|
|
Dear
Mr. Douglas: The high cash costs of San Onofre electricity are compounded by the environmental damage of the installation, and now by the excessive danger of this move. Movement by rail was bad enough, this is much worse. The entire issue of the existence and operation of San Onofre SONGS should be tackled by the Commission with an eye to determining whether such installations are consistent with the Coastal Act's protection of delicate coastal habitat. If there were no alternative to nuclear power, or if there were an overriding cost benefit, there could perhaps be some justification for continuing this misplaced, misbegotten and mistaken outshoot of failed cold-war era "operation plowshare": the use of excess nuclear fissionable materials to generate electric power. But there is an alternative: Germany and Japan are pioneering widespread use of cheap, safe solar rooftop systems. During the day, periods of peak usage, the homes essentially power the factories; at night, periods of low usage, stored and generated power is cheap and plentiful. There
is no justification for this move of the reactor core, for the use of
the San Onofre Outfall for disposal of debris from the Unit 1 decommissioning,
and no excuse for the continued existence and danger of the San Onofre
or any other nuclear power generator in the Coastal Please re-open the entire permitting process, cancel the permits, and fight against these useless, expensive and dangerous monster plants in the midst of our Coastal paradaise. The sooner we bite the bullet and get rid of this awful and hideous problem, no matter the cost in political struggle, the better. Now is the time. Thank you, Doug
Korthof -------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND, TEXT OF THE APPLICATION: SUBJECT: Application to amend coastal development pemlit ("CDP") No. E-Ol-OOl granted to Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric Company to demolish and remove San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit I buildings and other structures (e.g., reactor vessel, containment sphere), construction of an independent spent fuel storage installation for Unit 1, and transport of the SONGS I reactor vessel by rail to the Camp Pendleton Oceanside Harbor facility (Camp Del Mar Boat Basin). The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission has reviewed a proposed amendment to the above-referenced pennit, which would result in the following change to the project: The applicants propose to transport the reactor vessel (placed inside a steel shipping canister and loaded onto a multi-axle ground transporter)l to the Camp Pendleton Oceanside Harbor facility by road rather than by rail. The
route is proposed as follows: Five trucks and one bulldozer will assist transport activities. The night prior to the transport, the applicants will place over 1,000 high-density polyethylene mats (8 feet x 14 feet) to form a one-mile long by 24-foot wide roadway (disassembled and reassembled in a "leap-frog" fashion) along the beaches in Camp Pendleton to provide stability and traction. The route includes crossing the mouth of the Santa Margarita River. The applicants will temporarily lay timber at the crossing if the river has sufficient flow. The reactor vessel will be grouted in place within the canister. The reactor fuel and all high level radioactive vessel components will be removed. Transportation of the vessel will be accomplished consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and u.s. Department of Transportation Regulations. Transporting
the reactor vessel on southbound Highway 5 for .25 miles will take 1-2
hours and require a California Department of Transportation Encroachment
Permit. The California Highway Patrol will assist movement of the vessel
along Highway 5. Back to T.O.C. 2
|