E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mark Ralston / AFP - Getty Images
A view of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in north San Diego County is seen in this March 2011 file photo.
The operator of California's troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant proposed Thursday to restart one of the plant's shuttered reactors, despite an outcry from activists who say doing so could be catastrophic.
Southern California Edison filed the proposal with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after concluding a reactor could be operated safely despite damage to scores of its tubes that carry radioactive water.
A plan to return even one reactor to service is a milestone for Southern California Edison, which has spent months unraveling what caused excessive tube vibration and friction inside the plant's nearly new steam generators, then determining how it might be fixed.
But the plant is far from returning to robust operation.
Edison must wait for approval from U.S. nuclear regulators before restarting the unit. Nuclear regulators say there's no timetable to restart the plant, and review of the application could take months. "The agency will not permit a restart unless and until we can conclude the reactor can be operated safely," NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane told Reuters. "Our inspections and review will be painstaking, thorough and will not be rushed."
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
The proposal was immediately denounced by environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists who have argued for months that restarting the plant between San Diego and Los Angeles would set the stage for a catastrophe. About 7.4 million Californians live within 50 miles of San Onofre, which can power 1.4 million homes.
"Both these reactors are alike, and neither is safe to operate," said S. David Freeman, a former head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power who advises Friends of the Earth. "While Edison may be under financial pressure to get one up and running, operating this badly damaged reactor at reduced power without fixing or replacing these leaky generators is like driving a car with worn-out brakes."
Edison wants to operate Unit 2 at 70 percent power, which company officials predicted would prevent vibration that has caused excessive wear to tubing. Company officials expressed confidence in the proposal, which followed more than 170,000 tube inspections over more than eight months.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
In January, the Unit 3 reactor was shut down as a precaution after a tube leak. Unit 2 was taken offline earlier that month. Neither unit has been operational since. The plant's Unit 1 was shut down permanently in 1992.
Federal regulators examined the plant to determine what happened to Unit 3 and how it could have been prevented. While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission commended the staff for their handling of the leak, they expressed concern over the design flaw that caused it.
Southern California Edison also pointed to the high costs of running the plant as a reason for downsizing its staff. Compared to similar plants, the staffing and costs are much higher. The company will also reduce costs by “improving plant processes while fully maintaining all safety commitments,” they stated in August.
This article includes reporting by NBCLosAngeles.com's Lauren Steussy and Reuters.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Almost-Eagle Scout denied award because he is gay
- Somalis 'should leave culture at door' remark by Maine mayor stirs outrage
- 'Business as usual:' Congress asks VA to explain chronic late payments to student vets
- 7 bears killed in Montana after becoming dependant on humans for food
- Philadelphia student wearing Romney shirt told to 'get out of the class'
Leave a Comment:
Well, if Your going to outlaw coal, don't like gas, don't like hydroelectric, don't like windmills, you have to do something.
How about California putting mexicans on a treadmill generator.
When regulators cite a design flaw that led to the initial shutdown, you have to question the sensibility of restarting without redesigning and replacing the damaged tubes.
There's that, Warren, there's that. Got a few too many folks who want all the electric right there 24/7 and 365, but don't like a single one of the options to generate it. Then there's Big Power -- the single most profitable industry in the world -- that wants nothing to do with wind-power and solar. The technology to do away traditional electric is getting there, but it's no overnight deal and will be bitterly opposed by power blocs. Coal and oil fired generators were a blessing compared to the nuclear night-mare that's going on now. Can we say SPENT FUEL RODS, boys & girls, or maybe we'd rather just forget those???
What's the problem? There is going to be a long and drawn out process with tons of bureaucratic red tape and regulatory foot-dragging. Isn't this exactly what liberals want? It just goes to show that nothing will satisify the tree huggers until all "non-green" forms of energy are outlawed and the free markets are crippled.
If there is a design flaw or a problem stemming from improper maintenance then it must be repaired before the reactor is restarted.
Nuclear can be very safe if the plant is sited properly with well trained operators and proper and careful maintenance done in a scheduled fashion but we cant overlook a design problem in the interest of profits or expediency.
I'm a greenie but nuclear power has its place and Id rather it be a nuclear plant than coal fired.
Did anyone see the seawall there. Ever heard of a Tsunami wave? Geez....I can't believe that even tolerates a five foot wave! I used to live in San Diego and drove by it all the time wondering why the hell they were still operating this dinosaur in the middle of a huge population. This is just a nightmare in the making. Its old....time is done. Build a new one on the other side of the 5 away from the ocean. But that would never happen because of the tree huggers.
