While much of America enjoyed an extended holiday, it wasn’t a seamless weekend for everyone in the region. San Diego CityBeat notes that at the San Onofre Nuclear Station, 70 gallons of sulfuric acid were spilled — the fifth spill in just over two years. As CityBeat notes, there was a hydrazine spill in February 2011 (“Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable”), and two much worse spills of sulfuric acid — two spills in the same July 2010 day, and another spill in April of 2009.

The spill comes one month to the day after hundreds of locals attended a public meeting to voice concerns about safety at San Onofre, where an on-site safety inspector from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told the crowd that despite limited progress recently, “San Onofre is the leader still in safety concerns reported to the NRC.”

In March, NRC inspectors defended a long record of safety concerns at San Onofre including “a deficient “safety culture'” and an environment allegedly hostile to raising safety concerns. In the same month a manager with Southern California Edison, which owns nearly 80% of the facility, sued the company. He alleges that “he was fired for reporting safety concerns at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.“

In fact, new information from Japan finds that the Fukushima plant failed before the tsunami hit, meaning that the plant was designed to withstand a major earthquake and didn’t. Meanwhile, the NRC found that many domestic nuclear facilities are currently vulnerable to a wide range of natural disasters, including earthquakes.

An environment that is at best disinterested and at worst hostile to safety, a long and consistent record of safety violations, and new concerns that our domestic nuclear facilities may not be nearly as safe as we originally thought — it’s a recipe for disaster.

The San Onofre facility is in Darrell Issa’s district, so he has a particular vested interest in its safety. After all, it’s his constituents that are first in line if the worst should happen. And San Onofre’s safety record is troubling on a number of levels, including a clear and ongoing record of safety problems and potentially a culture that discourages employees from reporting safety problems.

But so far, Issa hasn’t shown much interest in pursuing nuclear safety. Maybe it’s because Edison International, which owns nearly 80% of the plant through SCE, is Issa’s third largest career campaign contributor. Issa has been supported by Edison’s PAC to the tune of $46,000 over his career, including $5,500 last cycle. That doesn’t include an additional $10,000 to Issa’s two PACs.

In fact, Darrell Issa has been an active impediment to safety reviews of domestic nuclear facilities. In the immediate aftermath of the terrible nuclear disaster in Japan, Issa called for questions into nuclear safety. But he hasn’t since asked them. Instead, Issa has pursued an investigation that began the same day as the disaster in Japan: demanding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission produce a wide range of documents regarding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump or face subpoena. And more recently, demanding to know why the NRC evacuated a wider area than the Japanese government around the Fukushima meltdown. This as the NRC was reacting in the aftermath of the Japanese nuclear disaster and conducting a full safety review of domestic nuclear facilities.

Just a month ago, hundreds of local residents came out to voice their concerns about the abysmal safety record at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Meanwhile, Darrell Issa is threatening the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with unrelated subpoenas while staying silent about nuclear safety. The most obvious explanation is that he’s defending the interests of a major campaign contributor who is responsible for the safety and operation at San Onofre. With the lives of thousands of Issa’s constituents at risk, even the appearance of bias in favor of his corporate backers is too much. It’s high time that Darrell Issa — the most powerful investigator in Washington — stand up for the basic safety of his district.

I proudly manage the Issa Watch program for the Courage Campaign where this was originally posted. You can follow on Facebook and Twitter.

Lite Gov. Garamendi along with some Senators (Garamendi, Steinberg, & Kehoe) are distributing a letter (PDF) to US Commerce Secretary Guttierez regarding the proposed 241 Toll Road over San Onofre state beach. The toll road was rejected 8-2 by the Coastal Commission after a marathon public comment session.

John and the Gang want the Secretary to reject the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Authority’s appeal of the Coastal Commission’s decision. They had some backup plans in case the Bush administration is all predictable and takes the appeal: they want another lengty public comment session in SoCal.  From the letter:

We believe that you should out of hand reject the TCA’s appeal.  However, should you take it up, we urge you to hold a public hearing in Southern California and to extend the public comment period accordingly to ensure full opportunity for public participation.  We are certain that at such a public hearing you would quickly learn that Californians consider this coastal public park a treasure and that there is broad public opposition to the Toll Road.

