SCE Cited For Major Nuclear Related Safety Violation At San Onofre

Get SCE Out of San Onofre

Background: NRC Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Requirements:

“Each licensee shall develop and implement guidance and strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire ….”

The San Onofre spent fuel cooling fire protection plan in the event of a large fire and/or explosion hinges on the expertise and staffing of the on-sight San Onofre Fire Department.

Since the San Onofre Fire Department and Emergency Planning Personnel Staffing was reduced to a skeleton crew without prior approval from the NRC after a full and proper evaluation, the existing fire plan is now outdated and unrealistic in event of a large fire or explosion.

A Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Accident, in case of a large fire or explosion without adequate and demonstrated mitigation measures is a MAJOR Nuclear Safety Concern for all the millions of Southern Californians living within the 10 Mile Emergency Protection Zone.  Remember Fukushima's triple meltdowns occurred because of a failure to keep their reactors cool after the big earth quake and tsunami which occurred on 03/11/11.

Last Friday, the NRC cited SCE, the operator of San Onofre's nuclear power plant for violating NRC rules by failing to get approval before eliminating 39 emergency-response jobs after the plant closed last year.

Historically, NRC Region IV has had the habit of citing Southern California Edison with only low level violations, even if the violations were actually severe violations.  This cozy relationship was a contributing factor in the radioactive leak that resulted in the early decommissioning of San Onofre Units 2 & 3 and the loss of billions of dollars to SoCal ratepayers that could have been prevented, if the NRC had enforced the Federal Regulations as written.  This type of safety enforcement is not good for Californians or the NRC.  Now a serious review/investigation and proper action/fines are required by the NRC and its Commissioners, to assure Nuclear Safety is maintained at San Onofre and all the other US Nuclear Power Plants.

The question the NRC should ask is, "Knowing that the SPENT FUEL POOLS MUST STILL BE KEPT COOL 24/7 no matter what, if a major earth quake occurred tonight, would San Onofre Fire Dept.'s skeleton crew be able to guarantee US that they could prevent a nuclear accident from occurring, especially since the 39 emergency-response positions that were illegally eliminated, probably cost ratepayers much less than even one still employed highly paid nuclear manager who would be home sleeping?  

The question that the CPUC should ask is, "If SEC is really interested in safety as they keep telling us, what is the reasonableness of continually cutting corners on those that actually insure our safety, while at the same time retaining other highly paid nuclear Staff?

Related articles

• San Onofre Nuclear Plant Hit With Violation
• San Onofre nuclear plant hit with violation
• San Onofre nuclear plant hit with violation
• Nation's nuclear waste a deepening concern
• Customers would get $1.4 billion in refunds in San Onofre deal

So Cal Edison San Onofre Lies

Fairewinds' Arnie Gundersen was interviewed on Russia Today to discuss Southern California Edison's "San Onofre" Power Plant. Arnie says, "The worst plant in the U.S. for evacuation plans, is San Onofre. When they built it in the fifties, no one was around it, but Southern California has grown dramatically. So it would be almost impossible to evacuate the area." Later on he discusses why, and what this could mean.

Report: Edison knew of nuclear-plant generator flaws

NRC Violating Presidential Directive and the Public Trust

SCE’s PR Machine Is Capable Of Overcoming ALL Hurdles,

Except Good Science And Safety

Albert Einstein also described INSANITY as

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 

The DAB Safety Team has challenged previously in their published DAB Safety Team Documents, that Southern California Edison’s controversial plan to restart San Onofre Unit 2 as a “Bogus and dangerous SCE experiment.”  

According to SONGS Anonymous Insiders, SCE’s Engineers were under the false impression that Unit 3 Anti-vibration Structure was built better than Unit 2.  Therefore, SCE Engineers were operating Unit 3 at lower steam pressures than Unit 2 in a test mode to generate more thermal megawatts and thereby generate more electricity.

 To add to Arnie Gundersen’s and John Large’s Technical Affidavits, DAB Safety Team’s investigation reveals that in the process of this “money-hungry experiment”, lower steam pressures in combination with other unapproved and unanalyzed design changes destroyed Unit 3 due to Fluid Elasticity Instability (FEI). SCE and NRC AIT Team both blamed Unit 3 FEI on botched up MHI Computer Modeling and insufficient tube-to-AVB gaps. AREVA, Westinghouse, John Large and the DAB Safety Team findings dispute these statements. The NRC Augmented Inspection Team and the NRR Panel have swept the DAB Safety Team Findings consistently under the rug, in what must be now labeled as a Gov’t cover-up!