Why not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv53K9MnDuM&feature=related
Damn hippies. If it weren't for them we might have nuclear fusion reactors by now.
"robust" - The Word of the Month.
Has anyone else noticed it ?
epistemologist
"If there is a design flaw or a problem stemming from improper maintenance then it must be repaired before the reactor is restarted.
Nuclear can be very safe if..."
You bet. It's perfectly safe. Ask anyone on Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, or anyone in Belarus. They'll tell ya..."perfectly safe...if...."
What are these people nuts!!!!! This is not hydro electric plant we're talking about here nuclear power is great until something goes wrong and when that happens it goes very, very wrong......, Has everybody forgotten Three mile island, Chernoble and Japan just a few years ago. This reactor is BROKEN !!!!! The best and safest thing they can do with San Onofre is tear the damn thing down.
Hey Porkchop, obviously your not a nuclear physicist because you think nuclear fusion is simple. If that were the case genius we would have it already......... and what the hell is the hippy comment all about, did you just time travel here from 1965....... I real don't understand why so many people in America suffer from arrested mental and social development.......... Oh wait I just figured it out their called Republicans, that explains their 17th century thinking.
BigAlLasVegas
100% right on!
If cpt Porkchop knew anything about nuclear physics he'd know how ignorant his comment is.
I hate to tell the backwards republicans, but us hippies were right all along about global warming, vietnam, Nixon, freedom, and basically everything.
Obama/Biden 2012 - Romney/Ryan 1040
Unit 2 is the one being restarted. Unit 3 is the one that was leaking. It was leaking because a design flaw caused it to vibrate when run at high speeds (a resonant frequency issue). This isn't like driving a car with worn-out brakes, it's like wearing out your brakes in one car because you drove too fast, then deciding to not drive so fast in your other, undamaged car.
@Starderup
Speaking of Vietnam, who escalated the Vietnam war? Oh right, Lyndon Johnson, the most liberal president of the 20th century. And please don't talk to me about freedom when you can't even get past the 2nd Amendment before calling for draconian changes to the Constitution.
Unit 2 is the one being restarted. Unit 3 is the one that was leaking. It was leaking because a design flaw caused it to vibrate when run at high speeds (a resonant frequency issue). This isn't like driving a car with worn-out brakes, it's like wearing out your brakes in one car because you drove too fast, then deciding to not drive so fast in your other, undamaged car.
That's one way of putting it. Here's the fact of the matter:
In recent months, officials have found unexpected wear on more than 300 tubes that were installed as part of the $671-million replacement of the plant's four steam generators. The new steam generators were installed within the last two years, which made that rate of wear unexpected.
What was even more unusual was the type of wear at Unit 3, which has now also been discovered at Unit 2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said the tubes in Unit 3 were vibrating excessively and rubbing against each other. Initially, they said that the wear occurring at Unit 2 appeared to be different.
But in a statement Wednesday, Edison said it had found "additional minor tube wear" in Unit 2 of a type that is "similar to the type of wear that was seen in Unit 3, but at a very low level." The power company, which operates San Onofre, is conducting additional inspections at Unit 2. San Onofre has been out of commission since Jan. 31, when a tube in Unit 3 sprung a leak, releasing a small amount of radioactive steam...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/more-problems-found-at-san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant.html
Every power generating system has its inherent environmental impact...
The object is to utilize the systems that provide the energy with the least impact...
California has historically chosen to use others power, instead of their utilizing their back-yard...
Bad choices have consequences...
To use a system with known safety concerns, because of economics, is just another bad choice...
Every system devised by man has an impact. In the United States, more people die in automobile accidents every day than have died in nuclear power accidents. The obvious solution would be to set the speed limit at 5 MPH everywhere.
Automobile accidents don't leave large areas of the countryside uninhabitable for generations, poison food and water sources, nor leave hundreds of tons of radioactive waste which remains lethal for 100s of thousands of years...
Neither has any U.S. nuclear power plant
Are you claiming that storing nuclear waste is more harmful to the earth than auto emissions?
Hmm, I thought the newest, safest , tech, used spheres not tubes???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor so we are using old tech....again....