But, this is the Bush administration, and they are way, super into building roads that can make a profit for companies instead of the public. This might be another situation where any and all delays are a good thing in the decision-making process. We desperately need a better administration in Washington that doesn’t just impulsively privatize everything.

At Calitics we’ve amply covered the long and winding road that led to the rejection of the 241 Toll Road through San Onofre State Park.  Members of the state parks commission showed a lot of courage in siding against big business and powerful interests in Sacramento to come out against the plan.  In 2005 they passed a resolution opposing it, and they signed on to a lawsuit attempting to stop construction, before the California Coastal Commission eventually voted it down.  Here is how the Governor rewarded a couple of them, including a movie pal and his own brother-in-law:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has dropped his brother-in-law, Bobby Shriver, and fellow action hero Clint Eastwood from the state parks commission after their vigorous opposition helped derail a plan for a toll road through San Onofre State Beach in San Diego County.

The decision not to renew the commissioners’ terms, which expired last week, surprised observers and sent a strong signal that the governor expects loyalty from political appointees.

“This is a warning shot from the governor’s office to all of his appointees: Do what I say, no matter how stupid it is,” said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Los Angeles. “And I know of no project more destructive to the California coast than this toll road project.”

Shriver is one of my city councilmen here in Santa Monica (and as a measure of Santa Monica, he’s considered one of the more conservative ones).  Shriver and Eastwood weren’t just two members of the board – they were the chairman and vice-chairman, and both of them wished to stay on for another term.  

By the way, these aren’t the only appointees who have been “terminated” by Schwarzenegger after they crossed him (over):

Shriver and Eastwood join a list of other spurned appointees.

Bilenda Harris-Ritter, a former member of the state Board of Parole Hearings, said she received a call from a member of the governor’s office a little more than a year ago asking her to resign, six months after she had been appointed. No explanation was given, she said.

The call coincided with an Internet campaign from a crime victims group asking the governor’s office to remove her for granting parole to too many prisoners […]

In June, the chairman of the state’s Air Resources Board, Robert F. Sawyer, was fired by Schwarzenegger for pushing for antipollution measures beyond what the governor’s office wanted, Sawyer said. The executive director, Catherine Witherspoon, quit in the aftermath.

In September, R. Judd Hanna quit the Fish and Game Commission at the request of an aide to the governor, after Republican lawmakers urged his ouster because he had sought to ban lead bullets in condor territory.

This is a pattern of arrogance and of demanding loyalty.  It’s pretty obvious and sloppy.  

NOTE: This also comes at a time when Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget includes a bunch of closings to state parks, which Shriver, at least, has been very outspoken against.

The hearing lasted over 12 hours, and was apparently one of the most raucous and boisterous Coastal Commission meetings in some time. Gathered at the Del Mar Fairgrounds to handle the overflow crowds, the Coastal Commission finally voted last night to reject the planned toll road through San Onofre State Park:

Before a boisterous crowd of more than 3,500 people, commissioners decided 8 to 2 that the proposed Foothill South project violates the California Coastal Act, which is designed to regulate development along the state’s 1,100-mile shoreline. They reached the conclusion following hours of sometimes heated public testimony that pitted protecting the environment against the need to relieve traffic congestion in south Orange County.

The decision was a major setback for the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which has spent years and tens of millions of dollars preparing to construct the 16-mile tollway as an alternative to Interstate 5.

“This project looks like something from the 1950s,” said Commissioner Sara Wan of San Francisco, who voted against the tollway. “Putting a massive project in an environmentally sensitive area, it is inconceivable.”

The Transportation Corridor Agency that runs OC’s toll roads is considering appealing to the US Secretary of Commerce, which owns the land San Onofre State Beach is leased from. Susan Davis successfully attached an amendment to a recent military spending bill to prevent the toll road from being built on federal land, and Bush signed that bill with the amendment intact last month.

