Notes from NRC Meeting

On Sept. 26, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff held a public meeting in Carlsbad. The purpose was to discuss the decommissioning process for nuclear power reactors, including the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant.

Mission Viejo residents in attendance included Joe Holtzman, who forwarded a recap of the meeting. The following summary was written by Roger Johnson, who has pressed Southern California Edison for answers on safety issues at San Onofre.

Notes on the NRC public meeting at the Costa Omni Resort in Carlsbad, Thursday Sept. 26 6-9 PM
by R. Johnson

This was a typical NRC meeting: a moderator, 4 featured speakers (one who made 2 presentations), and a dozen other NRC officials who occupied the entire center section of the front row (a number of them gave extensive comments during the public question phase).  The NRC once again chose a plush resort and a huge banquet room which probably seated over 1000.  The NRC claims to have selected this distant site because they could not find anything suitable in Orange County.  Some said they wanted the meeting at this distant site to reduce public attendance.  The AC was cranked up making the room frigid (perhaps 60 degrees) and uncomfortable.  I am guessing that there were about 200 in attendance, perhaps 75 when the evening ended. Although this was a good crowd, it appeared small in this huge room. The NRC said they expected more, but perhaps they were delighted at a smaller crowd which they could interpret as a lack of public interest.  The meeting reminded me of one of the 18 grievances against King George written into the Declaration of Independence, namely that inconvenient meetings were called by the Crown in distant and cold places in order to suppress attendance.

The NRC had a table in the lobby full of NRC documents about decommissioning.  One color pamphlet is called the Decommissioning Process.  There are before and after aerial photos on the cover (and inside) showing nuclear power plants before and after they were demolished.  The “after” photos show a green field. The NRC now uses the term Greenfield to mean site restoration.  They also made it a verb: Greenfielding.  This term was used often during the evening apparently in a public relations/marketing effort to make it appear that former highly radioactive sites could be made pristine. Before the meeting started, the NRC had a slide show showing other before and after photos.  One disturbing series of photos showed the Maine Yankee containment domes being blown up, reduced to rubble, and then planted over. The photos remind me of the contaminated and bulldozed town of Uravan, Colorado, which is now a "Greenfield."  One wonders why they would show that unless they planned to do the same thing at San Onofre.

The meeting began with happy talk and rules by the moderator, and the first half of the meeting was monopolized by the speakers and their power point presentations.  As usual, the focus was on the bureaucratic procedures of the NRC rather than on the substance of decommissioning.  Few details were given other than lengthy lists of NRC rulings which had to be followed in a particular order.  During the public questions phase, speakers gave lengthy answers and often passed the microphone back and forth so that many NRC officials could respond to the same question.  The net result was that time ran out and many in the audience could never get recognized.  I was sitting in the second row center and waved my hand for an hour and was ignored the entire evening.

The first speaker was Larry Camper who boasted that the NRC decommissioning team had 300 years of cumulative experience in decommissioning. They have decommissioned 50 materials sites, 13 research reactors, 11 nuclear power plants (NPP), about 80 in total.  He made it clear that the licensee (Edison) had the right to choose whether to decommission the site for unrestricted use (for any purpose) or restricted use (still partly contaminated).  He said that all decommissionings so far have been unrestricted.  He said their goal was to end up with contamination levels no higher than 25 mrem AND as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).  This was scary and unclear but not questioned.  All their technospeak may boil down to the fact that they have a procedure which says that they don’t have to do what is safe, they only have to do whatever is practical and easy to achieve (for them).

The second speaker was Bruce Watson who went into many of the rulings such as 10 CFRPart20Subpart E. He says that Edison will have 60 years to complete the process, up to 50 in SAFSTOR and 10 in DECOM.  The radioactive waste has to be reduced only by 90%, not 100%.  He made the incredible statement that they liked to go slow and stretch out the process in order to allow the decommissioning trust funds to remain invested so that interest would compound and generate more money over time.  Edison will produce a PSDAR report about costs and environmental impacts.  This plan must be submitted, but it does not require any approval by the NRC.  A final License Termination Plan LTP must be approved by the NRC.  Edison has until June 7, 2015, to submit their plan but Edison says it hopes to submit it earlier.