Actually the latest tech doesn't use either pebbles or rods, it's fuel is dissolved into a molten salt that's chemically reprocessed. When doing this the material that needs long term storage is reduced by 99.99% (1/1000 of whats currently made), and it only needs stored for hundreds not thousands of years. Shorter if your willing to spend the energy to put it into a breeder reactor.
You'd think the greenies would be 100% behind Gen IV reactors, their the cleanest form of energy generation on the planet. Nope their "NUKLEAR!!!" so the greenies are against them, even if they would remove coal entiretly along with most other forms of power generation.
The "tube" are in the steam generator. Basically the steam generator takes energy from the main loop and boils water in the secondary loop. Most reactors, new and old use them, BWR excluded.
The spheres your talking about are the fuel used, in like the Pebble Bed design or in Gas reactors.
Also there are multiple gen 4 designs, the fast molten salt reactor is just one. The high temperature gas reactor is another. But if we use fast reactors then we can burn U238 otherwise the best we can do is use natural or enriched uranium and reprocess it, if America will do it in my lifetime.
"...
Also there are multiple gen 4 designs, the fast molten salt reactor is just one. '
The soduin cooled reactor is not new, and ironically, as a matter of fact, in 1958 the sodium cooled reactor at RocketDyne Santa Susana experienced the first nuclear meltdown accident in the country.
The molten salt reactor and the sodium cooled reactor are slightly different. Sodium cooled reactors replace the normal coolant (water) with a molten salt because it has a higher heat capacity and operating temperature.
In a molten salt reactor, the coolant and the fuel are the same thing. This prevents a loss of coolant accident (like Fukishima) because if coolant is lost from the reactor vessel, so id the fuel and the reaction stops. Molten salt reactors (like the LFTR) also offer additional passive layers of protection because most nuclear byproducts are dissolved in the salt and, even if primary containment is lost, would not be dispersed into the environment.
LWRs and BWRs scare the hell out of me. They are a system that wants to meltdown and has to be actively stopped from doing so. I would live right next to a LFTR because it is a system that doesn't want to react, and has to be forced to. Any loss of power or containment and the reaction stops.
This reactor needs to be DECOMMISSIONED.
It has over 1100 tubes that are ready to break. Whereas a normal reactor has 3 worn tubes.
The design of this reactor tube layout was an experiment by Edison and now they don't want to admit their mistake.
They would rather see over 8 million people pay with their lives.
Same type of tubes as Fukishima.
Careful how you say "FIRE UP".
When regulators cite a design flaw that led to the initial shutdown, you have to question the sensibility of restarting without redesigning and replacing the damaged tubes.
It's been closed for a while now. Maybe we should keep it that way.
Screw nuclear power! We the government to get the green energy into place to replace this dangerous venture. It's bad enough we have nuclear ships and subs. We don't need to radiate our landscape, as well! This nuclear power plant is way past its designed lifespan! Did it bring down our electrical rates? No! So what the hell good is it?
Let's cover the whole plant in 25 foot thick concrete and put it out of its misery before it kills Orange County and San Diego!
Booooooo!
Aside from the concept that a good chunk of the country would go into power loss mode? Like it or lump it, the utility companies snuck in and made these menaces a vital part of the power grid...
HEY this ain't glow in the dark paint I am wearing
J,
Interesting story: very early glow-in-the-dark inks and paints had radioactive materials in them.
Heres the "radioactive paint" story if anyone's interested;
http://www.rerowland.com/dial_painters.htm
So did Timex watches. Smoke detectors contain a minute amount of radioactive material as well.
@Bills
They are a vital part of the power grid because they are the only things that can provide enough power to meet demand (without covering half the country in solar panels that is)
The reason they are aging and outdated is because of all the (misplaced) opposition to building new ones, so instead of decommissioning old reactors and replacing with newer, safer and more powerful Gen4 reactor designs we have to keep trying to squeeze more output from the old reactors
CA currently has plans to develop 40 square miles of land into solar farms (some of which is currently protected wildlife reserves) which will produce about 3500mw of power, about enough for half the city of Los Angeles. By comparison 2 modern nuclear plants can provide the same amount of power (3500mw) and take up MUCH less space, and not require any protected land to be developed.
Go Green. Go Nuclear.
Just cover Yellowstone in geothermal tubes; could power half the west coast.
I'm all for green energy, but I understand that we still need coal, oil and Nuclear for a long time. So yes, let's still use Nuclear power, but A DESIGN FLAW? You need to fix that FIRST, before you can power up. This, we will just run it at 70% and it shouldn't happen would scare the hell out of me if I lived near it.
