San Onofre (SONGS)

[QCguy]

Big part of the problem is that no one in the local communities has any confidence in the PR messages issued by EIX.  Thing went from "problem, what problem?" to "everythings ok, we have this under control" to "oops" to "we Think we have a fix" and "we have this neat experiment" plus the companion line during the whole thing saying "it wasn't us officer, it was two other guys who looked like us". (Westinghouse and MHI).
While Las Wages may have a 5 to 1 line against the plant, the stock market and institutional investors seem to think that EIX can pull a dollar covered rabbit from the PUC hat.  This is proven by the fact that the share price is still up, and EIX just got a renewed "Buy" rating fromThe Street.Com, even though they are starting to get cash short.  Since I draw a check every month from them as well as medical, from my selfish point of view thats good, but from my public spirited side its a shame.
But no matter what, there is still tons of money to be made from a several years long decommissioning, so be of good cheer.

[nspunx4]

The worst part is all the unnecessary environmental damage being done by the burning of fossil fuels to replace these 2 units. Peoples health and safety are being put at risk so politicians can use this vital clean reliable energy producer as a political football. I wonder how many sick and elderly people will die due to grid instability and rolling blackouts this summer caused by the loss of San Onofre?

But hey, as long as the decommissioning money rolls in that's ok right?

[HydroDave63]

But hey, as long as the decommissioning money rolls in that's ok right?

The smart money in the last few years has been to wait for 10 years or so in SAFSTOR, allowing more of the material to be released to landfill rather than have to go to a repository.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html

[Fermi2]

What did Meter Swangin say? All good?

[RDTroja]

All Done.

UPDATE 3-SCE to retire California San Onofre reactor
•   
Fri Jun 7, 2013 11:24am EDT
By Scott DiSavino
   June 7 (Reuters) - Southern California Edison, a unit of
California power company Edison International, decided
to permanently retire the San Onofre nuclear power plant,
forcing California to find other electric sources to help keep
the lights on in the future.
   Both units have been shut down safely since January 2012
following a small radioactive leak in a tube inside a steam
generator manufactured by Japanese engineering firm Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries Ltd.
   Reliability regulators said California is already dealing
with "operational challenges" due to the reactor shutdowns and
noted a prolonged or extreme heat wave could force the state's
grid operator to impose rolling blackouts in the San Diego and
Los Angeles areas to maintain system integrity.
   The two San Onofre units increase the number of U.S.
reactors retiring so far in 2013 to four due in part to weak
natural gas and power prices and uncertain major repair costs.
   "It looks like more and more with an abundant supply of
cheap gas it is easier to walk away from a nuclear plant then to
fix it, This is a trend that I think will continue," said Phil
Flynn, senior market analyst with the Price Futures Group in
Chicago.
   The other two reactors already shut this year are Dominion
Resource Inc's Kewaunee in Wisconsin due primarily to
economics and Duke Energy Corp's Crystal River in
Florida due primarily to the uncertain cost of major repairs.
   For a factbox on other U.S. reactors that have retired, see

   SCE started installing the two steam generators at San
Onofre in the 1,070-megawatt (MW) Unit 2 in 2009 and two more in
1,080-MW Unit 3 in 2010, one of which developed the leak, SCE
said in a release on Friday.
   "(San Onofre) has served this region for over 40 years," Ted
Craver, Chairman and CEO of Edison International, said in the
release.
   "But we have concluded that the continuing uncertainty about
when or if (San Onofre) might return to service was not good for
our customers, our investors, or the need to plan for our
region`s long-term electricity needs," he said.
   The San Onofre reactors entered service in 1983 and 1984,
according to federal data. The plant is in San Clemente about 60
miles (96 km) southeast of Los Angeles on the Pacific Coast.
   
   SECOND QUARTER CHARGES
   In connection with the decision to shut the plant, SCE
estimates it will record a charge in the second quarter of
between $450 million and $650 million before taxes ($300 million
- $425 million after tax), in accordance with accounting
requirements.
   SCE said it intends to pursue recovery of damages from
Mitsubishi Heavy as well as recovery of amounts under applicable
insurance policies.
   SCE operates San Onofre for its owners, including SCE (78
percent), Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas and Electric
utility (20 percent) and the City of Riverside in California
holds a small stake.
   On Friday, Edison International stock climbed nearly 2
percent to $47.25 per share, compared with a less than 1 percent
gain in the Dow Jones and Standard & Poors
utilities averages.
   SCE submitted a restart plan to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) in October 2012. SCE proposed to restart Unit 2
at a reduced power level of up to 70 percent for an initial
period of about five months, SCE said.
   The NRC has been reviewing SCE's plans for restart of Unit 2
for the last eight months, during which several public meetings
have been held, SCE said.
   SCE said in April if the NRC did not approve of the restart
by the summer it may decide to retire the plant.
   After an adjudicatory arm of the NRC, the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board (ASLB), last month decided more public hearings
were necessary, SCE decided to retire the reactors due in part
to the uncertainty of when a final decision might be made on
restarting Unit 2.
   SCE said additional administrative processes and appeals
could result in delay of more than a year. During this period,
the costs of maintaining San Onofre in a state of readiness to
restart and the costs to replace the power the plant previously
provided would continue.
   Moreover, SCE said it is uneconomic for the utility and its
customers to bear the long-term repair costs for returning San
Onofre to full power operation without restart of Unit 2.
   
   FOCUS ON THE FUTURE
   SCE said its efforts are better focused on planning for the
replacement generation and transmission resources which will be
required for grid reliability.
   "Looking ahead," said Ron Litzinger, SCE's President, "we
think that our decision to retire the units will eliminate
uncertainty and facilitate orderly planning for California`s
energy future."
   But, Litzinger warned that "generation outages, soaring
temperatures or wildfires impacting transmission lines would
test the system."
   SCE said with the San Onofre retirement, the company will
reduce staff over the next year from about 1,500 to about 400
employees with the majority of the reductions expected in 2013.
   Full retirement of the units prior to decommissioning will
take many years, SCE said.

[Brett LaVigne]

I have certainly been critical of SONGS in the past based on my own experience there, but that was a long time ago and I never wanted to see this. There are some really good folks at this plant that will be needing a new gig before too long and this kind of episode never does the public perception of our industry any good.

[GLW]

I have certainly been critical of SONGS in the past based on my own experience there, but that was a long time ago and I never wanted to see this. There are some really good folks at this plant that will be needing a new gig before too long and this kind of episode never does the public perception of our industry any good.

By my reckoning you finish working where you are and then move south about 700 miles and pick up on the next one and then you retire,...

It's all good Brett,...

Not to mention there are still plenty of hippie chicks in the SONGS vicinity as much or maybe more so than Eureka,...

I'm just saying,...

[HydroDave63]

By my reckoning you finish working where you are and then move south about 700 miles and pick up on the next one and then you retire,...

Whaddya wanna bet some astro-turf greenies will call for for immediate D&D of SONGS (and a round of BRAC to close Camp Pendleton) vs. a decade of SAFSTOR, with the cover story of wanting the beach back, but really a Trojan Horse for developers that want billions in coastal building sites for cheap

[Nuke of the North]

This is a disaster.

Listen to the announcement here:

In addition to the live conference call, a telephone replay will be available for 30 days at the following numbers:

            1-888-568-0503 - for callers in the United States
            1-203-369-3476 - for international callers
            Passcode: 5241
       

[Content1]

I am sorry they decided to permanently shut down San Onofre.  I felt it was a good plant, I served on its last outage and I was there when the other unit went down, never to restart Jan 2012.  I was there as an operator during the startup back in 1982.  I feel it was a good source of reliable energy for our California grid.
That all being said, I wonder how long before they select a D&D schedule so that techs like me can help in the work to bring it back to background levels at the beaches there.  It can be done, I helped at Trojan and it was on its final survey when I left. 
I know, at present, natural gas is cheap (Until it runs out).  I remember it was not too long ago when I saw the rate triple for natural gas; once nuclear is gone in Southern California, I bet it will happen again.  I do outages in the East and I happened to see a power bill for a dominion resident about 1/3 the rate of my PG&E bill.  People will mourn the day when the actual cost of removing a technology others seem to manage well elsewhere.

[HydroDave63]

That all being said, I wonder how long before they select a D&D schedule so that techs like me can help in the work

The first question from the WSJ reporter on the phone call touched on that, and the answer included "...multi-decade process".

[Already Gone]

The worst part is all the unnecessary environmental damage being done by the burning of fossil fuels to replace these 2 units. Peoples health and safety are being put at risk so politicians can use this vital clean reliable energy producer as a political football. I wonder how many sick and elderly people will die due to grid instability and rolling blackouts this summer caused by the loss of San Onofre?

But hey, as long as the decommissioning money rolls in that's ok right?

Dude, take a reality pill!  The plants are f**k**g BROKEN!!!!  I'm really sick of hearing people use the "we need the power" excuse for this damned place.  If reliability were such a huge consideration, they shouldn't have busted the place all up like that.
Necessity does not trump incompetence.
You want to know who to blame for the loss of San Onofre? Don't look beyond the fence.  SONGS f***ed SONGS.  Nobody else did it to them.

[nspunx4]

Your right how stupid of me of course it is reasonable to trash a billions of dollars plant that produces 5% of the power for one of the largest states in the nation emission free because of a design error in replacement steam generators. Rather than replace the people and equipment let's dump the whole thing.

Jesus, I don't even work in this industry and sometimes it feels like I want nuclear to succeed more than some people who make a living off it.

HELLO, your industry has lost 3 plants in a little more than six months!

I am sorry buy I believe in nuclear power and I believe that it is the safest most reliable environmentally friendly way to generate the reliable power needed to maintain not only quality of life but to enhance our existence and save lives. Excuse me for being upset when it comes under attack from "environmentalists" and politicians.

[retired nuke]

I have said before - the hippies aren't going to shut our industry down - we are going to shut ourselves down.
By shortsighted, penny pinching decisions at CEO level, and skipping maintenance on non-critical equipment to keep bonuses at GMPO level.

Us workin stiffs ain't got a chance...

[hamsamich]

I agreee.  I know there is a story behind those generators.  I know greed has to factor into it somewhat (for instance - changing the u-tube design to squeeze a couple more MW out of it possibly).  I'd love to know the whole thing for real.  Everyone trying to cya probably buried alot of it.

[GLW]

....I am sorry buy I believe in nuclear power and I believe that it is the safest most reliable environmentally friendly way to generate the reliable power needed to maintain not only quality of life but to enhance our existence and save lives. Excuse me for being upset when it comes under attack from "environmentalists" and politicians.

Then, start a petition to build a high level waste repository in the county where you live,...

Walk the talk,...

If you get more than a thousand signatures I would be stunned,...

You cannot shove down people's throats what they do not want,...

Unless you can hide behind these;

[GLW]

I have said before - the hippies aren't going to shut our industry down - we are going to shut ourselves down.
By shortsighted, penny pinching decisions at CEO level, and skipping maintenance on non-critical equipment to keep bonuses at GMPO level.

Us workin stiffs ain't got a chance...

There is a difference between an energy company and a nuclear power company,...

All those CEO's and others you mentioned do not look at nukes like you do, hell, as a stockholder, I don't either,...

Nukes are assets, not raison d'être,...

If they cannot compete or are just plain not wanted, they have outlived their usefulness,...

They are often not wanted, then, pile on waste costs, ever increasing security costs, lowering costs for other energy sources, et al, and nukes can easily become a business liability, not an asset,...

Since 1988 I have paid my bills and made a good living DnD'ing half a dozen serviceable nuclear plants for better than 80% of those years,...

All of those plants would have probably been kept on-line, maintained and improved in France,...

But this ain't France,...

The Navy did not adopt nuclear powered ships to give nukes an NEC, and the bigger world does not operate nukes to give nukeworkers jobs,...

Be thankful for those long half-lives, they probably compel many more of our jobs than we as a skilled craft would otherwise realize,...

Adapt and overcome,...

(sic)

[hamsamich]

Yeah in France this probably wouldn't have happened and if it did they would change out the gennys and run another 40y.  And everybody gives France crap!  At least they know nuclear...

[GLW]

Yeah in France this probably wouldn't have happened and if it did they would change out the gennys and run another 40y.  And everybody gives France crap!  At least they know nuclear...

It's because they have a national commitment to nuclear, they have an over reaching national government, nuclear is probably their best baseline energy alternative as they have scant other abundant fuel resources, and the French reactors are standardized to a degree we have never pursued,...

The market dynamics are fundamentally different,...

They also accomplish more work with significantly fewer personnel (nukeworkers),...

[RDTroja]

It's because they have a national commitment to nuclear, they have an over reaching national government, nuclear is probably their best baseline energy alternative as they have scant other abundant fuel resources, and the French reactors are standardized to a degree we have never pursued,...

The market dynamics are fundamentally different,...

They also accomplish more work with significantly fewer personnel,...

Translation: They did Nuclear right and we (the inventors) did not. Sometimes market competition does not bring about the best results.

[HydroDave63]

There is a difference between an energy company and a nuclear power company,...

All those CEO's and others you mentioned do not look at nukes like you do, hell, as a stockholder, I don't either,...

Nukes are assets, not raison d'être,...

If they cannot compete or are just plain not wanted, they have outlived their usefulness,...

They are often not wanted, then, pile on waste costs, ever increasing security costs, lowering costs for other energy sources, et al, and nukes can easily become a business liability, not an asset,...

[GLW]

There is a difference between an energy company and a nuclear power company,...

All those CEO's and others you mentioned do not look at nukes like you do, hell, as a stockholder, I don't either,...

Nukes are assets, not raison d'être,...

If they cannot compete or are just plain not wanted, they have outlived their usefulness,...

They are often not wanted, then, pile on waste costs, ever increasing security costs, lowering costs for other energy sources, et al, and nukes can easily become a business liability, not an asset,...

I'll accept that one today,...it is funny,...

[nspunx4]

Then, start a petition to build a high level waste repository in the county where you live,...

Walk the talk,...

If you get more than a thousand signatures I would be stunned,...

You cannot shove down people's throats what they do not want,...

Unless you can hide behind these;

Why would I want a high level repository? That would accomplish nothing but a waste of valuable resources. I would happily start a petition to build a fuel reprocessing plant in my town Peabody, Ma. I live near Pilgrim and Seabrook and have petitioned and written letters in support of their re-licensing.

I don't know why I seem to have the minority opinion here all I am saying is that I think it is a terrible waste that this plant is being shut down wether the cause was greed, ineptitude, or a design error. Nuclear is the best option available to provide reliable base load power without emitting green house gasses. ANY loss of nuclear capacity will cause more damaging fossil fuels to be burned which will harm not just California but the entire planet. We should be building new nuclear capacity not closing 3 plants in six months. Why is this being taken as some type of obtuse opinion on a message board or nuclear industry professionals? It is boggling my mind!

[Fermi2]

Why would I want a high level repository? That would accomplish nothing but a waste of valuable resources. I would happily start a petition to build a fuel reprocessing plant in my town Peabody, Ma. I live near Pilgrim and Seabrook and have petitioned and written letters in support of their re-licensing.

I don't know why I seem to have the minority opinion here all I am saying is that I think it is a terrible waste that this plant is being shut down wether the cause was greed, ineptitude, or a design error. Nuclear is the best option available to provide reliable base load power without emitting green house gasses. ANY loss of nuclear capacity will cause more damaging fossil fuels to be burned which will harm not just California but the entire planet. We should be building new nuclear capacity not closing 3 plants in six months. Why is this being taken as some type of obtuse opinion on a message board or nuclear industry professionals? It is boggling my mind!

Simple, we are professionals and realize this is a BUSINESS. If a plant is uneconomical to run then it should be shut down, it's no different than any facility.
SONGs, Crystal River, Kewaunee became uneconomical. Eventually you have to decide if by the time you solve the issues at these facilities and it costs xxx dollars but you'll only earn back XX dollars is it worth it? Well when you are a utility who has to pay a dividend to shareholders then NO it is not worth it. It's pure economics. I got news for you, the utilities are not in business to make ecologically sound energy, they went years without doing so. THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY!

[Nuke of the North]

Jesus, I don't even work in this industry and sometimes it feels like I want nuclear to succeed more than some people who make a living off it.

It's because you probably aren't aware of all the history here. Your reaction is analogous to someone watching the "Intervention" TV show and asking "why is everyone being so mean to Uncle Bob the Meth Head? Why not just give him a second chance and start over fresh?" Whereas the family (The Nuclear Industry in this case) has been putting up with Uncle Bob's $hit for years and are fed up, so they are turning their back and cutting him off.

San Onofre has been on the bottom of every Industry and Regulatory Performance Metric scale for over a decade now. They have spent millions of dollars on high visibility, Enterprise Wide, Human Performance Improvement Initiatives and failed miserably. Despite having one of the largest, bloated staffing levels of ANY Nuclear plant they have continued the downward spiral. And they have a consistent track record of botching their high-dollar, complex, major capital replacement projects – the SG's being only the latest example.

No one here is happy with the events that have come to pass. But just as in the analogy above, everyone must at some point finally face the consequences of their actions. Fair or Unfair, history is finally catching up to SONGS.