More

HuffPost Social Reading

San Onofre Leak: Feds Slap Nuclear Power Plant For Ammonia Leak

San Onofre Leak

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD   02/10/12 06:14 PM ET  AP

LOS ANGELES -- An ammonia leak that caused an emergency alert at the San Onofre nuclear plant in November was caused by employees who failed to recognize degraded equipment and fix it, federal regulators said Friday.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission report concluded the problem had "very low safety significance," and faulted plant operator Southern California Edison for failing to follow its own procedures at the twin-reactor site, about 45 miles from San Diego.

The company conducted a parallel investigation and found the same contributing factors as the NRC, according to a statement. The utility said it made changes to address the findings.

The report came as the company continues to investigate a separate leak in a relatively new steam generator tube that prompted the shut-down of one reactor as a precaution.

The other reactor is off line for maintenance, and inspectors there are continuing to study what the NRC described as unusual wear found in hundreds of similar tubes that carry radioactive water.

Watchdog and environmental groups have criticized the utility for not alerting the public for more than an hour after the Nov. 1 ammonia leak started in a storage tank.

The NRC report found workers "failed to adequately identify, evaluate, and correct a problem" in a water purification system, which led to the leak.

No one was injured and there was no danger to the public, although some workers were evacuated as a precaution. The report said the leak made areas of a building that houses turbines inaccessible.

"The failure to take adequate corrective actions for degraded plant equipment was a performance deficiency. The performance deficiency is more than minor because" it resulted in an emergency alert, the report said.

The report also highlighted confusion among workers.

It found that guidance was not provided to operations personnel to fix the tank once a problem was detected. Meanwhile, the report said, an equipment operator believed the problem was being corrected when, in fact, it was allowed to degrade, eventually triggering an alert.

Exposure to high levels of ammonia can cause irritation, serious burns, lung damage and even death. It is used at the plant to treat water that is turned into steam, which runs the turbines that produce electricity. The treated water also is used to remove heat from the reactor's cooling system.

The plant is jointly owned by Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric and the city of Riverside.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article headline incorrectly stated that it was a radiation leak, not an ammonia leak. We regret the error.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST LOS ANGELES

Filed by Anna Almendrala  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 337
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
09:04 PM on 02/14/2012
Wrong. We don't "need" "lots of watts." We need less watts. Energy waste is the cause of 90% of the energy we "need." This is the most insidious lying-with-the-truth there is. That we "need" more and more and more and more energy infinitely. Everyone knows in their heart that that is a li, but the hegemony makes the infinite increase in energy seem like common sense. When it is death.
09:00 PM on 02/14/2012
Hahah, that one tro is Professor Irwin Corey. It presents double-talk as argument. Priceless.
08:57 PM on 02/14/2012
The key point of this is not the ammonia. It is that incompetent, in_ev_ri_ated, corrupt nuclear power plant workers either overlooked or deliberately overlooked malfunctions. See. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that at the very least they are incompetent. Or, let us say it nicely--they make mistakes. Mistakes or incompetent, it don't matter. One to many and we are toast.
01:03 PM on 02/14/2012
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_120214_07-e.pdf
fission products found in #2.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
06:53 PM on 02/13/2012
http://www.kurion.com/fukushima.html

Kurion Fukushima update - The company is doing some good things. I do not work for them

Watch the video.
06:27 PM on 02/13/2012
When a organism is exposed to ionizing radiation it doesn't just cause cancer - it leaves much more evidence of exposure throughout the organism. So we can actually trace radiation exposure and severity in living organisms.

Why do you suppose the anti nuclear folks never discus this? All of their "studies" depend on a degree of vagueness that isn't part of science on the subject. Start looking.
06:38 PM on 02/13/2012
Seriously, If you care about doing the right thing. We cant afford mistakes here. A lot is at stake.
07:00 PM on 02/13/2012
Over the next 100 years, many scientists predict, 20 percent to 30 percent of species could be lost if the temperature rises 3.6 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. If the most extreme warming predictions are realized, the loss could be over 50 percent, according to the United Nations climate change panel. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/science/earth/22kenya.html )

Its not "going" to happen. Its already started.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:49 PM on 02/14/2012
Wong: hot particle. It's been studied to death. You usually cannot find evidence the the radiation that originally caused the cell mutation leading to cancer because it takes 10-20 years for the cancer to develop.

There IS NO SIGNATURE of radiation caused cancer, they are identical to natural cancers.

The perfect mass murder.
04:01 PM on 02/13/2012
Are you kidding. Seriously did you evaluate this within reality?

"Among the 10 most populous counties, the percentage of deaths attributable to PM2.5 and ozone ranges from 3.5% in San Jose to 10% in Los Angeles." ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01630.x/full )
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:53 PM on 02/14/2012
Are you kidding?

Using the very same sort of statistical analysis, nuclear power has killed some 64M people.

You don't accept that do you?
01:31 PM on 02/13/2012
Pushing 300 comments here - not even a threat to health - in the story above about air quali8ty killing Californians not a single comment yet.

The anti nuke cause is the scourge of serious environmentalism.
09:12 AM on 02/13/2012
The radiation release will be covered in future articles. And the next leak. And the next accident. And the ones after that.