The statement "Company officials predicted..." is enough reason to shut it down for another year or two. Bunch of white shirts who barely know a nuclear reactor from a nut-cracker want to generate MONEY...
Close all the nuclear plants in California and the rest of America.
There are ways to make clean energy without using nuclear plants.
The only reason the government uses nuclear power is because you and I can make it so they have a monopoly on energy.
There are plenty of ways to make free energy.
Better solution, Just closed down California!
There is literally no way to make "free energy"
If AGW is to be believed, then Coal, Oil, and Natural gas plants are far mor dangerous than any nuclear plant.
Solar and Wind are too inconsistent to be used as the only sources of power. Not to mention the vast swaths of land and expensive transmission line overhaul that would be required to make it work
Hydro is only good for certain areas and has its own list of enviornmental concerns.
Geothermal is an interesting idea and it should definitely be explored but it won't be ready for prime-time anytime soon.
Let's face it, if we want to keep having computers connected to the internet so we can make comments on MSNBC news stories, and not completely screw the planet with Global Warming, there really isn't an option other than Nuclear.
"Southern California Edison filed the proposal with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after concluding a reactor could be operated safely despite damage to scores of its tubes that carry radioactive water."
Yeah, that information would sure help me sleep more soundly at night! I hate to think of the potential for environmental disaster just waiting to happen!
We live within 50 miles of San Onofre. It was a bad idea over 40 years ago, it's had problems ever since, and the notion of allowing Edison to push through a partial operation with design flaws still in place just because they're losing money should scare all 7+ million of us living nearby.
It also heats up the water when they dump the sludge in the ocean--that entire surrounding area of the sea is dead.
If DB Akron wants it, I suggest they take the dang thing apart and set it up in Ohio!
We make our own electricity with 55 solar panels on a long, south-facing roof. We sell our extra back to the grid. Sunny southern CA and free electricity, what's not to love??
It's just silly for us to have nuclear when we have so much sun! One good quake--now overdue--and San Onofre becomes a kill zone FOREVER.
Why Not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ2QciCN5Ks&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Confussed-1578043
Why Not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ2QciCN5Ks&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Why not? Simple. It takes more energy (electrical energy) to make the hydrogen than the hydrogen provides. That's why.
Still don't see why so many people just hate Nuclear Power so far it's the only source of energy that provides the most and safest energy out there, nothing matches it in the output of energy that we have today. The new generation of reactors are very safe and cut down on waste. Hell France gets over 70% of their total energy needs from Nuclear power alone. Until you can show me another source of energy that can give us the same amount as Nuclear then shut up please.
Good luck with that, SoCal.
Better git them silver-suits ready.
"radiated men will eat the flesh
of radiated men"
- Charles Bukowski
"Silver people ont the shoreline, very free..."
Yup ...
"Horror grips us
as we watch you die ..."
Go ride the music
The Nuclear Colony,
Living in the Phoenix, Az area we are well aware of the inherent risks and the economic downside of the nuclear generation of electricity. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is situated about 65 miles West of Phoenix. By kw generation capacity its 3 reactors comprise the largest plant in the United States and second only to the four-reactor station near Orly, France. The problem we live with is two fold ... the plant is owned by an invested consortium of electrical 'partners', with Nevada, Colorado, So Cal Edison, Salt River Project and Arizona Public Service, the latter being the contractural operator of the entire facility. At any given time between 70% and 84% of the generated power is sent via the grid to the neighboring states...yet we have the inherent danger of a nuclear event right in our own back yard. Other states get the benefit of safety by distance and we have the physical risk. What's more egregious is that under the various long-term contracts, the power sent out-of-state is purchased by the partnered companies at less cost per kw than it is made available to the consumers and local residents of the Phoenix metro area, so we pay higher rates. For the other states and electrical companies it is a win-win situation, for residents here nothing could be further from the truth.
All of the 104 nuclear reactors in this nation are aging and on very borrowed time. Eventually, their prohibitively expensive upkeep and safety concerns will force the country to re-think the viability of continuing the nuclear position, especially with no currently sufficient way to safely store all of the hundreds of thousands of tons of spent fissionable materials, most of which is still above ground around the country. New methodologies for combining every single imaginable other source will have to be considered ... gas turbine, cleaner coal burning technologies, wind turbine, re-pump systems for existing hydro-electric, solar/steam, sea wave, geo-thermal, and municipal refuse autoclaves (used in Sweden). The problem associated with the eventual loss of power from nuclear systems are not insurmountable given our engineering and technological prowess ... it's simply a matter of our future priorities for the continued provision of adequate but safer power alternatives.
Peace to all ~
Hi Steve,
I suggest you check out Gen IV nuclear designs. They ally many of the fears stated in your post. They are safer, cheaper to operate and maintain, and produce 1000-fold less waste (and much of the waste they do produce is less toxic than classic nuclear waste). In fact, they can actually use much of what is currently considered "waste" as fuel, therby reducing the total amount of waste that needs to be stored.
As I stated above, Coal (no matter how clean), Gas, and Oil will eventually destroy this planet due to greenhouse gas release.
Solar and Wind are inconsistent to be used as a primary source and the land requirements would be enormous.
Hydroelectric is only feasible in a few areas and is very damaging to the local ecosystem
Geothermal is a good idea but needs more development before its ready for use.
Refuse autoclaves are a good idea, but by the laws physics, could never supply all of our power needs.
There isn't a perfect solution for our power generation needs, but unless we want to go back to reading by candle light and sending messages by pony express, nuclear is the best option.
Attention Fear Reporting:
Humans are designed w/ flaws - if the human element was removed then Nature would be almost perfect..... of course nature can't be perfect since evolution created humans.
What about earthquakes, tsunamis, bird flu, old age etc. that will kill you too? We are lucky to have trees to hug..
I was born and raised in Canada, though now a very proud American citizen. That being said, Canadians are not afraid to drill for oil. Good grief, America! Are you just supposed to look at and marvel at the huge oil reserves in this great country, or are you supposed to use them? 50 or so years from now, we'll figure out how to make cars run on water. There's millions of barrels of oil right here!
"Drill baby drill," eh Jamie? I just want to note that all of that natural gas fracking is working smashingly for thousands of people across the U.S. If you can have your fossil fuel, what need is there for things like unpolluted land and clean water?
It's the greatest strategic reserve in the world. We should think about long term ramifications of drilling it now, as opposed to later when we may really need it.
The problem is, in the long run, the environment can't handle the massive amount of CO2 released when you burn all that oil.
Doing what you suggest would be more damaging to the environment than all nuclear accidents, and nuclear weapons testing ever could be.
None of this matters - we will be at war with Iran/China/Russia with in the next 6 mos.--- The stock market wil crash for good, the dollar will be eliminated, the middle east will be a radioactive wasteland--alla Fallout3-- and there will be no power, no gas, no food, no water, and no where to run. Marshal Law will be proclaimed and we will all be slaves in rebuilding whatever is left of this world. We will all be chipped like cats and dogs-- the irony will be that, we wil be living just like the ragheads we just nuked off the planet...
Have a good one~!
Hell let them restart ! and when it melts down scratch 7 million people..............
Roll the dice. The people of California claim to be leaders of this country and the most we could lose is 1 state heavily in debt.
glow in the dark Liberals!! WOO HOO!!!!
and they could get night jobs....every street-corner could use a lampost........
And something to remember: as a corporation, the PEOPLE that make the decision to restart the plant for profit will be fairly well protected against legal action by hiding behind the corporation.... which, despite being considered "people", can't be put in jail. And fines can be fought in court. And for that matter, the well paid corporate officers could even close the corporation down and still get away with a nuclear mess. How many BP people or Haliburton people or other associated corporate people went to jail over the Gulf oil mess? None?
It is interesting how the steam generators at San Onofre worked fine for more than 30 years, then they were replaced after their useful life had been reached. The newly replaced ones, made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, were of a slightly different design (i.e., cheaper), which caused the problem. Mitsubishi should pay for their replacement with new generators of the original design.
Full disclosure: I worked on the construction of Unit 3.
The new steam generators were "supposed" to be identical toi the ones replaced, but they weren't. Edison sneaked in more tubes, to get more steam, to get more power, to ultimately make more money, and it compromised the original design. They packed the tubes closer together and the vibration normally present in the steam generators caused the tubes to rub together and that thinned the tubes causing them to leak.
They want to re-start with some of the faulty, failure-prone tubes which, when they fail, will again allow radioactive steam to be released to the atmosphere, which was the original reason for the shut down.
The problem is, most of the rest of the US is downwind from the plant, and when it blows, we're all going to glow in the dark.