The third speaker (and 5th speaker) was Dr. Blair Spitzberg whose specialty is fuel safety. He carelessly stated that spent fuel has to go into cooling pools for “several years.”  Regular fuel needs to be cooled in pools for 5 years and the Hi Burn fuel that Edison has been using since 1996 requires 12-15 years.  It was unclear whether Dr. Spitzberg’s goal was to deceive the public about this crucial issue or to trivialize it (or both).  He stated that San Onofre has two types of dry casks which are certified for transport:  24PT1 and 24PT4.  They also have another type not yet certified (but Edison has applied for transport certification).  This is all mute because there is nowhere for any of it to go, at least during our lifetime. He said that the exact number of dry casks is secret information but it can be found on storefuel.com (if someone finds these data here please circulate).  He said there were 55 canisters at San Onofre as of Dec. 2012.  

Here are 2 more alarming statements Dr. Spitzberg made:  First, he referred to a category called “High Risk Activities” with no explanation.  If part of decommissioning involves high risk radiological activities, this should be disclosed to the public as to when they occur and what part of the public takes the risk if something goes wrong.  Second, when talking about contaminated waste, he mentioned that “MOST” contaminated waste is taken out of state, implying that some contaminated waste is taken to other parts of California.  Since there are no radioactive contamination waste disposal sites in California, presumably he means that it is dumped in landfills?

Also discussed was Unit #1 which is not completely decommissioned because the reactor vessel remains on site. Attempts were made to barge it through the Panama Canal to a Class C (highly contaminated) site in South Carolina but there was political opposition by the countries involved plus the fact that the barge would move so slowly that it would tie up traffic.  Attempts to route it around South America were blocked by Argentina.  The “solution” is to leave it at San Onofre for the time being (meaning probably decades) which makes San Onofre a Class C radioactive waste storage facility.  The “plan” is to wait until it is time to move reactor vessels (the largest component needing removal) for Units 2 and 3, and then deal with them all at the same time.  Since these are too large and too dangerous to ship by truck or rail, they hope that many years from now a solution will somehow become apparent.   It looks like a long time before #1 will get a LTP.

Some other tidbits about #1 which came up (also in Q and A) include the fact that Edison never removed the large discharge pipe into the ocean.  They decided that there would be more radioactive contamination to the ocean by removing it than leaving it there (presumably contaminated), not to mention the fact that doing nothing is always cheaper and easier. If they knew before they built this pipe that it would be too dangerous ever to remove, why was it ever allowed to be built? This shows the same dangerous strategy of the NRC: build things first without concern for consequences and put off safety considerations as long as possible.

There was also discussion of a leak of radioactive liquid waste being shipped to Clive, Utah, from #1.  It was discovered at a truck stop in Utah.  Teams went in and patched it up and the NRC claims that no one was hurt.  Later I cornered the staff member who said that asked if he meant that the radioactivity didn’t harm anyone during the few days after the accident and he admitted that this is what he meant.  I asked how they could possibly know if anyone was harmed since it would take at least 5 years for cancer to appear if someone inhaled radioactivity.  He agreed that it was possible and they really don’t know if anyone was harmed even though they make claims to that effect.

Speaker #4 was Michael Dusaniwskyj, an economist.  He said there was currently $1.7 billion in trust funds for unit #2 and $1.9 billion for #3. He said that $295 million remained earning interest for Unit 1 of which they expect to spend $206 million.  No mention of where the unused $89 million will go.  Back to the ratepayers who have been paying for this since 1968?

Gene Stone opened the Q&A period with a request for having a citizen group called Coalition to Decommission San Onofre officially be a part of the decommissioning process.  The NRC replied briefly that they would think about it.  Another question from this group was whether residents would be warned of any activities which might lead to environmental contamination.  The answer was no, residents would not be warned.  The NRC bureaucratic answer was that all such activities would be treated exactly the same way as the current procedures for low-level radioactive waste disposal.  It was asserted that all such waste disposal would be carefully documented and eventually appear in public records.  The current procedure is to wait about a year and then make quarterly reports about radioactive waste disposal into the air and ocean.  The waste discharges are averaged over 90-day periods. NRC regulations carefully state that these averages must not exceed permissible levels (it is always what is permitted, not what is safe). In this way, a large release on the beginning of a quarter could be averaged with 89 days of no releases and the records would clearly indicate a low permissible average dose.  The public will never know before such releases occur and they will also never know the dates and concentrations of releases even a year later.  The only way to know is to install real time publically accessible monitoring, a subject which never came up in spite of all the expressed concern for transparency and public safety. Supposedly there will be a lot of radioactive monitoring by Edison and the NRC, but it will all be secret information.

Much of the discussions involved the problems caused by the use of Hi Burn fuel which is much hotter, much more radioactive, and requires about triple the amount of time in cooling pools.  The NRC could not answer exactly how decisions were made (and kept from the public) about the switch in fuels.  They could not answer questions about the dangers of dry cask storage for this fuel.  Dr. Spitzberg admitted that Hi Burn fuel required more time in cooling pools but he did not know how much longer. At one point he said it might be 7 years (half the time that other experts cite).  The NRC was quick to blame the Dept. of Energy and national politics for the failure to have any permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. They were happy to talk at length about this problem involving other parties.  They maintain that they are blameless and can do nothing about it.

Many people in the audience made articulate statements of concern coupled with questions which were often brushed aside.  Some mayors and city council members weighed in.  One interesting speaker was Patrick Christman, Assistant Chief of Staff at Camp Pendleton who was involved in environmental protection for the camp.  He later told me that the Marines were concerned about the radiological dangers but considered themselves mostly observers. He was not aware that San Onofre might be a major target for terrorists, and he was not aware of the newly funded cancer streak study which will be carried out by the National Academy of Sciences in the next 2 years (all of Camp Pendleton will be part of the study).

There was only one pro-nuclear comment from the audience.  This came from a representative of the Chamber of Commerce who was outraged that the general public was allowed to weigh in at all.  He suggested that the NRC should stop wasting its time listening to the public and make all the decisions on its own.  The NRC gave him effusive thanks for his comments.  I suppose everyone knows that Edison has contributed heavily to every Chamber of Commerce in most of Southern California.

I was disappointed that there were almost no questions or discussion of the disposal of low-level waste (everything that is not the fuel rods).  Will they blow up the containment domes as they did in Oregon and Maine (think of all the contaminated particulate blown into the air and settling in the ocean and on our rooftops).  Will they bulldoze contamination and let it stay?  Will they let everything underground stay, contaminated or not?  If Class A waste goes to Clive, Utah, what will be the route for the thousands of trucks? What safety precautions will they take?  We assume Class C waste will go to Texas (how?) but what falls into Class B and where will it go?  Who makes these classifications and how can they be trusted?  Will they try to classify contaminated waste as less than A so it can go into EPA designated hazwaste sites or into landfills?  How much of San Onofre will end up at the landfill off Ortega Highway, and how much will somehow end up in the ocean?  Will they leave forever the 18-ft diameter 1500-ft long into the ocean?  This pipe has been carrying liquid radioactive waste for a third of a century.  Will the public be notified on days of “high risk” demolition? They have hazmat suits but we don’t.  What about the 3 upwind schools only 2 miles away? What about the surfers? 

Two low points stuck out for me.  First was the discussion about the safety of the spent fuel pools.  The NRC went on and on about how it had a 5/8 inch steel lining, walls 4 feet thick, and a foundation 3 feet thick, and it was way above sea level (19.75 feet to be exact).  Therefore, it would be impervious to earthquakes and tsunamis.  When asked about safety from above, perhaps by terrorist attacks, the question was cut off and never answered.  When pressed about drone attacks and terrorism, Bruce Watson dragged out the old study claiming that an airplane could crash into the containment dome and not cause it to collapse.  He would not respond to attacks on the fuel pools or dry cask storage and used the NRC line that San Onofre was just as safe as any other nuclear power plant in the country.  (Which is true because all of them are unsafe.)  I am familiar with the National Academy of Sciences special study about the vulnerability of NPP to terrorism and the research done by Sandia Labs about 9/11 type plane crashes.  Privately he admitted that such crashes or missile attacks or any high explosives might lead to catastrophe if they targeted the pools or dry casks (which is why the NRC only talks about containment dome safety).  I told them that the Sandia Labs also found that a truck bomb exploding at a NPP perimeter a few hundred feet from a fuel pool would likely cause a catastrophe.  He did not know this.  But he did know that the fuel pools and openly stored dry casks are about 200 feet from public road Old Pacific Highway and about 300 ft from Interstate 5.  Everyone knows that NPP designed in the 1960s were never designed to protect against terrorism.  The NRC pretends that no such attacks are likely and it is the Pentagon’s problem, not theirs.