It would be a shame to spend all that money building a new nuclear plant only to have it shut down before producing any electricity.

Hopes would be dashed.

I seem to recall that happening to a coal plant not too long ago.

Uh oh. There is a lawyer at the gate.
06:48 AM on 02/13/2012
Chuck Carlson: Lessons of Three Mile Island slipping away

........It was a stuck valve, of all things, that caused the initial problem and, before it was over four days later, even people who didn't know the difference between fuel rods and curtain rods knew that part of Three Mile Island's nuclear core had melted from intense heat. And that was a problem.........

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20120213/OPINION02/202130306/Chuck-Carlson-Lessons-Three-Mile-Island-slipping-away
01:28 PM on 02/13/2012
Not one causality I think the real lesson was.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
02:35 PM on 02/13/2012
A few excess but un-labelled cancers.

And with $20bn worth of damage by todays money, a lot of investors taking a huge bath.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
06:54 PM on 02/13/2012
Actually it was a shift change miscommunication and the oncoming shift supervisor turned off safety injection inadvertently. Also the isenthalpic expansion through the PORV was not recorded as a temperature difference since the steam was "saturated" and Temp is constant in that region along the T-S diagram of the steam table.
WonderingNThinking
Think Before We Sink
02:31 AM on 02/13/2012
I can't remember which one of the nuclear industry posters said that nuclear plants had a perfect "OSHA" safety record. Ammonia leak and the guy falling into the "pool" at San Onofre counts as two.
04:24 PM on 02/13/2012
Unfortunately compared to other power generation meas thats a spotless record.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:51 PM on 02/13/2012
So, we can store radioactive waste at your house?

Right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
12:45 AM on 02/17/2012
I doubt the nuclear industry's record is perfect, but the two incidents you cite caused no injury of any kind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
legalgirl
Just a legal girl on a mission for the truth
09:42 PM on 02/12/2012
How about wave energy (from the ocean) as used in Norway? California has a LOT of coastline. And wind and/or solar in the deserts -- we've got plenty of those, too.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
11:43 PM on 02/12/2012
For pretty much anything and everything that isn't fossil, put me in the 'Yes, some of those' column.

Some nonfossil, noncombustion energy techs will work better than others for us, but I support building all of it. We will need lots of watts.
photo
southingtonian
"I'm a Capricorn and you can't make me do sh*t.."
02:22 AM on 02/13/2012
Since Germany manages to produce 18 bn kwh, there is no reason to rule it out for Ohio. Yet it's difficult to get a hearing, much less action, by local goverments.
11:31 AM on 02/13/2012
Norway has lots of fjords, a landform that typically has high tidal variations. It might be practical in Maine or Alaska, but most bays in CA are used as ports.

Wind or solar might work better in CA. Thrift in what we do - eg use of landfills and what goes into them - could help - but there are also social implications in that, ie, less pressure on resources permits more aggressive groups to control them. There's no avoiding conflict over resources, and it's most likely that conflict is ultimately going to be resolved by coercion.
08:43 PM on 02/12/2012
Unfortunately Nuclear power is part of the only working solution to mitigating climate change. So that means we need to deal with risk scientifically. As this was no real risk to anyones safety its rather meaningless as a argument for or against nuclear power.
09:03 PM on 02/12/2012
Greens are pretty much clueless when it comes to energy. Germany is a mess now becasue they cant do math.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Replogle
03:14 PM on 02/13/2012
I think if you look at TGermany you'll find they are doing quite well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
11:12 PM on 02/12/2012
I think its fortunately that nuclear power is the only working solution.
04:17 PM on 02/13/2012
to each their own. There are always trade offs. Nuclear to me is the best decision now.
12:57 AM on 02/17/2012
and the fact that nuclear is the only working solution should make it easier to put nuclear technology into the center of our energy policy. There is no reason we couldn't be more like France if we put the effort into it.
08:39 PM on 02/12/2012
Try Google if you are curious. A court order is required for such action in cemetaries.
07:48 PM on 02/12/2012
Explain the need for subsidized loans from the taxpayers. Hint- nuclear is too risky for Wall Street.

Explain the need for the subsidy of taxpayers on the hook in case of accident or attack. Hint- private insurers would charge more than the profit nukes make.

And that ignores all the tax breaks.

Stating that nuclear receives no subsidies is factually incorrect. Just like most of the pro radiation crowd claims.
08:48 PM on 02/12/2012
All renewable and clean energy relies on loans. So does fossil power generation on a large scale.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Callme Ish
05:21 AM on 02/13/2012
Incorrect, many PV systems are don't without any loan or handout.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:17 PM on 02/12/2012
Its a catch 22. Why is nuclear risky? What are the forces that make it risky? What can be done to make it less risky?

One thing that is being implemented is the combined Construction Operating License (COL). This is crucial in that it basically removes all intervenor challenges to plant operation once the facility is built. The NRC basically has said, you build it to spec, then its soup.

The antinukes are crying sour grapes.

Everyone knows nuclear is more costly up front, however they make about $1 million a day per GW so you do the math. After about 15 years, it pays for itself. The last 25 are all profit
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
02:37 PM on 02/13/2012
Given that the costs are something more like $12bn per GW, payback comes in 30 years, which is quite a different proposition.