Conflicting Accounts Given over Defects at California Nuclear Plant

Location: New York

Date: 2013-03-12

That troubled nuclear plant in Southern California may have some more problems. A key member of the U.S. Congress is asking security regulators to look further into whether Edison International knew of defects before they became public but chose instead to sit on the information.

Deep breath first. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been investigating the shut down of San Onofre nuclear plant (SONGS) located between Los Angles and San Diego since January 2012. Nuclear regulators have elected to keep the two domed-units off line until officials can assure the public that the root cause of the small radiation leaks at unit 3 only has been properly addressed.

A new report released by the NRC provides details: The designer of the plant’s steam generators reiterated that excessive vibrations caused the seepage. After the steam generators were installed, the problems surfaced. Mitsubishi said it evaluated its options and chose to address the vibration, not to install new parts or craft a new design. That’s because such changes might have caused public hearings and prompted a lengthy regulatory review.

Southern California Edison had hired Mitsubishi in 2009 to install four new steam generators at SONGS’ units 2 and 3 for $671 million. Unit 2 shut down in January 2012 for routine maintenance. Unit 3 closed later that month because of a leak.

Upon inspection, the utility discovered several tubes at unit 3 failed pressure tests while other tubes at both facilities had eroded. The closure of the two units for the last 14 months has cost $470 million, which has been borne by ratepayers and shareholders. Prior to its discovering the problems, the utility said that Mitsubishi had made repeated assurances that its design was solid.

Now, Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Rep. Ed Market, D-Mass., have accused both Southern California Edison and Mitsubishi of “rejecting safety modifications” to keep the plants running. Markey is going further and has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to review whether the non-disclosure of relevant facts had duped its current or would-be investors.

“Investors presumably would want to know whether a company is choosing not to implement additional safety protocols because such actions might require a nuclear reactor to go through a more strenuous licensing process,” says Rep. Markey, who is the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, in a letter to the SEC. “Such choices could be evidence of poor management or even possible future civil liability.”

Probing Regulators

To be clear, the NRC had earlier said that the excessive vibration never endangered the public. Contextually, the SONGS plant has been operating safely for more than quarter century. SoCal Edison has said that it would like to start up unit 2 in April. It would do so at 70 percent for five months.

The NRC is reviewing that proposal. To that end, it has asked that the utility provide details about its plan. This open exchange is an important part of safety protocol, says SoCal Edison’s Pete Dietrich, chief nuclear officer there. The utility will get key data to the NRC this week in an effort to prove its case.

“SCE would never, and did not, install steam generators that it believed would not perform safely.” says Dietrich. “We are committed to being open and transparent as we move toward safe restart of unit 2,” says Dietrich. The restart plans includes expert and independent evaluations to address the vibration that caused wear and tear of the tubes.

The utility’s side of the story appears to contradict that of Mitsubishi, which is that both companies knew of the defect after the initial installation and both sought to mitigate the vibration that ultimately caused wear and tear, and a small leak at unit 3. As for Mitsubishi, “We are convinced that the we know what happened and why, and how the problem can be avoided in the future.”

SoCal Edison must now face not just an angry environmental community that questions its version of events but also a probing SEC that may open an investigation. The allegations won’t help nuclear’s cause. But should this be confined to SONGS or is this a matter that has broader implications?

The NRC will do its job, discovering who knew what and at what times. Issues surrounding safety will get addressed. Transparency, on the other hand, still suffers. It is the real defect here, which has long plagued an industry that is now trying to get a second wind.

To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energybiz.com

http://riskcenter.com/articles/story/view_story?story=99915115