The other low point was the last question from Pete Dietrich, Edison chief nuclear engineer.  He complained about the continual reference to “Greenfield” status which suggested that Edison would have to make the site pretty when they leave.  When pressed, the NRC said that the site would not have to be returned to a “Greenfield” which pleased the public.  They only had to please the US Navy, the owner.  The bottom line is that Edison has to do only what is acceptable to the Navy, perhaps what one might find at a military base used as an artillery range. This is a clue as to what we can expect from Edison.

Lincoln Club Endorses Ming

Two candidates are competing in the Fifth District to replace Pat Bates on the OC Board of Supervisors when she terms out in 2014. Laguna Niguel Mayor Robert Ming has announced his candidacy, and Mission Viejo Councilman Frank Ury appears to be running.

Two weeks ago, Ming was endorsed by the Lincoln Club of Orange County. A press release clarifies the group’s rationale. "Robert Ming embodies the principles the Lincoln Club stands for," said Wayne Lindholm, club President. "Robert is a true conservative dedicated to limited government, low taxes, free enterprise, individual liberty, and personal responsibility." http://www.robertming.com/lincoln-club-of-orange-county-endorses-ming-for-supervisor/

After Ming received the endorsement, a political consultant barking for Ury wrote a hit piece against the Lincoln Club. While the contest has barely begun, Ming and Ury have already defined their campaign styles. Following is a response by a member of the Lincoln Club after it was attacked.

The Lincoln Club Endorses Robert Ming: The Right Thing Done in the Right Way
by: Lincoln Club member David Bahnsen

Matt Cunningham has posted a bizarre piece over at OCPolitical expressing his dismay at the Lincoln Club’s decision to endorse Robert Ming for the OC Supervisor’s seat in the 5th District. It is bizarre because Matt expresses a long-held admiration for the club, and then says he has never “been more disappointed in one of the club’s actions than its endorsement of Robert Ming”. He later in the article says it is not about Robert Ming, but about the process by which the club gave the endorsement. A few comments are in order.

Matt is not a member of the Lincoln Club, and to my knowledge never has been. He is certainly not in the club’s leadership, was not at the board meeting in question, and is not in any position to know or understand what the club did, or what its policies and protocols are. He is welcome to endorse Frank Ury, and he is welcome to work for that candidate’s campaign (though I do not know if he does or not). Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

The Lincoln Club is free to endorse who it wants, when it wants, and it is not accountable to political bloggers or political consultants. In fact, we would be happier if political consultants were ALWAYS upset with what we were doing, for surely it would mean our cause would be righteous. But I digress … The club, is, however, accountable to its own bylaws. In this case, the club went above and beyond the call of duty in fidelity to our own rules and regulations. Our Executive Committee met prior to the board’s consideration of an endorsement and unanimously voted, on the merits, to endorse Robert Ming in the Supervisor’s race. The club requires a 75% super-majority of its Board of Directors to endorse a Republican candidate when there are other Republican candidates in the race. In this case, because Frank Ury entered the race, a Board vote was required for Mr. Ming to receive our endorsement. The club has run into these situations numerous times over the years, and we have sometimes voted to provide an endorsement in a contested race (Shawn Nelson comes to mind in a previous Supervisor’s race) and sometimes voted not to (DeYoung/Bates, Spitzer/Pauley, and a dozen other non-supervisor races). These decisions have always happened according to protocol – our own internal protocol, not ones dictated to us by the blogosphere. The process has barely ever involved candidates coming to speak to the club. There have been instances where that was deemed necessary or fruitful, but those instances are the exception, not the rule. Robert Ming was asked to leave the room while the Board discussed the proposed endorsement. Our board is not filled with political novices and ignoramuses. We know the candidates and have relationships with those whose candidacy we are asked to consider. Robert Ming is probably the easiest endorsement vote I have cast in my entire time as leader in the Lincoln Club. He is everything the club stands for: The epitome of fiscal responsibility, a devoted family man, a competent leader and business professional, a man of faith and conviction, and contra 99% of those you will ever see mentioned on a OC political blog, he is an astute and philosphically-inclined student of political thought. Our club would be blessed to have HIS endorsement of us. Robert has served in our committees for over a decade and as an elected leader in Laguna Niguel is very well-known to the club and its leadership.

