\u201cOh no, it wasn\u2019t the airplanes. \u00a0It was beauty killed the beast.\u201d<\/p>\n
The glitter of gold attracted the operators of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. \u00a0It did them in.
Faced with the need to upgrade an old design, SoCal Edison demanded of Mitsubishi (the contractor for the replacement steam generators) too many impossible and conflicting constraints.<\/p>\n
Most Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) have three or four steam generators which, as the name implies, convert water to steam. \u00a0\u00a0San Onofre\u2019s reactors have only two steam generators each, so if one fails, the other has to handle the full task of cooling the reactor. \u00a0This was one of many design flaws, but they had lived with it. \u00a0The problem came when they tried to get even more output from the replacement steam generators, despite using a new, more corrosion-resistant alloy that was 10% less heat conductive than the original alloy.<\/p>\n
They made up for the 10% loss of heat transfer capabilities by adding hundreds more tubes in the same space, packing them all closer together, and increasing their length by an average of about 50 inches. \u00a0Additional changes were made as well, usually to prevent corrosion-related problems that had plagued the original steam generators. \u00a0These changes may or may not have been successful \u2013 we\u2019ll never know because somewhere along the line, they completely miscalculated how much steam would be produced inside the steam generators. \u00a0Outside the tubes (but inside the steam generator casing) there was supposed to be about 96% steam and 4% water. \u00a0Instead it was over 99% steam, which allowed the tubes to vibrate. \u00a0The flow rate was much higher than expected, which also caused, or increased, the vibration.
The damage could probably have been prevented by operating the steam loop at a higher pressure, combined with a higher circulation ratio. (The circulation ratio indicates the number of times the water goes around the steam generator before becoming steam, and should be close to five or more, but it was less than four in the SanO SGs.). \u00a0Adjusting these factors would have meant less steam production \u2013 and less profit. \u00a0But it might have saved the reactors.<\/p>\n
The glitter of gold got them.<\/p>\n
How greedy was SCE? \u00a0Extremely! \u00a0About a decade ago, they applied for, and received, a power uprate which allowed them to operate the original steam generators (and later, the replacement steam generators) at higher temperatures and flow rates in order to produce significantly more steam \u2013 \u201cpure\u201d profit. The only problem was that doing so accelerated corrosion and fatigue wear in the original steam generators.<\/p>\n
Or WAS that a problem, in their view?<\/p>\n
Perhaps not, because they planned to bilk the ratepayers for the full cost of the replacement steam generators. \u00a0And the sooner that happened the better, as far as the utility was concerned.<\/p>\n
What they wanted to avoid was to be replacing the steam generators around the time of the next license renewal, in 2022. \u00a0Accelerated wear followed by an early replacement suited them just fine: \u00a0That way, they could expect to slide through the license renewal with a \u201clike-new\u201d pair of reactors that they planned to claim was all ready to go for the next 20 or even 40 years. \u00a0Never mind the waste problem they were continuing to create for everyone, and never mind all the other components that were also wearing out.
