***** UPDATE*****
This just in… PUC Chairman Michael Peevey, a former Edison president is dragging his feet on what to do about the crippled San Onofore Nuclear plant. Why is this such a big deal, you ask? Because this is a time sensitive issue. There is money involved (isn’t that always the case?) but this time its taxpayer money – to the tune of $60 million a month. If the clock runs out, an additional unrecoverable $240 million could flow to utility shareholders if the PUC waits the maximum period before acting. And we are stuck with the bill.
You can do something about permanently closing San Onofore and you don’t have to leave your comfy chair to do it. Sign this petition.
Maybe a little incentive will be all the recent earthquakes in California? Do you really want to take a chance on a Fukushima event right here in beautiful Southern California!
And I almost forgot, I spoke with Sgt. Dunn with the Anaheim Police Department and he told me that in case of a disaster, you will be contacted
via email by Anaheim Alert http://anaheimalert.net/index.php?CCheck=1
but you have to sign up. Gee, I feel safer now.
Do you know 8.4 million people live within a 50 mile radius of San Onofore Nuclear Plant? Do you know that homeowners insurance does not cover damage from nuclear reactors? Do you and your loved ones have an emergency plan ready in the event that San Onofore goes the way of Fukushima?
Gary Headrick from The San Clemente Greens gave an informative and, for me, eye opening talk at Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Irvine about the San Onofore Nuclear Reactor. It has been shut down for nearly 6 months now; concerned citizens working with San Clemente Greens hope to keep it that way.
Here’s a brief account of why the reactor is offline. San Onofre was taken out of service January 31, 2012 due to radiation leaks caused by excessive tube wear in newly replaced steam generators. Generators are supposed to keep the reactor cool, so generator failure can cause uncontrolled radiation leaks. Upon inspection, it was found that all four generators in the number two reactor showed premature wear. They are only 2 years old — and cost taxpayers almost 700 million dollars! Before the work was started, Edison told the public that the new generators would last 40+ years. If you ask me, somebody needs to be fired!
Headrick told the group of about 40 people that he became involved in 2010 after being approached by a ‘whistleblower’ about numerous safety violations at the plant. They include harassment and retaliation to employees who speak up to management about problems, falsifying reports, and some workers just not doing their job. One guy was fired for smoking pot at the plant! At least management let this guy go, but what about falsifying reports? That seems to be an ongoing problem. It sounds to me that people are not doing the job they are being paid to do and the public could pay the price.
San Onofore was built in the 1960s and Unit 1 closed permanently in 1992, because of a radiation leak. Sound familiar? Back then, the environmental group Friends of the Earth, along with public pressure, persuaded the California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] to keep Unit 1 closed. It has since been dismantled and is now used as a storage site for spent fuel. Its reported that the radioactive waste stored under Unit 1 continues to produce toxic waste and can remain toxic for thousands of years, but the lifespan of a reactor is only about 40 years. I’ll bet that that’s not listed in any vacation pamphlet.
Units 2 and 3 took over the workload from Unit 1 in the 1980s and are the ones currently closed down in 2012. The reactor was originally built to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, but sits on a fault line that could produce an 8.0. We all heard about California being overdue for a big quake, so if there is a big nuclear accident most of Southern California could conceivably become a dead zone for many generations.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] reported that San Onofore continues to have problems with staff making poor decisions, and retaliation against whistleblowers. According to Headrick, San Onofore is ranked number one in the nation for violations and complaints. The NRC, which is supposed to ensure that reactors are safe and following the law, is even under investigation for reducing safety standards for San Onofore because it’s an older plant. Headrick told me that California has banned anymore reactors from being built in the state until a safe way is found to store the spent fuel rods.
Southern California Edison is pushing hard to allow them to restart Unit 2 at 80% capacity,because they say they are losing a million dollars every day that it is closed. In reality, no one knows what will happen when Unit 2 goes online again — and if the only way to find out is to turn it on, I say keep it off. I am not willing to gamble that something may or may not happen. Are you?
Headrick is available to speak to other groups around Southern California. The goal is to get all of the surrounding City Councils to write to the CPUC and NRC to make sure San Onofore stays offline. You can contact him through www.sanclementegreen.org/
An online petition is in the works; I will post the link as soon as I get it so that people can sign and pass on to others. Oh, and for all those ‘Chicken Littles’ who claimed that rates will skyrocket or we will have blackouts if the plant is closed; the reactor has been closed for almost 6 months and we are doing just fine.
Coincidentally, while working on another story, I found this from May 2000.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2000_05_01_archive.html
The more things change ….
Good find Greg
KEEP IT OFF.
The false belief of nuclear energy as being “safe and clean” has continuously been proved wrong after Fukushima.
Japanese nuclear policy has been wrong, and we’re paying for it now.
from Japan, with love.
Shouldn’t that be “domed” nuke reactor?
I have a question about the statement that taxpayers are paying for the repairs… isn’t it ratepayers that have to pay for it? Or does the government subsidize SONGS?
It may well be ratepayers (who are generally going to be taxpayers as well.) As for a government subsidy — would you be shocked?
I am generally a free market person and one who believes that nuclear power can likely be done safely (don’t know why I feel that way), HOWEVER, as a free market person, the one thing that bothers me about nuclear plants is that IF it can be done safely there should be a a capitalist out there who is willing to insure the possibility of a plant disaster in order to receive an economic reward.
