Some Question San Onofre Nuclear Plant's Safety Despite SCE Assurances

Carlsbad resident Ace Hoffman is not satisfied with a recent Southern California Edison (SCE) report asserting the San Onofre nuclear power plant is safer than one in Japan where officials continue to work on preventing the release of more radiation following a massive earthquake.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station sits near the coastline between Oceanside and San Clemente and its location has raised concerns whether it could suffer damage similar to the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant, which was rocked by a 9-magnitude quake and hit by a tsunami on March 11.

In the wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan, SCE said San Onofre was "designed to withstand the maximum credible ground motion and tsunami threat in our part of Southern California."

San Onofre could resist a 7-magnitude earthquake and likely ground motion that would be twice as strong as what hit the Japan plant, plant officials said.

San Onofre is also safer than the Fukushima plant, officials said, because its emergency diesel fuel tanks are underground and its diesel generators are up high, making them less susceptible to outages from surface events such as a tsunami.

“Southern California Edison believes our San Onofre nuclear generating station is equipped and designed and operated in a way that would protect the public in the event of a major earthquake or tsunami,” said Gil Alexander, spokesman for San Onofre and SCE, which operates the plant.

Alexander confirmed a Dana Point Times report on May 5 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found three violations at the San Onofre plant during an inspection period covering three months ending March 24. The violations were deemed of low safety significance.

He said the plant will continue to address the violations and any worker and management actions that are not up to excellent industry standards.

Hoffman and other area residents say the precautions that have been taken by the utility company are not enough. Hoffman does not want highly radioactive spent fuel rods stored at the plant, for example, and says the San Onofre dry storage casks are a fire hazard.

Last month, SCE proposed $64 million in new seismic studies, based on the latest technology and paid for through rates, to better measure how San Onofre would withstand seismic and tsunami disasters.

But some anti-nuclear residents want the plant shut down.

San Clemente Green, a nonprofit that advocates energy sustainability, got involved in the San Onofre debate after being approached by plant employees with safety concerns. Co-founder Gary Headrick said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not addressed questions about San Onofre's safety despite promises to get back with answers.

“You don’t have to be a scientist or be super knowledgeable with technology to know that the experiment with nuclear power over the past 30 years is a failure and it’s time to move on to clean, renewable technology … like solar and geothermal,” Headrick said.

Alexander maintained it is impossible to produce reliable electricity for today's needs if traditional power plants are abandoned for renewable energy. Nuclear energy provided 20 percent of the power SCE delivered last year while 20 percent came from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and hydro sources, he said. Other power sources include natural gas and coal.

Still, Headrick argues Japan’s flagship preparedness technology “was the biggest and best effort mankind put forth so far and it failed.”

Saving the 20 percent of energy produced by nuclear plants would simply take a switch to energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances, Headrick said. He recommends every home get a free energy audit such as his organization offers. SolarCity, a solar company, also offers homeowners free energy evaluations.

For more on seismic safety, read Patch's story on Oceanside school buildings.

Follow Camp Pendleton Patch on Twitter and friend us on Facebook.