[Trentamj]

So, if I read the article correctly, the San Onofre Reactors were done-in by DC, as in the Washington DC-based Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC did not reject SCE's plan to restart Unit 2 at 70% because rejections can be legally appealed. Instead SCE was placed in legal and financial limbo through the politics of process-paralysis and deliberate bureaucratic slow-walking. As a result, I don't blame SCE for simply saying: "No mas!" '

[kidd]

Sort of.

SONGS, and three independent firms, had completed numerous safety evaluations that showed that SONGS-2 could operate at 70% power safely.

A member of the NRC (Emmett Murphy) looked at the license for SONGS and noted that it could only operate if the plant was capable of operating at full power. While operating at a lesser power is less of a strain on the plant, it was nevertheless outside of its license criteria.

SCE asked for a license ammendment. By law, such an ammendment is subject to public hearings.

Technically, the NRC followed the law. In fact, I’d say the NRC was leaning in favor of getting SONGS-2 to restart.

However, for reasons that I’m not clear about, the NRC was going to allow a series of public hearings on the SONGS license ammendment. SCE must have thought that spending more money to respond to public hearing queries would be prohibitively expensive.