Why fatigue damage will stop the NRC from allowing Unit 2 to restart

FATIGUE DAMAGE TO SONGS STEAM GENERATORS

J. Hopenfeld 

Provided to the “DAB Safety Team” as additional explanation of the fatigue damage to SONGS steam generators which was discussed in a report by the author and was submitted to the California Public Utility Commission on March 29, 2013

Note: Links to these documents are listed below 

SCE/MHI made a mistake in their stress analysis, which directly impacts the safety of restarting Unit 2.  When the error is corrected, the result clearly shows that Unit 2 has already used up its allowed fatigue life and is not fit for service any longer.  This means that if Unit 2 is restarted at any power level an abrupt pressure change such as inadvertent closing or opening of a valve or a steam line break could lead to a sudden tube ruptures.   The ASME code and NRC regulations do not permit safety components to operate when their fatigue life has been exhausted.

The source of MHI’s error resulted from how they calculated the increase in the local stress at geometrical discontinuities  (notches), which are formed when two metal surfaces come in contact during vibration.  Since the worn surfaces of the tubes inside the steam generators cannot be seen, MHI made two key assumptions, which are inconsistent with the observation that both the tube and the supporting bar are worn into each other.  First, MHI assumed that the ASME endurance limit could be applied directly to the notched tube surfaces.  Since it is commonly known that surface roughness significantly reduces fatigue life and since the ASME data is for smooth polished surfaces, this assumption would underestimate the amount of fatigue damage.  Second, when using the Peterson chart, MHI assumed unrealistically large fillet radius and consequently derived a low concentration stress factor.  Large radii would decrease the local stress and cause the tube to fail at a higher stress thereby increasing its fatigue life.  Only by using these two, arbitrary non-conservative, assumptions was MHI able to conclude that Unit 2 did not suffer any fatigue damage.

As depicted in the MHI drawings the support bar and the tube form a sharp discontinuity at the contacting surface, therefore the appropriate geometry for calculating the stress concentration is an abrupt geometry change (very small radii), not a large radius shoulder fillet that was assumed by MHI.  When a correction is made to account for the sharp notch, the corrected stress indicates  (see Figure 1 below) that the tubes have used up their fatigue life during the first cycle of operation.  Structures with sharp notches can fail catastrophically when subjected to high cycle vibrations.  (MHI redacted their assumption so the exact value of the radius they used is unknown.)

 The loss of fatigue life is a major defect in the tube material; NRC regulations 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion 16 specify that for a licensee to maintain his operating license, such non-conformance must be promptly identified and corrected.   The licensee must assure that “corrective action (is) taken to preclude repetition.  NRC’s General Design Criteria 4 and 10CFR50 Appendix A also specify that steam generator tubes must be able to “ accommodate the effects of loss of coolant accidents “ The fact that the NRC has not already raised these issues in any of their  “Requests for Additional Information, RAIs” indicates that the NRC would be ignoring its own regulations if it allows SCE to restart Unit 2.

 In Summary: The SCE request for approval to operate Unit 2 at 70 % power for 150 days provided no explanation for the selection of this inspection interval.  The absence of such explanation and the absence of an indication of the actions that would follow demonstrate the unreliability of SCE entire assessment of restarting Unit 2.  Edison did not specify pass/fail criteria for the tubes during the outage inspection.  Given the fact that fatigue damage does not lend itself to detection, SCE request is unacceptable and should be rejected. 

  

The full DAB Safety Team's  Media Alert - 5 Parts:

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=15V8BD4YK0MjwUV6gPZt6ILS_lP7CpClzgnZentLfx8U

Which includes both Dr. Hopenfeld's CPUC documents as Parts 4 & 5:

Part 4 https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=0BweZ3c0aFXcFMC1BNlpMeDQyM2M

Part 5 https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=0BweZ3c0aFXcFX2gxRDFCRW9CVzg

NRC: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

NRC: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

... and why it is unsafe To restart San Onofre

A GOOD NRC enforcement example:

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is a nuclear power plant in Oak Harbor, Ohio. On March 5, 2002, maintenance workers discovered that corrosion had eaten a football-sized hole into the reactor vessel head of the Davis-Besse plant. Corrosion had been clogging the plant’s filters for months, requiring repeated filter replacement, but the cause was not investigated until after a worker leaned against a control rod drive mechanism, and it toppled over. Although the corrosion did not lead to an accident, this was considered to be a serious nuclear safety incident. Some observers have criticized the NRC’s Commission work as an example of regulatory capture [See Note 1] and the NRC has been accused of doing an inadequate job by the Union of Concerned Scientists.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission kept Davis-Besse shut down until March 2004, so that FirstEnergy was able to perform all the necessary maintenance for safe operations. The NRC imposed its largest fine ever—more than $5 million—against FirstEnergy for the actions that led to the corrosion. The company paid an additional $28 million in fines under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice. The NRC closely monitored FENOC’s response and concluded in September 2009 that FENOC met the conditions of the 2004 order. From 2004 through 2009 the NRC reviewed 20 independent assessments conducted at the plant and verified the independent assessors’ credentials. The agency also conducted its own inspections and reviewed FENOC’s reactor vessel inspections conducted in early 2005. NRC inspectors paid particular attention to the order’s focus on safety culture and safety conscious work environment to ensure there were no new signs of weakness. The NRC task force concluded that the corrosion, occurred for several reasons:

·    NRC, Davis-Besse and the nuclear industry failed to adequately review, assess, and follow up on relevant operating experience at other nuclear power plants;

·    Davis-Besse failed to ensure that plant safety issues received appropriate attention; and

·    NRC failed to integrate available information in assessing Davis-Besse’s safety performance.

A BAD NRC enforcement example:

At San Onofre by Region IV and the NRC: The papers shown below have been obtained from Public Domain written by Dr. Joram Hopenfeld and a former SONGS Employee based on his investigation of the steam generator issues, review of the plant data and discussions with several Key SONGS Insiders. These papers confirm that Southern California Edison wants to restart unsafe Unit 2 nuclear reactor at 70% power under false pretenses, just for profits, and as an unapproved risky experiment by subverting the NRC and Federal regulatory process.  The true Root Cause (See Note 2) of the unprecedented tube-to-tube wear in Unit 3 has NOT been officially established, as required by NRC Confirmatory Letter Action 1 for restarting the defectively designed and degraded Unit 2.  NRC has not even completed their review of Unit 2 Return to Service Reports, nor have they finished Special Unit 2 Tube Inspections, nor have they (publicly?) reviewed SCE’s Response to NRC’s Requests for Additional Information (RAIs).
NOTE: NO FINES ARE MENTIONED - WHY?

An UGLY NRC enforcement example?:

Now, SCE wants the NRC to approve a new shady License Amendment, undermining public safety and they want it done without the involvement of Public Safety Experts, Attorneys and/or Citizens/Ratepayers.  After the review of the Mitsubishi Root Cause Evaluation and the Draft SCE License Amendment, it is crystal clear that the NRC needs to follow the example of their own enforcement at David Besse together with the lessons learned from Fukushima, when it comes to NOT approving this new Shady License Amendment for restarting San Onofre Unit 2’s defectively designed and degraded replacement steam generators.  In light of the unanticipated/unprecedented tube leakage at San Onofre Unit 3, the health and safety, along with the economic concerns/objections of 8.4 million Southern Californians’ MUST OVERRIDE and PREVENT the restarting of Unit 2 at ANY power level.  In a Democratic Society, truth must prevail over profit motivations, misleading propaganda of electricity service disruption and/or projected probabilistic temporary inconveniences to the public based on phony data, because America cannot afford a trillion dollar nuclear eco-disaster!

Our Safety must override SCE's profits and prevent them from restarting Unit 2.

Notes:

1: Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.  Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

2. Human performance errors resulting from the negative safety culture of production (profits) goals overriding public safety obligations.