The coalition opposing the destructive project was impressive in its size and scope. It included environmental groups from across California, and city governments from the San Diego coast. Surfers were also active and engaged, with help from major surf and skate companies like Etnies and Vans. Obviously the lion’s share of credit goes to the Surfrider Foundation, which has been exhorting people to stop the toll road and “Save Trestles” ever since I was in high school in Orange County over ten years ago. There were finally some Juaneño Indians there to speak up on behalf of an ancestral village and burial ground that would be paved over by the road.

People-powered coalitions don’t just exist in elections – they’re all over our state, and the victory over the 241 toll road is a major victory for just that kind of organizing power. It’s also a key victory for the Coastal Act and a “defining moment” for the commission, one of its members said.

It’s also good to see that the Coastal Commission understands just how much things have changed in this state. No longer can we look to new roads to solve our transportation problems. For environmental, sustainable, climate, and even fiscal reasons, mass transit, particularly rail, is where we need to be investing for our future – not a toll road that will struggle to stay financially viable and see steadily decreasing traffic as peak oil sets in.

More importantly, this victory shows that a people-powered coalition can organize from a very broad base to articulate a 21st century vision of transportation and land use.

Julia- photo moved below the fold
(Cross-posted at The Liberal OC)

This is the latest part of my special report on the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road to San Onofre State Beach (aka Trestles). If you'd like, you can find the other stories in the “Speeding Our Way to Trestles” series on here. As the debate heats up over Trestles and the 241, I'd like to go in depth and examine all the issues involved… And I'd love for you to come along for the ride as we explore what can be done to relieve traffic in South Orange County AND Save Trestles Beach. Enjoy! : )

There are just some things in life we can always count on. Death. Taxes. Another season of “Cops” on Fox. Thousands more poor souls being told that they have no talent on “American Idol” on Fox. Now for me, the one thing in life I can ALWAYS seem to count on these days is complete and utter garbage from Red County/OC Blog on the proposed 241 Extension to Trestles.

So what nonsense is being spun to death at OC Blogland today? Theodore Judah is claiming that some new screed from the San Diego Business Journal is evidence that the evil “eco-extremists” are stonewalling traffic relief for San Diego. Huh?!

Follow me after the flip as I take out my handy dandy facts once more to debunk the right-wing spin on the toll road to Trestles…

“Everything they do is done with great secrecy behind closed doors… Their main purpose is to keep everything quiet so they can say: ‘Nuclear power is so safe. Just look, we’ve operated all these years without hurting any of the public.’ They have accidents all the time. They just don’t call them accidents. They call them ‘incidents’ and ‘occurrences.’ Mild? They may be, they may not be, but they are possible precursors to something more serious.”

That was Lyn Harris Hicks. She’s a 30 year resident of San Clemente, and has lived by the nuclear reactors at San Onofre for all these years. She and the Coalition for Responsible and Ethical Environmental Decisions have been fighting to open up the culture of secrecy pervading the nuclear power plant. And on Sunday, The OC Register decided to join them in unearthing some of the radioactive, dangerous secrets of San Onofre.

Is the power plant really as safe as it’s supposed to be? Is it vulnerable to terrorist attacks? Is it vulnerable to accidents? Is it just a disaster waiting to happen? Or is this just all being overhyped? Follow me after the flip for more…

Well, San Onofre seems quite safe… Isn’t it?

Overall, San Onofre gets good grades from the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission]. Seven years elapsed between its last two major enforcement actions. But some neighbors don’t trust the commission. Last year, radiation 16 times higher than that allowed in drinking water was found beneath the decommissioned reactor known as Unit 1. The commission called it “troubling” but said it was within radiation protection limits.

Well, maybe things aren’t as great as they seem at San Onofre. Even the best and most “perfect-seeming” of systems are still run by imperfect people. And yes, people make mistakes.

So just how safe is the San Onofre plant?

How safe is San Onofre? The last major enforcement action issued by the commission to San Onofre was on Sept. 13, after liquid radioactive waste leaked from a truck in Utah. The tanker’s discharge valve was improperly closed and sealed.

The action before that was on Dec. 15, 1999, after operators failed to recognize a condition that rendered inoperable a diesel generator and battery chargers.

While violations serious enough to garner official dings are fewer and farther between than they were a decade ago, there are still many minor incidents – some reported by San Onofre itself. An Orange County Register review of commission reports shows San Onofre workers:

•Improperly labeled a container of radioactive material, which wound up in a chemistry-lab trash can.

•Allowed debris to collect in water-storage tank enclosures, which could block flow in an emergency.

•Failed to promptly identify trapped air in safety-injection suction lines, which could damage emergency core cooling-system pumps.

So just how safe is San Onofre? Aging infrastructure isn’t safe. Radioactive water below the plant isn’t safe. And oh yes, an open target for terrorist attack definitely isn’t safe.

Oh yes, and how about that tritium?

That’s not much comfort to Lyn Harris Hicks of San Clemente, who has lived beside the reactors for about 30 years.

She is deeply troubled that radioactive tritium was found last year in groundwater beneath a defunct San Onofre reactor more than a decade after it ceased operations. Public health was not in danger, the commission and Edison said: Every year, people are exposed to about 300 millirems of radiation from natural sources. Anyone in contact with the water would have received about 1/10 millirems.

Harris Hicks is skeptical. “Tritium into the beach is the most important issue to us,” she said. “This indicates it may have been seeping into the ground there all those years. We have our young surfers down there all the time. … That’s the problem of nuclear radiation, of course. It permeates.”

OK, so tritium is one of the least dangerous radionuclides. But hey, that still isn’t saying too much. It’s still carcinogenic. And yes, continued exposure to tritium can be quite dangerous. It might just lead to cancer.

So what does all of this mean? No matter how “safe” San Onofre is made, it’s still doing something very dangerous. And no matter how “safe” nuclear power is made, it’s still very dangerous. And Dr. Helen Caldicott reminds us why:

The people [promoting nuclear power] are not biologists, they’re not geneticists, they’re not physicians. In other words, they don’t know what they’re talking about. And that makes me very annoyed. First of all, every reactor produces about [20 to 30] tons of highly radioactive waste a year. The majority of it is very long-lived and will have to be isolated from the ecosphere for hundreds of thousands of years … As it leaks into the environment, it will bio-concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain: algae, crustaceans, little fish, big fish, us.

It takes a single mutation in a single gene in a single cell to kill you. [The most common plutonium isotope] has a half-life of 24,400 years. Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a small load of plutonium in his gonads. What that means to future generations God only knows — and we’re not the only species with testicles. What we’re doing is degrading evolution, and not many people understand that.

I guess not. I guess we still haven’t realized just how dangerous the health effects of nuclear power can be. And of course, nuclear power plants still aren’t prepared for possible terrorist attacks. These things really are ticking time bombs, just waiting to be set off.

So what can we do about it? Well, maybe we shouldn’t allow for these nuclear power plants to continue operating. Maybe we shouldn’t count on nuclear power as a panacea for our climate crisis. And yes, maybe we shouldn’t rely on the unreliable power from nuclear power plants like the one at San Onofre.

So maybe residents in San Clemente like Lyn Harris Hicks do have reason to be worried. Nuclear power isn’t reliable. It poses health risks. It creates open targets for terrorists. And perhaps, we shouldn’t be counting on nuclear energy to power our lives here in Southern California.

Remember when Susan Davis’ amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill passed the House Armed Services Committee? Remember that this is the amendment that ensures that the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), Orange County’s toll road authority, complies with state environmental laws, which means that a toll road can’t be built through San Onofre State Beach to Trestles? Remember that the bill moved on to the US Senate after it passed the House?

Well, we have a new problem. One of our own Senators, Dianne Feinstein, is undecided on adding something like the Davis Amendment to the Senate’s Defense Authorization Bill. I guess she’s not sure yet whether California state environmental law is important enough to be enforced. Follow me after the flip to find out what YOU can do to ensure that Senator Feinstein votes to enforce the law, protect our coast, and respect the integrity of our parks…

So what can YOU do to convince Senator Dianne Feinstein to save Trestles and urge TCA to extend the 241 toll road legally? Why not send the Senator an email? Why not send a fax to the Washington, DC, office at (202) 228-3954? Why not contact one of Feinstein’s state offices? Let Senator Feinstein know how you feel about preserving the integrity of our parks, and how important saving this unique coastal park truly is.

