate profit. Japan's suffering from the Fukushima meltdown should be a warning to the USA. SONGS is situated on the Pacific Coast near an earthquake fault line and could become the mirror image of Fukushima. We were given a wake up call. When will we wake up?
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
The benefit garage and bake sale is this Saturday, June 22 from 7 a.m. to noon at 1463 Golden SunsetRead More Drive in San Marcos (San Elijo Hills). Here's the link to the event: http://encinitas.patch.com/groups/events/p/drake-center-garage-sale-to-benefit-autism-therapy-dog_3a2145e8
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
All donated items can be dropped off at The Drake Center, located at 195 N. El Camino Real inRead More Encinitas.
Mary E June 19, 2013 at 04:01 pm
do you get a donation receipt for tax purposes?
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
Status Quo June 19, 2013 at 11:53 am
Looks very much like your Prop A will pass, though 'BA2's tactic seems to be part of the problemRead More also.
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.