=======================================================================
Additional Information:

The full DAB Safety Team's Media Alert 5 Parts:

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=15V8BD4YK0MjwUV6gPZt6ILS_lP7CpClzgnZentLfx8U

The complete five (5) part presentation, see the eight (8) titles listed below:

Part 1, First Part  https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=1GcDuO0NvUdBBRVqCinM3Gr9bhmsJDCIbOg65rwdtjBY

Part 1, Second Part https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=1v_UcRLUlwmhtVDbftGcROPkF-cujiGa_-qjUJ7i2WIM

Part 1, Third Part https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=1yCOQ_diw8Qix1qG3j7MC6F2VfcqMoFOidxjJdIBpba0

Part 1, Fourth Part https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1

Part 2 https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?
pli=1&docId=1wkyTGWUy0pIXjBXc91JWr6_ACB3d-AIQbuVVZtDRZvI

Part 3 https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=16VmGtq9oYGS2-bpR4nBt9d-YB21E2xrjFpIJoxFJ4s4

Part 4 https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=0BweZ3c0aFXcFMC1BNlpMeDQyM2M

Part 5 https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BweZ3c0aFXcFZGpvRlo4aXJCT2s/edit?pli=1&docId=0BweZ3c0aFXcFX2gxRDFCRW9CVzg

San Onofre Legacy (SOL Part 1, 2 and 3)

The DAB Safety Team released three Media Alerts today!

Together they describe (in technical detail) the current situation at San Onofre, along with what SCE, their experts and other public nuclear watchdogs are now saying about all the NRC RESTART QUESTIONS they have been told to answer:

1. SONGS Unit 2 Fluid Elastic Instability, Thermal-Hydraulic Modeling, Enlightening Dr. Pettigrew, Concerned/Frustrated NRC Commissioners and Main Steam Break (28 Pages)

snip:

The following paper shows that the entire NRC Regulatory Process is underfunded, broken and needs additional funding, oversight and extensive overhaul to ensure public safety.

2. SCE’s Dismal and Unconvincing Performance before NRC Commissioners (13 Pages)

snip:

The presentation by SCE, Mitsubishi and other experts to the NRC was very disappointing and disturbing to 8.4 million Southern Californians.  The presentation did not address U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and Congressman Edward J. Markey’s concerns expressed on February 6, 2013 in her letter to NRC Chairman McFarlane, “Southern California Edison was aware of problems with replacement steam generators at its San Onofre nuclear power plant but chose not to make fixes.

3. Unit 2 Retainer Bars Integrity Unproven and Unsafe During a MSLB  (12 Pages)

snip:

The structural integrity of SONGS degraded retainer bar system to withstand combined loads that result from postulated accident conditions events has not been demonstrated.

Unsafe NRC Computer Model Requires Investigation

Snip from:

Press Release 13-01-22 ATHOS Validity Questioned, Qualifying Investigation Required

The validity of the ATHOS T/H computer model for San Onofre Unit 2 at Main Steam Line Break  conditions requires that the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations complete a Qualifying Investigation to assure steam generator tube integrity before any restart decision is made.

PROBLEM STATEMENT: The computer thermal-hydraulic models cannot account for all the mechanical factors and extremely narrow tube-to-tube clearance differences, which would very likely contribute to catastrophic tube-to-tube wear (fluid elastic instability) in San Onofre Unit 2.  In light of the 8 tube failures of Unit 3 at Main Stream Line Break testing conditions, fluid elastic instability can cause cascading tube leakages/ruptures in Unit 2 even at 70% power due to Steam Generator pressure and temperature changes caused by, for example, a main steam line break, earthquake, loss of offsite power, stuck main steam safety valve and/or other operational transients.  The cascading tube failures would “pop like popcorn” (as described by nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen) and cause excessive offsite radiation exposures.  Operator Action as claimed by Edison to re-pressurize the steam generators is not feasible to stop a major nuclear accident in Unit 2 in the first 15 minutes of a Main Stream Line Break,  stuck open SG safety valve, earthquake, steam generator tube ruptures and other operational transients during the preposed 5-month trial TEST PERIOD.

INVESTIGATION REQUEST: The DAB Safety Team seeks to assist the NRR by requesting a Qualifying Investigation, as noted above and by providing additional information, as noted below.