So what can you say if you send an email or fax? How about saying something like this…

Dear Senator Feinstein:

Please join us in supporting the addition of language to the Senate Defense Authorization Bill that repeals riders designed to exempt the Foothill-South toll road extension through San Onofre State Beach from state and federal law.

In addition, we urge you to repeal the additional rider that authorizes the Marine Corps to grant an easement for the Foothill South Toll Road that permanently encroaches into Camp Pendleton and compromises their mission.

The proposed Foothill South Toll Road is one of the most environmentally destructive projects in California and sets a dangerous precedent for the intrusion into state park lands well beyond Orange County.

At minimum, this project should have to comply with all the same laws as any other similar project – just like those reviewed at the local level every week. Allowing the federal government to override the Coastal Act sets a disastrous precedent, the Marine Corps should use its own professional judgment in how best to safeguard Camp Pendleton from encroachment, without pressure from Congress one way or the other.

Please support Representatives Davis and Sanchez in their efforts to ensure that the Foothill-South Toll Road complies with all laws of the United States and the State of California. In addition, we hope you will go a step further and remove the riders that currently create unprecedented legal exemptions for the construction of the Toll Road through Camp Pendleton.

Thank you for your past support for California’s unparalleled natural resources, and for your willingness to carefully consider the impacts of the Foothill-South Toll Road on our Southern California coastline.

Sincerely,
Your Name Here

Or this, if you’d rather not be so loquacious…

Dear Senator Feinstein:

I am a supporter of the Susan Davis amendment to the Senate Defense Authorization Bill, which repeals the legal exemptions for the 241 toll road extension through San Onofre State Park. I’m writing to ask you to vote in favor of this amendment, and also to vote to remove the riders that give the Transportation Corridors Agency so many legal exemptions for construction of this road.

I believe the builders of the toll roads should follow the same laws that everyone else follows and should not be granted special rights or privileges.

Thank you very much for considering this issue, and for your outstanding and long service to our state and nation.

Sincerely,
Your Name Here

Now you don’t have to write something like this or the longer letter. Just use these as ideas for whatever you’d like to say to Senator Feinstein about supporting the Davis Amendment. Just allow these to inspire you to make her heartfelt sentiments about Trestles and our state parks known to the Senator.

Susan Davis and Loretta Sanchez did what needed to be done in the House to save Trestles and our state parks. So now, it’s up to the Senate. And right now, Dianne Feinstein can make the difference between preserving one of our most popular state parks for generations to come and setting a dangerous precedent for state and federal environmental laws to be ignored if they get in the way of a new highway and/or toll road and/or residential development. Dianne Feinstein can make a difference in the Senate this week, and she needs to know that we want her to make that difference.

But first, we need to make a difference. I need to make this difference, and so do YOU. I plan to write to Senator Feinstein about including the Davis Amendment in the Senate’s Defense Authorization Bill. Would you like to do the same? Do you care about keeping our parks open for us to enjoy for many years to come? If so, then please ask Senator Feinstein to support including the Davis Amendment in the Senate’s bill.

Senator Feinstein can make a difference for the better this week, but first we need to make that difference to urge her to do the same. : )

Just when you thought the fight over the toll road to Trestles was wrapping up, another shot is fired! Orange County Supervisor Pat Bates has now entered into the fray, and she has offered a truly bizarre reason for extending the 241 to Trestles in today’s “Orange Grove” column in The Register. You just have to see it to believe it:

The spectacular truck crash and fire that destroyed a freeway overpass leading from the Bay Bridge in San Francisco last month should be a wake-up call for Orange County. Today the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway is the only major roadway in and out of south Orange County. The lack of alternate routes through this area has long been frustrating. But, as the East San Francisco Bay Area has learned, it can also be dangerous.

As reported recently in The Orange County Register, if a similar traffic accident were to occur at the El Toro “Y,” south county would be virtually cut off. Should a freeway accident occur further south, there are even fewer options. In San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, roadway options are limited to the I-5 or city streets.