Frank Ury may or may not be a number of the things that Matt Cunningham says he is. The point is that our club feels so strongly about the qualifications and abilities of Robert Ming that we unanimously voted to endorse him. Matt says that we were two votes short. Again, this misnomer could have been easily cleared up had Matt done any homework. Our bylaws require a 75% threshold for endorsement; in Robert’s case, we got 100%. To the extent that there were some absent board members at the meeting, we secured the votes of absent members after the fact (so as to leave no doubt about the board’s commitment to its chosen path). This is also very common in our history and practice.

The reality is that it is none of Matt’s business how we conduct our business. We are a private organization and are under no obligation to defend ourselves to him. Only Matt can speak to what his real agenda is here in this unjustified attack on the Lincoln Club. As a matter of defending our public record I have chosen to reply to clear up the blatant falsehoods uttered in his piece. We were faithful to our own bylaws, faithful to our own traditions, and in this case, took an action supported by every single board member present at the meeting (as well as the Executive Committee which met two days prior). Our actions amount to the vanilla task of endorsing a candidate we consider to be one of OC’s conservative stars.

The club is on solid footing in its endorsement of Robert Ming. All over the county the buzz is growing for Robert’s candidacy as his endorsements continue to mount. We are proud of this endorsement and hope all Orange County residents will look at what Robert stands for when they consider the options in this race.

David L. Bahnsen, CFP®, CIMA® is a Managing Director at Morgan Stanley, one of the leading investment banks and wealth management firms in the world. Read the entire post, including additional information about Bahnsen’s professional credentials and extensive background in finance at http://ocpoliticsblog.com/lincoln-club-member-affirms-ming-endorsement-and-hammers-cunningham/

State Sen. Mark Wyland Responds

On Aug. 26, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey filed a $10-million lawsuit against State Sen. Mark Wyland. Both are competing for a seat on the California Board of Equalization. News of the lawsuit broke on Sept. 16 http://calwatchdog.com/2013/09/16/harkey-files-5-million-lawsuit-against-fellow-state-lawmaker/

From the FlashReport, Wyland answers Harkey’s claims.

Wyland’s Response to Harkey’s Lawsuit Posted by State Sen. Mark Wyland at 6:41 am on Sep 25, 2013

Diane Harkey has sued me for defamation and emotional distress. The comments upon which she has based the suit were spoken in response to a question at a political gathering. She claims that she suffered emotional distress over the following response: “Unfortunately, there has been a lawsuit brought by a lot of investors of modest means against her and her husband for defrauding them…there was a decision that those investors were defrauded and there is a judgment…”

In her recent newsletter, Harkey referred to her husband as “..a successful Orange County businessman” who has had to “…contend with predatory lawsuits…” She further has claimed that the plaintiffs tried to use her status as a California elected official to “…garner press for their actions.” In other words, Harkey has identified the plaintiffs in at least one lawsuit against her husband, Dan, as predators and has further accused them of maliciously including her in the lawsuit simply to gain publicity. These are astounding charges against me and against severely damaged investors who have suffered substantial losses from investments made through Dan Harkey’s company—and many of them are her constituents.

I made the statement that both Diane and Dan Harkey were defendants in a lawsuit brought by investors in which they were accused of fraud. This was and is a true statement. I also made the statement that investors were defrauded as found in a judgment. Actually, the jury rendered a series of verdicts in which both Dan Harkey and his company were held liable for damages ($10+million and punitive damages) for elder financial abuse, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. While the verdict is in (so to speak), the judgment has yet to be entered. That does not make my statement either inaccurate or defamatory.