For much more read  DAB Safety Team Documents     “Media Alert 13-01-22 Faulty Modeling And Unreasonable Operator Actions Make San Onofre Restart Unsafe”, “Emergency Preparedness at San Onofre”, “Managing Control Room Safety” and Press Release: “TEST: Viability of Operator Actions to Prevent Offsite Radiation Releases 

=====

Some useful nuclear phrases:

Normal operational conditions

Normal operational conditions mean that the nuclear power plant is operated according to the Technical Specifications and operational procedures. These also include tests, plant start-up and shutdown, maintenance and refueling.

Anticipated operational transient

An anticipated operational transient means a deviation from normal operational conditions, which is milder than an accident and which can be expected to occur once or several times over a period of a hundred operating years.

 Unanticipated operational transient

An unanticipated operational transient means a deviation from normal operational conditions, which is not proceduralized and Plant Operator does not recognize that condition.   A good example are the so called SONGS Unit 3 false alarm from loose parts vibration monitoring system for which there is no explanation from SCE, NRC or Westinghouse.  Another example would be a leakage from a pump pumping radioactive fluid without any area radiation monitors to warn the operators of the leakage.

=====

Accident

An accident means such a deviation from normal operational conditions as is not an anticipated operational transient. There are two classes of accident: postulated accidents and severe accidents. Based on the initiating event, postulated accidents are further divided into two sub-classes whose acceptance criteria are described in Guide YVL 6.2.

Postulated accident

A postulated accident means such a nuclear power plant safety system design-basis event as the nuclear power plant is required to withstand without any serious damage to the fuel and without discharges of radioactive substances so large that, in the plant’s vicinity, extensive measures should be taken to limit the radiation exposure of the population.

Severe accident

OMG................. Talk about SanO Nuclear Denial* “severe accident” is not even listed in the 130 page NRC Collection of Abbreviations, but if you do a computer search for it on the NRC website you find this:

Severe accident

A type of accident that may challenge safety systems at a level much higher than expected.

* http://is.gd/XPjMd0
The illogical belief that Nature cannot destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime

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 Violated Federal Reg.’s And the Public Trust

Nuclear Experts Agree, San Onofre’s Replacement Steam Generators Are Unsafe

Summation: Based upon our ongoing review of evaluations, engineering analyses, inspections, technical and operational assessment reports prepared by the NRC’s Augmented Inspection Team, MHI, SCE, Westinghouse, AREVA, Professor Daniel Hirsch, industry experts and knowledgeable whistle blowers, along with the recent affidavits prepared by Arnie Gundersen and John Large, we reaffirm the following statements which have been previously substantiated in numerous DAB Safety Team Documents:

1. The DAB Safety Team has been saying for months for a long time that SCE and MHI Engineers did a very poor job in their review of Academic Research Papers and Industry Comparisons about how to prevent the adverse effects of fluid elastic instability in the design of San Onofre's replacement steam generators because the original Combustion Engineering designed steam generators did not experience the adverse effects of fluid elastic instability. Nuclear Expert, John Large statesA, “I have little confidence in the outcome of AREVA’s projection of the time period through which the U2 nuclear plant could be reliably expected to operate without incurring a tube failure or running at a greater risk of a tube failure occurring. ... In my opinion, simply sweeping the fluid elastic instability issue under the carpet on the basis ... it will not reoccur at 70% power is not only disingenuous but foolhardy.” TheNRC chairman has publicly stated, “SCE is responsible for the work of its vendor and its contractor.” DAB Safety Team alleges that SCE actions are in violation of the Federal Regulations, its CPUC Charter, the NRC Chairman Standards and even its own advertised charter of “Overriding Obligations to Shareholders and Public Safety.”


2. Accidents involving steam generator depressurization (main steam line break), station blackout and other anticipated transient events causing steam generators over-pressurization can occur at any time over the full range of normal operating conditions up to Reactor Thermal Power (3438 MWs). Therefore BY DESIGN, these replacement steam generators are NOT capable of protecting their already worn and cracked tubes from radioactive leakages and/or ruptures caused by the above.

