Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuclear Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press San Clemente council for transparency over alleged damage to San Onofre fuel canisters
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the city to press Southern California Edison and the Coastal Commission for full access to visual inspection photos and third‑party reviews after they presented images and cited apparent corrosion and gouging on canister #72 at the San Onofre independent spent fuel storage installation.
Multiple San Clemente residents used the public‑comment period Aug. 19 to press the City Council to demand greater transparency and third‑party review of dry‑storage canister inspections at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
Speakers including Gary Hedrick, Jerry Collimer and Ed Schlegel presented photos and argued that some canisters—most heavily cited was canister number 72—showed corrosion, lengthwise gouges and signs consistent with stress‑corrosion cracking. Several presenters said industry and media statements minimizing those images are insufficient and asked the council to request that Southern California Edison release all inspection photos for independent review by the California Coastal Commission or other outside experts.
"These inspection photos show clear evidence of corrosion and gouging on canister number 72," one speaker said while showing slides. Another speaker argued that U.S. canister wall thickness is substantially less than designs used abroad and therefore more vulnerable.
Councilmembers acknowledged the seriousness of speakers’ concerns and asked staff about possible actions the city can take, including requesting Coastal Commission involvement. City staff and council also noted limits to local authority over nuclear‑regulatory matters and the need to coordinate with state and federal agencies; a city attorney previously advised that the council could reaffirm prior resolutions and seek regional or legislative support.
Speakers urged the council to consider a resolution amplifying community concerns and to work with regional partners to press for permanent removal or relocation of the spent fuel. Council agreed to revisit the issue, and the mayor noted earlier council action in support of steps to address the facility.
The public comments were extensive and detailed, with several scientific and historical claims raised; staff and council did not endorse technical conclusions from those presentations but committed to reviewing possible municipal actions.