In order to insure against the plant disaster, the insurance company generally would need to be able to measure risk. I don’t know if there is an insurance company who is willing to insure the plants (maybe they currently do)…either because they don’t have the capital structure to do so, the customer (i.e. plant owner) won’t pay the premiums based upon measured risk, or because they can’t measure the risk. The first one is acceptable in my mind and is not a safety issue. The 2nd scares me a bit because the risk is pegged at such a high rate that it is not economically feasible. The 3rd one really scares me because if it can’t be measured, then it can be a tremendous problem,
Are plants insured against disaster? I am not talking workers comp or other low hanging insurance…I am referring to if there is a nuclear disaster, is there an insurance company that will pay all of us for our economic costs associated with the disaster. My gut tells me that they are not insured for such disaster.
There used to be (and I think there still is) a cap on the liability of a nuclear plant in the event of an accident, placed into law by the “Price-Anderson Act.” (That’s 1980 Presidential candidate John Anderson, by the way.) So yeah, presumably they’re insured to the limit of their liability, which is set painfully low compared to the amount of damage they can do. That’s one reason why a free-market person should be reluctant to support nuclear power — the system allows the risk to be borne by the innocent who get harmed. Limiting government liability is a way to make the uninsurable insurable.
Of course, as Mitt Romney will tell you, a corporation that gets into trouble can go bankrupt — and that ends its liability as well. That’s why I favor nuclear projects only if owned by the government, because it’s theoretically responsible to the people, who will inevitably end up paying the tab anyway. Take the profit motive out of nuclear power and then see who still wants to support it.
Thanks for the info, although there are a certain number of cities that also show that if a governmental entity gets into trouble, it also can go bankrupt. I would imagine that President Obama would also tell us the same as Mitt would based on his legal background.
The concept of, if it was safe, then someone would insure the entire risk, is my hangup.
*Marathon Man – “Is it safe?” says Lawrence Oliviae
Here’s something you can do without leaving your easy chair. I receved this email this morning. I am working on a meeting with the mayor of Orange to get them on board.
The San Onofre nuclear plantis an accident waiting to happen!
Dear Friend,
Yesterday’s massive refinery fire in Richmond is a powerful reminder of how risky, unsafe energy sources are a serious dangerto our communities.
But eight million people in Southern California could soon be endangered by an aging, risky nuclear power plant if SouthernCalifornia Edison power company has its way.
The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), which sits on the beach between Los Angeles and San Diego, was shut downtemporarily in January after it was found to be leaking radioactive steam. But incredibly, Southern California Edison —the primary electricity provider for over 14 million people in Southern California — is now trying to bring the dangerousnuclear energy plant back online.1
This plant is unsafe, but it’s also totally unnecessary. Even without the San Onofre nuclear plant, there’s enough powergenerating capacity in Southern California to keep the lights on even on the hottest days of the year.2 Weneed to shut this plant down permanently, and force Southern California Edison to stop delaying implementation of clean,safe renewable energy generating systems.
Tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Chairman, Allison Macfarlane: Shut down San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stationpermanently. Click here to automatically sign the petition.
When this plant was shut down in January for maintenance, it was discovered that it had been leaking radioactive steam fromthe new steam generators that had just been installed in 2010. These new generators, which were installed at a cost of $700million, were expected to allow the plant to remain open for many more years. But flaws in the design of these new partsled to an unexpectedly short lifespan despite the high cost of installation.
This came as no surprise to anyone who’s been tracking this plant. Data collected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission showsthat the San Onofre nuclear plant is a disaster waiting to happen. Not only does the plant have more complaints of safetyproblems from employees and contractors than any other nuclear power plant in the country,3 but it’s also thesite of the most complaints of employee harassment and retaliation, meaning that employees who notice safety problems andtry and speak out are being punished.4
Even worse, this plant is just five miles from the nearest earthquake fault line, and recent research has shown that it’sprobably at higher risk of damage from an earthquake than previously thought. Not to mention the fact that it’s built onthe beach of the Pacific Ocean — just like the Fukushima plant that experienced a meltdown in 2011 — making itsusceptible to tsunami waves.
Tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Chairman, Allison Macfarlane: Shut down San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stationpermanently. Click here to automatically sign the petition.
Southern California Edison is endangering the lives of millions for a power plant they don’t need. The company needsto refocus efforts on renewable energy, and save Californians from a dangerous and aging nuclear power plant.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s new Chairman, Allison Macfarlane, can use her position to convince the commission’s othermembers that this plant shouldn’t reopen. She’s been an outspoken critic of nuclear dangers, like the Yucca Mountain complex.She needs to know how important it is to Californians that Southern California Edison isn’t allowed to put our state at riskfor a major nuclear incident.
Click below to automatically sign the petition:
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6919761&p=san_onofre&id=44726-6012202-FELJLKx&t=10
Thank you for standing up against unsafe nuclear power.
Jordan Krueger, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
1. Dave Rice, “San Onofre: Even Longer Shutdownor Restarting Soon?” sandiegoreader.com, July 23, 2012
2. Morgan Lee, “Top grid regulator: SoCal in ‘fineshape’ for summer without San Onofre,” utsandiego.com, June 4, 2012
3. “San Onofre nuclear power plant has the worstsafety record,” sanonofresafety.org
4. Abby Sewell, “San Onofre whistle-blowers lessprotected than others in California,” latimes.com, July 4, 2012
Enjoy your natural gas from fracking and imported coal power California!
Remind me never to move there! I personally don’t like the radioactive emissions from natural gas plants such as radon, ew! Too bad they aren’t regulated as nuclear plants are, then they’d have to control these emissions.