Diane Harkey may wish to parse words and quibble over the accuracy of a few words spoken by me in a political gathering—and then claim “emotional” injury. The substance of my comment was accurate; the extent of her “emotional” injury questionable. By contrast, the investors in Diane’s husband’s company suffered real monetary damages. Her concerns over the actions of her husband and for the investors are summarized in her characterization of the investors as “predators.” I understand Diane’s efforts to deflect public attention from the injuries to investors caused by her husband and the company by claiming to having been defamed in my remarks. That’s politics. I don’t understand how she can characterize investors who have been found by a jury to have been harmed by her husband’s actions to have been acting as “predators.” It demonstrates an indifference to the fates of investors who entrusted their money to Dan Harkey and his company. That attitude does not augur well for Diane’s efforts on the part of the public interest. Diane, I will not be bullied by your lawsuit against me and I will continue to fight for the victims of elder abuse and fraud.

http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2013/09/25/wylands-response-to-harkeys-lawsuit/

Non-government Events

Following is a sampling of events and activities that are not funded by taxpayers or promoted by the Nanny State. Please support private enterprise and non-profit groups.

Mount of Olives Church, “Stretch & Pray,” Wed., Oct. 2, 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., meets Wednesdays in The ROCK http://moochurch.org/stretch . On Oct. 6 (first Sunday of each month) bring food for the SHARE Food Drive, http://moochurch.org/share . Mount of Olives Church, 24772 Chrisanta Drive, Mission Viejo, (949) 837-7467, http://www.moochurch.org/

Big Bucks Bingo, Wednesdays, 6:15 p.m. early bird and 6:45 p.m. regular games, Mission Viejo Elks Lodge, Marguerite and La Paz, Mission Viejo, 949-830-3557. 
http://www.mvelks.com/

O’Neill’s Sunday Brunch, Sun., Oct. 6, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Live jazz, R&B, soul and vocals. Enjoy Belgium waffles, gourmet salad bar, carved meats, hot entrees and assorted desserts. O’Neill’s Bar and Grill, 26772 Avery Parkway, Mission Viejo, (949) 305-5100, http://www.arroyotrabuco.com/oneills.aspx

Concordia University, “Fall Festival of Hymns 2013,” Sun., Oct. 6, 3:00 p.m., featuring Dr. David Cherwien, composer and organist, 1530 Concordia West, Irvine, (949) 854-8002, http://www.cui.edu/AcademicPrograms/Undergraduate/Music/tabid/302/ctl/Details/Mid/2322/I temID/161/Default.aspx

La Vida Drum Circle, Fri., Oct. 18, 7:00 – 10:00 p.m., group meets on the evening of every full moon (Oct. 18, Nov. 17, Dec. 17, etc.). Drummers should bring their drums. Firewood is appreciated for the bonfire, Aliso Beach, Aliso and Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, (949) 275-7544, http://www.lavidalaguna.com/things-we-dig/

Lake Eerie at Lake Mission Viejo, Fri.-Sat., Oct. 18-19, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Halloween activities, food and entertainment, balloon artist and Star Wars Light Saber Show. Lake members and their guests, (949) 770-1313, http://www.lakemissionviejo.org/

St. Kilian’s Recycling Drive, Sat., Oct. 19, 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, held on the third Saturday of each month. Organized by Knights of Columbus; acceptable items include aluminum, paper and plastic. No glass or cardboard. Lower parking lot, 26872 Estanciero Drive, Mission Viejo, (949) 472-1249, http://www.stkilianchurch.org

Soka University concert, Pacific Symphony, Sun., Oct. 20, 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Soka Performing Arts Center, 1 University Drive, Aliso Viejo, (949) 480-4278, http://www.performingarts.soka.edu

Political and Government Events Calendar

Orange County Board of Supervisors will hold a regular meeting on Tues., Oct. 1, 9:30 a.m., Board Hearing Room, First Floor, 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, (714) 834-3100. http://ocgov.com/cals/?ViewBy=7&CalDate=1/15/2013&EventDateID=89649

Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees will hold a Special Board Meeting on Tues., Oct. 1. The next regular board meeting will be on Tues., Oct. 9, 7:00 p.m., district office, 33122 Valle Road, San Juan Capistrano. Agenda and supporting documentation are published on the website 72 hours prior to a meeting, (949) 234-9200, http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/

SOC912, Fri., Oct. 4, 6:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. Guest speaker Dr. Jamie Glazov will present information on the Islamic/Muslin Brotherhood Caliphate. Norm Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission Viejo. A $5 donation at the door will help pay for costs; free to first-time visitors and young people through age 24. http://www.meetup.com/SOC912/events/137078642/