The NRC keeps issuing both controversial and conflicting press statements that a decision to allow the restart of Unit 2 could come as early as March 2013.  According to SONGS anonymous insiders, Edison officials have announced in internal SONGS Staff Meetings that a restart decision is imminent in March despite the huge public outcry about safety problems by SCE.  Press reports as of January 14, 2013 state, “Small steps are being taken to prepare for possibly restarting the troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant, even as its future remains clouded with uncertainty, officials said Monday. Nuclear Regulatory Commission senior inspector Greg Warnick said Monday that the agency is beginning to prepare a detailed plan of what would need to be done to bring the plant safely back to service.” (SOURCE: CBS Los Angeles, Associated Press)

NRC’s enforcement history, drama and pre-rehearsed tough questions, press reports, casual relationship and/or protection of SCE officials and utility biased public meetings are just old and cheap regulatory tricks that are now being used to protect the NRC’s own public image and to fool the public into believing that the NRC is really concerned about public safety regarding SCE’s Restart Plan.  The Justice Department & NRR Officials need to set up a legal/technical taskforce to publically question Edison’s design and MHI Engineer’s listed below under oath regarding their:

1. Understanding of their legal obligations under the 10 CFR 50.59 Process,
2. Understanding of problems with the original steam generators,
3. Critical questioning and professional/investigative skills,
4. Efforts made in industry and academic benchmarking to identify and resolve problems with the original steam generators
5. What part did they play in the preparation of design specifications, fabrication, computer modeling, mock-up testing, anti-vibration bar structure, and research required to prevent the adverse effects of fluid elasticity and flow-induced random vibrations in these unique San Onofre Combustion Engineering replacement generators.

Any NRC decision to grant a restart of Unit 2 without a formal 50.90 licensing review along with public participation will be seen as an invitation to risk a Fukushima-type disaster happening in Southern California. 

Read More:  Allegation - NRC Violating President’s Directive And the Public Trust is posted on the web at this link: DAB Safety Team Documents.

Copyright January 17, 2013 by The DAB Safety Team. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without crediting the DAB Safety Team. The contents cannot be altered without the Written Permission of the DAB Safety Team Leader and/or the DAB Safety Team’s Attorney

SCE's News Years Resolution 2013: Decommission SONGS ASAP

NRR RAI Answers Will Prevent Any SCE Restart At San Onofre

The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has requested from Edison in a letter dated December 26, 2012, the following additional information (RAI #32): “Please clarify how the information submitted by SCE demonstrates: NRRRAI#32(1) that the structural integrity performance criterion in TS 5.5.2.11.b.1 is met for operation within current licensed limits up to the licensed Rated Thermal Power (RTP or 100% Power), or NRRRAI#32(2) provide an operational assessment that includes an evaluation of steam generator Tube-to-Tube Wear (TTW) for operation up to the RTP.”

The DAB Safety Team’s Response: 

Answer to NRRRAI#32(1): As shown in the linked Response to NRR RAI#32  - Technical, by operating the “Defectively Designed and Degraded” Unit 2 Replacement Steam Generators (RSGs), SCE CANNOT DEMONSTRATE [with all the World’s Expert’s Assistance - emphasis added] that ALL in-service RSGs tubes would retain structural integrity over the full range of normal operating conditions (including startup, operation in the power range, hot standby, cool down and all anticipated transients included in the design specification) and design basis accidents in accordance with SONGS Unit 2 Technical Specifications structural integrity performance criterion in TS 5.5.2.11.b.1.

Answer to NRRRAI#32(2): As shown in the linked Response to NRR RAI#32  - Technical, SCE CANNOT PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONAL  ASSESSMENT  TO  THE  NRR, which demonstrates that steam generator Tube-to-Tube Wear (TTW) for operation up to the RTP would not cause a tube leak in order to comply with Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A, General Design Criteria 14, “Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary—shall have “an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage…and gross rupture.” 

Southern California’s future is now in the hands of the NRR: As shown in this section, the SONGS RSG’s U-Tube bundle and Anti-vibration Bar Structures are not designed like Palo Verde RSGs to handle high steam flows, high velocities and to prevent the formation of highly localized steam dry-outs and TTW (FEI) for operation up to the RTP.  The “defectively designed and degraded” Unit 2 RSGs, if operated, will suffer additional radioactive tube leaks like SONGS Unit 3, Mihama Unit 2, North Ana, Indian Point 2 and Craus.  Therefore, SCE  CANNOT  PROVIDE AN  ACCEPTABLE  OPERATIONAL  ASSESSMENT  TO  THE  NRR, which demonstrates that steam generator Tube-to-Tube Wear (TTW) for operation up to the RTP would not cause a tube leak in order to comply with the  Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A, General Design Criteria 14, “Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary—shall have “an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage…and gross rupture.” 

...

The DAB Safety Team’s CONCLUSIONS

1. Based on an in-depth review of the above listed documentation and direct observation of Plant Operators and SONGS Emergency Response Organization Performance, the DAB Safety Team agrees with Dr. Johan Hopenfeld’s published concerns and concludes that Operator Action is not feasible to stop a major nuclear accident in Unit 2 in the first 15 minutes of a MSLB, stuck open SG safety valve, Earthquake, cascading SG tube ruptures and or any other combination of Un-anticipated operational transients, during the proposed 5-month trial period of the already heavily damaged Unit 2 RSG’s at any power setting.

2. The Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation must now formally address Dr. Johan Hopenfeld’s published concerns, as mentioned in Response to NRR RAI#32  - Technical  in light of the eight RSG tube failures at SONGS at main steam line break testing conditions, and the cascading effect that these failures prove is a very serious safety issue, that reactor operators do not currently have the ability to control. which might result in significant risk impacts such as a nuclear meltdown.

Full Press Release + 12-12-31 NRR RAI #32 Request

Copyright December 31, 2012 by The DAB Safety Team. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without crediting the DAB Safety Team. The contents cannot be altered without the Written Permission of the DAB Safety Team Leader and or the DAB Safety Team’s Attorneys.