Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by CaptD

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Great Youtube of San Onofre CPUC Meeting about THE SCE ratepayer ripoff going viral in CA and beyond…

June 25, 2014 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station


Since NRC Region IV accepted the like-for-like story in the first place, SCE now had some insurance that Region IV would not come down too hard on them when they did their AIT Report but that backfired on both SCE and Region IV when their findings were challenged. Once outside experts starting asking pointed questions, SCE restart plan was exposed as being technically unsound and from that time onward SCE started to accept that the only way out for them was to decommission San Onofre as "a cost savings for ratepayers", which to many just added insult to injury, as SCE continues to push for having the ratepayers pay for the debacle that SCE caused, instead of SCE's shareholders who have enjoyed huge yearly profits while this entire process was happening.

May 19, 2014 at 4:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

As to why they went forward with the RSG knowing that they had "design issues", my best guess is that they had to since they had painted themselves into a corner by already committing themselves as the Operators that were in charge of the RSGP to the CPUC, the NRC and their shareholders, so if they suddenly had to say, "Ah, guys we think we may have some small design problems" they would have set themselves and SCE up for even bigger legal accountability issues that could have ended up with SCE being not allowed to replace the OSG, which were getting near their plugging limitation and therefore were not generating as much Energy and/or profits as SCE wanted. Another issue is the use of high burn-up fuel and its effect on the original steam generators and other related hardware, which was one of the reasons that SCE wanted to install the new RSG since they would have better corrosion resistance since they used a newer alloy for the tubing and would be able to generate more energy and profits for SCE.

Another issue is that even today, most of the decision makers at SCE do not understand FEI and the danger it poses to steam generators, so they figured that they could get away with operating the RSG's in such a way as to minimize any potential problems until they could explain them away as being unrelated to SCE's specific design. Remember that Unit 2 was replaced first and was operated with different parameters than Unit 3 for about a year and I bet these same Senior decision makers at SCE were feeling pretty confident by that time, that both Unit 2 and Unit 3 would work out OK, that is until Unit 3 started leaking, which then lead to the discovery of all the internal SG tube damage which even the NRC said was unprecedented in the history of the US Nuclear Fleet.

This NRC damage assessment was the wake up call for SCE who then shifted into CYA mode, which included coming down hard on any employees that hinted at or even worse provided documentation that these problems were predicted by SCE team members but ignored by those in charge. SCE then circled its wagons as they tried to regroup while they "studied the problem." They brought in outside experts but only gave them "some" of the data, which I believe was pre-planned and the reason that all their results conflicted with each other, creating an even bigger smoke screen for SCE to hide behind.


May 19, 2014 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

More of SCE's Nuclear Industry documentation

Yet more info on how SCE tried unsuccessfully to game the NRC's Like-For-Like rules, while making huge changes to the Replacement Steam Generators (RSG's):

Improving like-for-like RSGs 

===> Published just before the Unit 3 leak occurred in January 2012.

May 19, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station


The ALJ has decided that almost no discovery was necessary and that helped SCE try to make the case that they were wronged by MHI when in fact SCE was in charge of the RSGP, not MHI and there is SCE documentation to prove it. Since Michael Aguirre asked where the SCE supporting documentation is in the official record and SCE can't point to it, it clearly shows that it has never been "discovered" which is a major issue since any settlement must be based upon a review of all the relevant facts. Now it is clear that the ALJ was far too restrictive in what was discoverable because SCE has not disclosed all the relevant facts, so any proposed settlement based upon partial information is questionable at best!

If I were advising the CPUC, I'd suggest that they hold a meeting with all the parties that were not part of the settlement discussions and find out what they feel needs to be done to settle this case, or if that is unworkable, get ready for a lengthy legal appeals that will be both costly and time-consuming.

Once this case leaves the CPUC, I expect it to expand in its scope and that is something that can only work against SCE since they were the operators of San Onofre who installed faulty replacement steam generators, which caused this debacle.

May 19, 2014 at 1:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

The point Michael Aguirre is making is that the ALJ is not allowing any discussion that relates to how SCE knew that the RSGP had serious design flaws even though SCE's own documents point that out!

In short, the ALJ is helping SCE defend itself by not allowing discovery of the documents needed to "prove" that SCE knowingly allowed potentially dangerous RSG to be built, installed and operated at San Onofre; which is why ratepayers should not have to pay one cent for SCE's RSGP debacle!

Anyone that has studies the letter (link below) by Edison vice president Dwight Nunn will understand that SCE knew that there were major issues that should have stopped the "like-for-like" replacement process.

May 18, 2014 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station


Don't miss this stunning video of the CPUC evidentiary Hearing on the San Onofre nuclear plant. We asked Michael Aguirre to take the lead role in our cross examination during this hearing because we had a very short time, and it requires an experienced attorney to go toe-to-toe with ALJ Darling and the commissioners. Don't miss Peevey's outburst of expletives toward the end when Aguirre put him on the spot about his discussions with SCE, which he was once president of.

What is important here is to expose the ridiculous operation of this commission. Anyone watching it will definitely see how much the utilities control this so-called regulatory agency.

20140514 CPUC San Onofre Settlement Evidentiary Hearing

May 18, 2014 at 12:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

With many billions of dollars at stake it is amazing to me that MSM is not talking about this issue daily, what other story beside the wildfires is more important to those living in soCal?

May 18, 2014 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Settling The Bill For Closing The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Much more on this BAD deal for ratepayers on these two links:

San Onofre: No questions allowed at next public workshop


Public utilities commission's rape of the ratepayers

May 14, 2014 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

California Utility In Talks Over San Onofre Repair, Inspection Costs

Part 2

Our list of recommendations:

Establish better ways to safely store and transport nuclear waste, especially high burnup fuel, to an acceptable remote location as soon as one is available.

Improve instrumentation capabilities to monitor spent fuel pools and dry cask storage.

Add one more layer of protection to dry cask storage by "canning" spent fuel assemblies in individual sub-containers, handling all waste as if it will become damaged by excessive heat and radiation over time.

Reduce the number of spent fuel assemblies from 24 units per cask instead of seeking to increase it to 32 units for the sole purpose of saving money.

Transfer adequately cooled fuel assemblies to dry cask storage immediately to free up overcrowded conditions in spent fuel pools, making them more secure.
Reinforce structures that protect all forms of waste and develop unmanned systems to respond to any radiological emergency.

Provide on-site capabilities to handle a leaking cask should there be a breach in containment.

Make public announcements before the release of tons of pollutants into the ocean which is currently allowed as part of the decontamination process.

Invest in emergency preparedness capabilities for our communities that can endure weeks of isolation, not just a few days.

The overarching message from our community to Edison is:

When in doubt, use the precautionary principle.

Always error on the side of public safety over profit.

*Go to for other carefully referenced technical resources.

San Clemente Green

March 24, 2014 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )