San Onofre (USA)

Map of San Onofre

Map Loading...

440 MW PWR unit; constructed by Westinghouse; grid connection in 1968, shut down in 1992.
2 * 1100MW PWR units; constructed by CE; grid connection 1982/83.

Facilities in San Onofre

plantreactor typconstruction startoperation startshut down
San Onofre-1PWR196319681992
San Onofre-2PWR197419822013
San Onofre-3PWR197419832013

Operators of the nuclear plant won permission Friday to truck a decommissioned, 900-ton reactor vessel along a beach that environmentalists say is a critical habitat for endangered birds.
After heated discussion, the California Coastal Commission voted 7-5 to approve the request by Southern California Edison, which operates the San Onofre plant 10 miles south of San Clemente.
A 192-wheel tractor-trailer will haul the reactor, as heavy as two fully loaded Boeing 747s, over streams and through a popular public beach.
Edison says it will take several days next month to make the 15-mile trip. It must complete the project by March 31, to avoid the primary nesting season of the snowy plover.

The defunct reactor, which has been cleaned of high-level radioactive material, will be loaded onto a barge at Camp Pendleton Marine base and shipped to a nuclear landfill in Barnwell County, S.C.
Mark Massara, a representative of the Sierra Club, told the commission that San Onofre's operators were behaving like "reckless pennypinchers."
But Edison officials argued the beach was often used by Marines for training. The commission also noted that Marine vehicles often travel the same stretch of beach.
Massara said the Sierra Club intends to offer a live Webcast of the move to allow public monitoring.


GEC-Alsthom will replace the turbine rotors at unit-2 & 3, which will increase the stations capacity by 50 MW. The contract is worth about US$ 60 million .


SCE (Southern California Edison´s) had asked the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to hold a hearing on the utility's proposal to cut back its efforts to mitigate the impact San Onofre has on the marine environment near the plant. But November 15, the CCC rejected SCE´s request.
The mitigation package, which will apparently go forward in light of the CCC action, stems from a 15-year, $48-million independent study, financed by SCE, which estimated the nuclear reactor's cooling system sucks up 21- to 58-million tons of fish every year. Four billion fish eggs and larvae are also destroyed annually, the report claims. In addition, an area covered by a kelp bed has, over time, been reduced by 60% because of San Onofre operation. The CCC has estimated that San Onofre´s impact on marine resources - primarily fish - amounts to a $3-million annual loss to the California economy.
Michael Hertel, SCE´s manager of environmental affairs, claimed new information, unavailable in 1991, "clearly shows that any definitive impact to the San Onofre kelp Bed due to San Onofre operation cannot be substantiated," and that the mitigation program "is significantly out of proportion" to the damage caused by San Onofre.


Second lawsuit from an employee who claims to have been sick with cancer because of exposure to tiny specks of alpha emitteing fuel particles at the plant.
March 1994 Rung Tang, a former NRC inspector at San Onofre settled a lawsuit over her alleged contraction of chronic myelogenous leukemia from exposure, when she worked at the plant in the mid-1970s.
Glenn James who worked as a contract engineer at San Onofre in the 1980s now has the same type of cancer, also is suing the plant owners.


Refueling outage was extended a second time: first extension was because of cracks in the low pressure turbines (cost 1,7 million US$)
Second extension is to repair a SG secondary leak.


Setpoint for SG low level trip incorrectly (nonconservatively) calculated. Cond. existed since initial operation.


Setpoint for SG low level trip incorrectly (nonconservatively) calculated. Condition existed since initial operation


Single failure analysis problems existed since 1976; Reanalyses of ECCS and supporting systems revealed scenarios that could have impacted performance of some ECCS functions.


Calculation error: the actual heat load on he spent fuel cooling system could be much greater than in the FSAR. Upon failure of the installed pump, the spare pump may not have been installed in time to prevent boiling.


HPCI system: Charging pumps were found to be susceptible to gas binding from the volume control tank. The tank outlet valves were fail open type rather than fail closed as specified in the system design (generic problem).


Design error was discovered in the RPS single failure analyses such that failure of measured flow and a seized RCP rotor in the same loop would have resulted in excessive fuel cladding temperature.


Fasteners on thermal shield support blocks were found broken ( 3 of 30 bolts cracked).


195 SG tube sleeves do not have proper hard roll to prevent tube pull-out following postulated accidents.


34.000 liters had siphoned from spent fuel pool into the reactor cavity.