Nixon Library concert on Sun., Oct. 6, pianist Ann Patrick Green. Doors open at 1:30 and the concert begins at 2:00 p.m. On Mon., Nov. 4, 7:00 p.m., “Meet Ann Coulter,” Distinguished Speakers Series Lecture and Book Signing, 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, (714) 364-1120, http://nixonfoundation.org

Saddleback Valley Unified School District regular board meeting on Tues., Oct. 8, 6:30 p.m., 25631 Peter Hartman Way, Mission Viejo, (949) 586-1234, http://www.svusd.k12.ca.us/

OC Veterans Advisory Council, Wed., Oct. 9, 6:00 p.m. The council meets on the second Wednesday of each month. Veterans Service Office, Conference Room A/B, 1300 S. Grand Ave., Building B, Santa Ana, https://cms.ocgov.com/gov/occr/occs/veterans/advisory/default.asp

Santa Margarita Water District meetings: Engineering Committee on Fri., Oct. 11, 7:30 a.m.; Finance Committee on Fri., Oct. 18, 7:30 a.m.; Board of Directors on Wed., Oct. 23, at 7:00 p.m., 26111 Antonio Parkway, Rancho Santa Margarita, (949) 459-6420, http://www.smwd.com

Moulton Niguel Water District meetings: Engineering and Operations on Mon., Oct. 14, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.; Finance and Information Technology on Wed., Oct. 16, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.; Board of Directors on Thurs., Oct. 17, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., MNWD Main Office, 27500 La Paz Road, Laguna Niguel, (949) 831-2500, http://mnwd.com/board-of-directors-2/

Mission Viejo Chapter of ACT! for America will hold a General Meeting on Mon., Oct. 14. Doors open at 6:45 p.m. The meeting starts promptly at 7:30 p.m. and ends at 9:30 p.m., at the Norman P. Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission Viejo. The organization meets on the second Monday of the month.

Capistrano Valley Republican Women Federated, Wed., Oct. 16, 9:00 a.m., at the Marbella Country Club, 30800 Golf Club Drive, San Juan Capistrano. CVRWF meets on third Wednesdays. Call (949) 496-2525 for reservations, http://cvrwf.org

Saddleback Republican Assembly, Thurs., Oct. 17, 7:00 p.m. Program will be a roundtable discussion of problems and solutions. SRA meets on third Thursdays (except in July, August and September) at the Norman P. Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Jacaranda Room-B, Mission Viejo. For information call (949) 769-1412.

SOC912, Fri., Oct. 18, 6:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m., Norm Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission Viejo. A $5 donation at the door will help pay for costs; free to first-time visitors and young people through age 24. http://www.meetup.com/SOC912/events/137078642/

The Buzz

Save the date, Mon., Oct. 14, for the next general meeting of the Mission Viejo chapter of ACT for America. Guest speaker will be Nonie Darwish, author and human rights activist. The program topic is “Understanding the Turmoil in Syria and Egypt, an Egyptian-American’s perspective on the Arab Winter.” The group meets at the Norman P. Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission Viejo. Doors open at 7:00 p.m., and the meeting starts promptly at 7:30 p.m. A $5 donation is appreciated to help cover meeting costs.

***

SOC912 will meet on Fri., Oct. 4, 7:00 p.m. at the Norm Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission Viejo. From the announcement, “For this meeting, Dr. Jamie Glazov will be our speaker. He will shed some light on the Islamic/Muslim Brotherhood Caliphate, but his main focus (and field of study) will be on why the Left paves the way for these enemies of America and the American way of life. This is another topic we all need to know more about, something the mainstream media will not discuss. Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in history with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. He is host of Frontpage's TV talk show, The Glazov Gang.  His specialty is the Left's veneration (great respect; reverence) of the West's totalitarian adversaries. His latest book is High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown. Frontpage Magazine is part of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.”

***

Is it true one of the five candidates for the 73rd Assembly District seat is dropping out? As of this writing, no official announcement can be found. The office is held by Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, who is terming out in 2014. The candidates are Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Jesse Petrilla, Dana Point Councilman Bill Brough, Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Steve Baric, Capistrano school district trustee Anna Bryson and former Laguna Niguel Councilman Paul Glaab.