SCE delayed some plant upgrades, and separated out the cost of a few items (such as new reactor pressure vessel heads, new turbine blades, miles of new pipes, new control equipment, etc.) to keep the cost of replacing the steam generators themselves below a billion dollars. \u00a0Thus they were able to appease some activists who complained only about the cost. \u00a0\u00a0(Moral: \u00a0Never complain only about the cost.) \u00a0The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the uprate, and the California Public Utilities Commission approved having the ratepayers pay for it, and SCE turned up the steam output, and the power, and the profits, and shortly thereafter, ordered four replacement steam generators from Mitsubishi.<\/p>\n
With the new steam generators installed, the license extensions were expected to be a breeze. \u00a0The NRC had never denied a license extension and still hasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Then Fukushima happened, and the opposition to San Onofre in the community swelled. \u00a0American ex-pats came back from Japan to California with their young families, with terrifying stories about the incredibly poor way the Japanese government and many of the Japanese people are handling the radiation crises over there. \u00a0Highly radioactive rice and vegetables are being downblended with less radioactive products to reduce the dose to \u201cacceptable\u201d levels. Radioactive food is being exported to poor countries as \u201caid\u201d supplies. \u00a0Radioactive waste is being shipped around Japan only to be burned (and thus released to the environment) in cities far from Fukushima. \u00a0And worst of all: Thyroid abnormalities are suddenly rampant among Japanese children and there are rumors of excess numbers of stillbirths and deformed babies that can\u2019t survive, of doctors being told not to say anything to the parents \u2013 to just say the baby was born dead.<\/p>\n
These returning ex-pats did not want the same thing to happen here. \u00a0And much of it WILL happen if we have a nuclear disaster.<\/p>\n
Less than a year after Fukushima, and less than two years after San Onofre\u2019s new steam generators were installed, with opposition to San Onofre in full swing, one tube inside one steam generator leaked. \u00a0Nearly 40,000 tubes had been replaced, but just one leaky tube spelled doom for San Onofre. \u00a0They had been hit right between the eyes.<\/p>\n
At first, the operators of the plant didn\u2019t \u2013 or couldn\u2019t \u2013 believe anything serious had happened. \u00a0So one tube leaked? \u00a0They called it \u201csettling in.\u201d<\/p>\n
But then they looked more closely, and the real problem began to reveal itself. \u00a0This wasn\u2019t just teething pains. \u00a0The steam generators had vibrated excessively, and thousands of tubes had rubbed against tube supports and against other tubes. \u00a0There was 90% through-wall wear in one tube in Unit 2, which had been shut down for the first refueling after its steam generator replacement, and more than 90% through-wall wear in numerous tubes in Unit 3, with one, \u2013 the one that leaked \u2014, at 100% through-wall wear.<\/p>\n
Unit 3 was ruined for sure, at least without yet another billion-dollar steam generator replacement. \u00a0But the utility thought Unit 2 could be salvaged somehow. Why they thought this, I\u2019ll never know, but for more than 16 months they held onto the thought, meanwhile charging ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars for upkeep for a broken and inoperable pair of reactors.<\/p>\n
Finally, \u00a0on June 7th, 2013, the utility gave up and announced they would decommission San Onofre without trying to restart it, blaming \u201cregulatory delay\u201d which was fair enough, insofar as, the NRC would not grant them a license to restart Unit 2 at 70% power as they had asked. \u00a0Instead, the NRC came back with dozens of highly technical questions about what assumptions SCE had made in projecting that the reactor could be safely operated at 70% power \u2013 or any percent \u2013 for a five-month \u201ctest\u201d period. \u00a0(Note: The word \u201ctest\u201d is in quotes because they utility refused to call their restart plan an experiment with 8.7 million people\u2019s lives, but that\u2019s exactly what it would have been.)<\/p>\n
Whistleblowers, activists and experts alike were also looking at the available data \u2013 which was insufficient in many ways, with much of it held back as \u201cproprietary.\u201d \u00a0But from what was available, all were saying it would be unsafe to restart San Onofre. \u00a0Even a Senator (Barbara Baxer (D-CA)) and a Congressperson (Ed Markey, D-MA)) got involved, pressuring the NRC to examine SCE\u2019s application very carefully.<\/p>\n
But did \u201cregulatory delay\u201d really kill the beast? \u00a0Was it the \u201cmiracle\u201d of the busted steam generators (without an accompanying meltdown), or were the activists\u2019 campaigns what really killed San Onofre? \u00a0We\u2019ll never know for sure, but the activists certainly put enormous pressure on SCE. \u00a0Beginning just days after Fukushima, they (we) have been going to local city councils, to schools, political organizations, civic clubs, and to the media, explaining the horrific danger San Onofre presents. \u00a0And it was working: we had been getting official letters for \u2013 if not outright closure of San Onofre \u2013 safer operation, open investigations, and removal of the waste. \u00a0Not the brass ring, but good things. \u00a0We spoke in front of hundreds of elected officials in dozens of cities. \u00a0Only one or two appeared to express a strongly pro-nuclear point of view, and many that did talk (most just listened) were clearly confused about the dangers from nuclear power. \u00a0They really did need an education!<\/p>\n
The activists brought world-renowned experts to discuss the issues, and many of us spoke without notes, so that we could, with a dozen or more speakers, each telling a three-minute part of the story, offer a very compelling case against nuclear power, complete with pictures, graphs, charts and facts to go along with every claim. \u00a0And these activists were respected members of the community: retired government workers, Harvard graduates, lawyers, doctors, business persons, moms, dads and kids. \u00a0All understood the issues and spoke eloquently, time and again. \u00a0The communities surrounding San Onofre were getting quite an education, and most of these presentations were being broadcast live on the internet.<\/p>\n
After a while, one city council would tell another about the group of activists that would come and discuss San Onofre. \u00a0We would try to have local residents of whatever city we were in speak first.<\/p>\n
Activists pointed out, for example, that the energy San Onofre produced was not vital even during the summer months \u2013 there did not need to be blackouts or brownouts. \u00a0This was true (and is true) even though SCE has refused to convert SanO\u2019s turbines to synchronous condensers (basically, big flywheels) for voltage support, has failed to distribute nearly a billion dollars in renewable energy funds it has already collected, has failed to implement much \u201cdemand response\u201d (which turns off people\u2019s air conditioning and dryers and so forth for an hour or so during peak periods), and has fought all varieties of solar and wind projects tooth and nail to prevent them from hooking in to the grid.<\/p>\n
San Onofre will be decommissioned \u2013 or so we\u2019re told: I want to see those domes come down before I\u2019ll truly believe it. \u00a0And let\u2019s watch out for the radiation that can be released as that happens.<\/p>\n
The San Diego daily paper, the Union-Tribune, has always supported nuclear power. \u00a0\u00a0It still does. \u00a0Today (6\/20\/2013) it published two op-eds: \u00a0One pro-nuclear by the CEO of General Atomics, and one con by Daniel Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap.<\/p>\n
The CEO\u2019s claims are pathetic, ancient dogma about how we \u201cneed\u201d energy and will get it one way or another, that renewables aren\u2019t ready, that the waste problem can be solved, that the next generation of nukes will be cleaner and safer (don\u2019t bet on it). \u00a0It was sickening to read. \u00a0Right next to it, Dan Hirsch explains the reality.<\/p>\n
Although San Onofre is far less likely to have a catastrophic accident now that it is shut down, the magnitude of the disaster it can have has not diminished by much, and won\u2019t diminish much for tens of thousands of years. \u00a0What to do with the spent fuel \u2013 the used reactor cores \u2013 is a terrible problem which has never been solved by the nuclear industry.<\/p>\n
Decommissioning will take decades, and that\u2019s not including whatever is done with the reactor cores, which have all been stored on site since the first refueling outage at San Onofre.<\/p>\n
Diablo Canyon, a few hundred miles north of San Onofre, is also old and dilapidated , and needs to be closed forever too \u2013 and they also have no solution for their nuclear waste problem. \u00a0No plant has a solution.Nuclear power has failed the citizens miserably in California. \u00a0There has even been a meltdown here \u2013 probably worse than Three Mile Island \u2013 which was covered up and denied for decades. \u00a0(Dan Hirsch uncovered it.)<\/p>\n
It\u2019s time to give up on Diablo Canyon too, before something terrible happens there, such as a meltdown. \u00a0Such as what was narrowly avoided at San Onofre.<\/p>\n
Shut down Diablo. \u00a0It\u2019s no better than San O ever was.<\/p>\n
Ace Hoffman<\/strong>\u00a0has been fighting to stop San Onofre for several decades prior to the announcement of its closure. \u00a0He is a computer programmer and the author of The Code Killers, a handbook about nuclear issues.<\/em><\/p>\n