The Orange County toll road system is nearly complete, but the final 16-mile stretch of the Foothill (241) Toll Road, intended to connect with the I-5 Freeway just south of San Clemente, still needs to be built. This roadway would not only offer commuters an alternative to increasing daily traffic, but an escape route during emergencies.

HUH?! How the heck would a toll road to Trestles help South County in the event of an emergency? Follow me after the flip as I try to make sense of Pat Bates’ bizarre “logic”…

OK, so let’s go through all these points that Pat Bates is making. And let’s try to separate fact from fiction here:

Some opponents to this traffic relief alternative say we should just widen the I-5, but, as we saw in the Bay Area, no matter how wide the freeway is, if it ever is shut down, alternatives are needed.

The final section of the 241, known as Foothill South, has been on the county’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways since 1981. It has gone through two separate environmental impact studies and, when built, will be one of the most environmentally sensitive roadways in the state.

OK, I’m getting really sick of having to repeat myself here. I think most of us now want to see the 241 completed. I just don’t see why state law has to be violated in order to build a toll road through a state park. There are clearly better options for extending the 241. How about extending the 241 to the 5/73 Interchange in Laguna Niguel, which would actually take people to where they want to go? And while we’re at it, how about a more comprehensive solution for relieving Orange County traffic that includes more Metrolink and OCTA bus service?

But anyways, back to Pat Bates. Here’s more of what she has to say:

This roadway will have a state-of-the-art water-treatment system that will ensure all the initial water runoff, water that contains most typical roadway pollutants like brake-pad dust and motor oil, will be captured and treated. Once the road is built, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) has even agreed to treat the water runoff along a two-mile stretch of the I-5 Freeway near Trestles Beach. Today that water runs straight off the freeway and into the ocean untreated.

TCA also will build wildlife undercrossings so animals can travel throughout that region safely. Future native-habitat mitigation sites are planned and will be similar to the hundreds of acres of habitat throughout south county that TCA has already worked to restore. TCA’s natural-habitat restoration project has gone so well, that gnatcatchers are pairing in record numbers on TCA sites and various other native plants and animals are making a comeback.

Really? Is this why American Rivers named San Mateo Creek as THE MOST ENDANGERED WATERWAY IN AMERICA? Is this why environmental studies have reported that the habitats of the seven endangered species that call San Onofre home WOULD be threatened? Is that why Coastal Commission staffers are so worried about this toll road to Trestles? But I guess so long as Orange County politicians aren’t worried, every thing’s just A-OK.

But wait, Pat Bates’ “argument” gets even more unbelievable!

Orange County residents, businesses and elected officials all understand the importance of traffic relief and the need to connect the 241 to the I-5, but there are several politicians who have attempted to usurp our local decision-making ability. Last month, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, introduced Assembly Bill 1457 to stop the building of Foothill South. Last week, Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, introduced an amendment to a congressional defense bill, and a House committee approved it, that would give the state of California authority to stop the toll road, even though it is planned for federal, not state, property.

Since 1991, the TCA has been working with five federal government agencies and six state agencies in addition to local and regional organizations to obtain the many permits and approvals needed to build this final 16-mile connector road. Despite what some politicians think, more government is not the answer to completing our regional transportation network.

Ooh, Jared Huffman! We should be so scared. But really, his legislation can’t even make it through the Legislature, let along get a signature from Arnold. That won’t stop the toll road from being built. And all Susan Davis’ amendment to the federal defense authorization bill would do is require TCA to obey state law in extending the toll road. Now if TCA really were obeying the law on building this toll road, then they shouldn’t be worried about having to comply with the law.

So yes, traffic in South County is horrendous. That’s why we need a comprehensive plan to relieve traffic here, such as the one recently proposed by OCTA. We should enhance the 5, but we certainly shouldn’t stop there. Let’s also expand Metrolink service in the area, and let’s add some more express bus lines to make it easier for South County commuters to access train service. And oh yes, while we’re at it, why don’t we make new communities in South County “smart communities” that are designed for an easy commute to everywhere we need to go?

So yes, South County needs traffic relief… So why not something that actually DOES THAT? : )