Public Watchdogs finds “FAULTS” in $12 million seismic study of earthquake risk at SONGS

A Public Advocate and a Geologist are singing a sour note
over the  publicly funded $12 million study of earthquake

risks at SONGS, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

The study, which appears to assert that the beach is a safe

location for the construction of what will be the largest

privately owned nuclear waste dump in the USA**, has

the consumer group Public Watchdogs all shook up.

According to executive director, Charles Langley, “Ratepayers

should be quaking in rage at the cost of this ridiculous

$12 million study.”

Robert Pope, the Public Watchdogs Geologist says that “the

study delivered an abundance of data, but the conclusions

are faulty.”

The studies, which were made public three days ago on

Southern California Edison’s Website will be the subject of

tonight’s Southern California Edison Community Engagement

meeting in Dana Point at 5:30 PM (get details)

Curiously, Edison’ report identifies their “preferred conclusions,”
suggesting that there other alternative conclusions that were

ignored. According to Pope, “I’ve never seen a ‘preferred
conclusion’ used in a scientific papers. It is unusual and suggests
that the authors may have had other conclusions that were
redacted from the final report.”

In addition, the reports also mentions that it was edited by
two anonymous individuals.

Public Watchdogs issued a California Public Research Act

(PRA) request to USCD geology professor Neal Driscoll, one
of the authors of the reports yesterday to identify the anonymous
editors of the report.

“We’re’ skeptical,” say Langley “and look forward to hearing

Southern California Edison’s explanation at its Community
Engagement Panel meeting this evening.”

A copy of Earthquake Bay, the  Public Watchdogs’ response
to the Edison report is available at www.publicwatchdogs.org