3. In Unit 2, these already fatigued, cracked, and heavily degraded tubes can snap, leak and/or rupture at the tube sheet, tube support plate or the unsupported anti-vibration bars mid and free spans during these postulated adverse accident conditions. John Large statesA, “For the MSLB event very high, two-phase fluid cross-flow velocities would be expected to instantaneously develop in the U-bend region, triggering vigorous FEI that could, particularly if the AVB restraints are ineffective, promote violent tube to tube clashing and the potential for a multiple tube failure event.”

4. It is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, that San Onofre Unit 2 replacement steam generators will likely experience single to multiple tube-to-tube failures (e.g., San Onofre Unit 3, Mihama Unit 2, North Anna, Indian Point 2 and Craus, France, etc.) during these postulated adverse licensed conditions at any power level up to 100% Power (Licensed Reactor Thermal Power of 3438 MWTs).


5. The proposed Defense-in-Depth instrumentation, along with unreliable and unproven operator actions to detect multiple tube leaks/ruptures and/or to re-pressurize the steam generators during these postulated adverse licensed conditions as claimed by Edison are not practical to stop a major nuclear accident from progressing and causing a Unit 2 meltdown.

6. There are conflicting, contradicting, ambiguous and confusing findings between the experts in the Unit 2 Operational Assessments: Such conflicting disagreements over the cause of Tube To Tube Wear reflects poorly on the depth of understanding of this crucially important FEI issue by SCE, each of these SCE consultants and the designer/manufacturer of the Replacement steam generators. The DAB Safety Team’s findings contradict the SCE and all the three NEI qualified, “US Nuclear Plant Designers” findings about Unit 2 FEI (See, Overview – Consequences of a Main Steam Line Break).

7. The DAB Safety Team Comments about SCE 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation for RSGs: The Big Number 1 Attachment Notes shows the comparison between San Onofre and Palo Verde's Replacement Steam Generator design parameters. Palo Verde has the largest CE RSGs in the world (~ 800 Tons each) and SONGS Replacement Steam Generators are the second largest CE Replacement Steam Generators in the world (~ 620 Tons each). John Large statesA, “In my opinion, the changes, tests and experiments (CTE) inherent in the SCE proposal to restart Unit 2: (a) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (b) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated; and (c) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Arnie Gundersen statesB, “It is my professional opinion that Edison should have applied for the 50.59 process so that the FSAR license amendment evaluation and public hearings would have occurred six years ago, prior to creating an accident scenario and facing losses that by the end of this process will easily total more than $1 Billion.” Therefore, the DAB Safety Team concludes that SCE claims as stated are not factual. SCE did not meet the 10CFR50, Appendix B, Quality assurance Standards and has violated the NRC 10 CFR 50.90 Regulations.

8. The Public expects that the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) comply with President Barack Obama, Senator Barbara Boxer and NRC Chairman’s Open Government Initiative. Under no circumstances should the NRR permit SCE to restart unit 2 without replacing the defective replacement steam generators, a full NRC 50.90 Licensing Amendment and transparent trial-like public hearings.
A http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/80/a/2680/R3218-Large-AF2-redacted_proprietary.pdf
B http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/b5/f/2677/2013_1_11_FOE_Gundersen_Affidavit_reEdisonSanOnofreRSG.pdf

Full Media Alert 13-01-15 Allegation - SCE Violated Federal Reg's And The Public Trust is posted on the web at this link: DAB SafetyTeam Documents.

###
The DAB Safety Team: Don, Ace and a BATTERY of safety-conscious San Onofre insiders plus industry experts from around the world who wish to remain anonymous. These volunteers assist the DAB Safety Team by sharing knowledge, opinions and insight but are not responsible for the contents of the DAB Safety Team's reports. We continue to work together as a Safety Team to prepare additional: DAB Safety Team Documents, which explain in detail why a SONGS restart is unsafe at any power level without a Full/Thorough/Transparent NRC 50.90 License Amendment and Evidentiary Public Hearings. For more information from The DAB Safety Team, please visit the link above.

Our Mission: To prevent a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima, from happening in the USA.

