By Ryan Swan

THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION last month once again found itself in the news — this time exceeding the attention of California residents and attaining the status of international recognition.

On June 7, officials from Southern California Edison, the chief operator of SONGS, announced it would be permanently closed following a year and a half of ongoing issues with the plant’s two operable reactors.

It was a routine refueling outage at Unit 2 in January 2012 that began the process that would close SONGS forever. Investigators looking into the outage uncovered an alarming degree of tube degradation in the reactor’s brand-new generators, which had been put into use just a year earlier.

This upsetting discovery was followed by a classifiable nuclear accident at Unit 3 on Jan. 31, 2012, when primary system (radioactive) tubing — specifically the tube in Row 106, Column 78 of steam generator 3EO-88 — leaked, interacting with the secondary system (nonradioactive) water. A release of gaseous radiation ensued, exposing members of the general public in the vicinity to a subsequently estimated 0.0000452 millirem of radiation — a minuscule amount, but enough to shut down Unit 3. Both reactors were promptly taken offline.

Protracted deliberations ensued concerning the best course of action for the plant. Shortly after the initial shutdown, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a Confirmatory Action Letter that forbade the plant from returning online in the absence of comprehensive reports detailing all issues and thorough reparations of all compromised components. Cost estimates for satisfactorily fulfilling these stipulations simply did not seem feasible, soaring toward $1 billion.

As operators grappled with deciphering exact causes and cost-effective solutions, costs associated with the plant’s inoperative state continued to mount. By midsummer of last year, the shutdown had cost Southern California Edison more than $160 million, and they concluded some sort of definitive action needed to be taken.

In October, SCE submitted a proposal to the NRC requesting that Unit 2 be permitted to return online at 70-percent operating capacity. In the request SCE stated that sufficient diagnostic and corrective measures had been undertaken to eliminate the conditions that had led to excessive tube degradation — as long as the unit operated at the aforementioned reduced capacity.

The proposal was accompanied by a host of outcries by various anti-nuclear groups seeking permanent closure of SONGS. Notably, Friends of the Earth filed a petition with the NRC requesting that a public hearing supersede any decision by NRC commissioners in deciding the future of the plant.

Several months of deliberations followed. Finally the NRC decided that the proposed operating capacity was not in accordance with the agency’s licensing and so needed to be amended — and that Unit 2 was incapable of safe operation upholding the extent of licensing safety mandates, and so required licensing amendment.

In other words, more time and money. Amid mounting costs and future uncertainties, SCE ultimately decided to permanently close the plant, saying in the end it was the economic considerations — coupled with diminished prospects for license renewal in 2022 in light of post-Fukushima requirements — that prompted the decision.

SONGS, with a gross annual production of 1,127 megawatts, had supplied energy to more than a million homes in California. Now, as the state has been forced to rely more heavily on gas-fired plants that are inherently more expensive and that drive up grid congestion costs, the last year has seen energy prices escalate. The threat of rolling outages has been a concern as well, though measures have been taken to bolster the grid in preparation for summer.

The reality of permanently replacing such a considerable power source is daunting, though the plant has already been off-line for close to a year and a half. And several new plants in Southern California will help to compensate for some of the energy deficit, namely the gas-fired Edison Mission Walnut Creek plant, producing some 500 MW, and the Competitive Power Venture Sentinel plant, with a capacity of 850 MW. Additionally, multiple solar projects are under development and expected to help fill the gap.

The decision to permanently retire one of its two prize nuclear power plants was a big step for California and one that gives rise to many questions: What will happen with the SONGS facility — will it be decommissioned or mothballed? Could the same fate befall Diablo Canyon, meaning California meets — or attempts to meet — the growing energy demands of its population, and satisfies its emission reduction targets, in the absence of nuclear energy?

Stay tuned — the future will be very interesting.

Ryan Swan started the Benicia Forum on Nuclear Power in July 2011. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of California-Berkeley and lives in Benicia.

Sharing is caring!