***

The 2013 California Republican Party Fall Convention is Oct. 4-6 in Anaheim. Featured speakers will be Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon and Republican National Committee Co-Chair Sharon Day. The Tea Party California Caucus will be present during the convention. Tea Party leader Leslie Eastman stated in a Sept. 29 post, “No matter how much the elite media and establishment politicos want to kill off the Tea Party, it seems that we citizen activists refuse to roll over and die.”

***

This article nails it: “Orange County’s most powerful men and women are using our local governments, our county government and ballot measures to make us all pay for what developers ought to be paying for. This is why these people run for water district boards, school boards, city councils, and the Board of Supervisors, but it doesn’t stop there. Many of these folks are not elected officials, but they work for electeds, they get appointed to public commissions, and they work as lobbyists and consultants. It is all a big scam. They have effectively gamed the system, and the voters, for the most part, have no idea what is really going on.” Read the article and the names – many of whom are cheerleaders for their guy, Frank Ury, who hopes to win a seat on the OC Board of Supervisors. http://ocpoliticsblog.com/the-powerful-people-that-run-the-o-c-arent-serving-the-public/

***

During the Sept. 16 council meeting, a Mission Viejo resident presented information on how much compensation OC firefighters receive. Stephen Wontrobski reported his own research indicating the lowest annual compensation for OCFA firefighters is $212,000. This is in stark contrast to claims by such housing developers as Steadfast, who say firefighters qualify for affordable housing. Wontrobski’s figures help to explain why firefighters aren’t lining up for affordable housing. Firefighters probably are not living at home with their parents, sharing an apartment with multiple unrelated people or trying to “move up” to a condo in Lennar’s affordable housing project at Jeronimo and Los Alisos.

***

During council comments at the Sept. 16 council meeting, Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht informed the public that Councilman Frank Ury had violated the Brown Act. She said, “Frank Ury on Sept. 3, under Agenda Item No. 8, after Larry Gilbert concluded his public comments, challenged me with the following statement. Mr Ury stated in part:   ‘… the reality is I am simply trying to point out that if you go on and on saying that there is a constitution issue or there is a Brown Act issue, whatever it might be, which we have done and we have heard many times, I am just waiting for one of those times while I am up here, to be proven correct.’

“Well, Mr. Ury, 88 days ago there was indeed a Brown Act violation committed by both yourself and Rhonda Reardon. Brown Act violations are hard to prove because most violations committed are in the form of verbal communications. The nature of your violation and Rhonda’s violation was a vote by e-mail to accept the city clerk minutes as written.   

“In open session, on June 17, Item No. 2, I had challenged the completeness of my statements as shown for the June 3, 2013, minutes. It was my belief that they were politically written. The next day, June 18, the city clerk forwarded to all council members, including the city manager and the city attorney, what I considered an unbalanced sound bite to support the official minutes to which both Mr. Ury responded with ‘I am fine with minutes as approved,’ and Mayor Reardon responded with ‘The minutes accurately reflect Councilmember Schlicht’s comments. I will not be changing my vote.’

“Those two e-mail communications broadcasted to all council members, signaling a direction to the City Clerk, was and is a flagrant violation of the Brown Act. I am not going to request a demand to cure or correct, because I cured that unlawful conduct by transcribing my own comments in full and adding those verbatim minutes to the record.  At that time, it was my decision not to expose your violations – as I was the target – I was satisfied that the record was corrected with my verbatim minutes. Now the public could decide for themselves if the Official Minutes properly reflected my comments or not.     

“The Brown Act is a cornerstone for open and transparent government. Attorney General Opinion from 2001 (84 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.30) states that board members of a local agency may not e-mail each other to develop a collective concurrence as to an action to be taken by the board without violating the Brown Act even if the emails are sent to the secretary and chairperson of the agency. Frank Ury and Rhonda Reardon violated our open meeting laws when they sent out an e-mail to the entire council. My comments and the backup material to support this breach of state law will be given to the City Clerk for the Public Record.”

To Comment on any of our articles this week please email us by clicking on this link. All emails will be held in the strictest confidence. If you want you comment considered for publication, please put “Publish” in the subject.