New assessment of San Onofre reactor shortens operational lifespan estimates

Author: 2 Comments Share:

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station operated by Southern California Edison

Today, Southern California Edison released a report conducted by Intertek APTECH that estimates it would be too risky to operate the Unit 2 reactor at full power for more than 11 months, which is 7 months shorter than previous analysis.  Intertek has never owned or operated a nuclear power plant, rather provides consultant services and litigation support for many nuclear power plants around the U.S.

Southern California Edison senior vice president Pete Dietrich said the safety analysis “confirms the structural integrity of the Unit 2 steam generators at 100 percent power, as requested by the NRC.”  Dietrich also commented, “We welcome this additional safety analysis but remain steadfast in our commitment to restart Unit 2 at only 70 percent power.”

Source: Reuters

Source: Intertek

Previous Article

TEPCO still unable to restore power at all affected facilities

Next Article

Power outage at Fukushima Daiichi halts spent fuel pool cooling at multiple units


  1. Another way of understanding what Edison claims is that if they were allowed to run at 100% for 11 months there could be a tube rupture resulting in a catastrophic release of radiation into the environment.

    Edison’s prediction record: Four new steam generators had a design flaw that underestimated the extreme forces in the system by 400% and failed in less than two years instead of forty. They also predicted massive blackouts if they went off line, especially during the summer, but the lights are still on more than a year later.

    All we are asking for is to have a restart decision made by a body of independent jurors or a judge where testimony is under oath, cross examinations are allowed by independent experts, and evidence is made available to all.

    It is obvious that Edison will say or do anything to avoid the scrutiny of a License Amendment hearing. All the more reason to have one.

    Besides all this, we have vulnerabilities like cyber attack, earthquakes and tsunamis, aged equipment, human error, terrorist threats, sabotage.

    The fact is, we don’t need to take the risk that Edison is putting on us for their own profit. This will only end when the people demand that it ends.

    Get involved! Email [email protected] for updates and actions you can participate in.

  2. Right on, Gary.

    I’ve read the report that examines the problems with these steam generators. It seems that Intertek is a good organization, but I would like to see their report, also, and know that somehow they considered and did the modelling that Hitachi assumed they didn’t have to do. But who am I but the public?

    The NRC blew this. They may be a regulatory body, but find me anything but a nuclear proponent on their board. Just the manner in which they allow mandates to go through immense amounts of time to be implemented or grant exemptions tells me what I need to know. I’m not saying that they aren’t serious, just that there’s flaws in their thinking and practices. They’re more like liontamers. They seem necessary for some measure of control, but what they really allow is lions to be present in the public to begin with. No lions, one doesn’t need the tamers.

Leave a Reply