Copyright January 14, 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

Thirty Alarms Demonstrates SONGS Is Unsafe

The 30 Un-Resolved Alarms Recorded by SONGS Vibration Monitoring System During 11 Months of Operation, Requires An Immediate NRR Safety Investigation

Three Questions affecting US reactor safety need to be answered ASAP, by the NRR:

1.  WHY, if these 30 separate alarms were indicating that some unusual phenomena (e.g., FEI) was occurring in Unit 3, did SCE not immediately shut down Unit 3, notify the NRC of the unusual phenomena and get their help in order to properly understand what exactly was going on inside the Unit 3 SG in order to properly diagnose the problem(s), instead of just ignoring them while continuing to operate Unit 3 for 11 months in an unsafe manner?

2.  Why has NRC Region IV’s AIT Team NOT resolved this issue almost 6 months after issuance of their AIT Report and already informed the public as to the cause(s) of these unusual phenomena, if the causes are now understood.

3.  WHY should a Utility be able to operate a nuclear reactor while something unknown is happening without shutting it down ASAP and informing the NRC?

The Complete DAB Safety Team Press Release + 12-12-28 

14 Reactor Safety Questions That Edison Needs To Answer Regarding San Onofre

The 14 most important questions that the DAB Safety Team feels must be answered before the NRC, Atomic Safety Licensing Board, NRC Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulations and Nuclear Regulatory Research can complete their investigation regarding the reasonableness of the actions of SCE with respect to San Onofre steam generator replacements and their subsequent safe operation:

1 - According to some Newspaper Comments and Industry Reports in 2004, the going price for each of the four 620 Ton CE Replacement Steam Generator was estimated to be between 175-200 Million Dollars (Per Piece). How did SCE CNO/President in 2004 convince MHI to build such large, complicated, innovative and complex steam generators for 569 million dollars, which is almost 130 million dollars short of the market price and funds approved by CPCU? 

Note: The steam generator project execution began in 2004 after a SCE cost-benefit analysis, which revealed that replacement of major parts and components would save $1bn for Southern California Edison customers during the plant's license period. Instead, the ratepayers have lost $1bn in less than 2 years due to SCE’s in-house design teams mistakes.

2 - Since MHI only had experience building Fort Calhoun’s Generator of less than 320 tons, how did the SCE Engineers Technically Qualify MHI?

3 - Which other utilities’ QA Programs, did SCE take the credit for, to approve Mitsubishi’s quality assurance program. Fort Calhoun? French? Belgium? Japan?

4 – Why did SCE did not apply to NRC for increasing the plugging limit for the Old CE Generators, so they would have had more time to think, research and not rush according to Michael Peevey?

5 - Which CE Replacement Generator US Utilities did SCE benchmark to develop such detailed design and performance specifications or did they just modify the CE Old Generator Specifications with New Industry Information?  Were the SCE engineers, who wrote, checked and approved the specifications steam generator experts or was another steam generator expert in the background, who directed all the SCE work?

6 - Where did all the claims of challenges, reward, innovations and teamwork between SCE and MHI go wrong?

7 - Were the SCE Engineers sent to Japan to check MHI work and approve documents /test results qualified in that field, or they were just training/sight-seeing?

8 - Who at SCE made the decision to make all these numerous design changes and determined the changes were "Like for Like" and did not need a Licensing Amendment Process?

9 - Which SCE Engineer provided all these changes, information and documents to which NRC Engineer, who then made the decision that it was OK to proceed without a full Licensing Amendment Process?

10 - Which SCE engineer(s) approved/validated the MHI Thermal-Hydraulic FIT-III FIVATS code Inputs and Calculations?

11 - To get 10% heat transfer equivalent by switching from Alloy 600 To alloy 690, SCE needed to add 935 tubes, but they only added 377 tubes. What happened to the balance of 568 tubes? Did the SCE Engineers tell MHI to increase the length of 9727 tubes and by how much to make up for the 533 tubes?

12 – Why did the SCE Engineers did not question the MHI benchmarking, verification and validation of the FIT-III thermal-hydraulic model?

13 – Why did the SCE engineers did not contact their counter parts at PVNGS for information/advice, since PVNGS has the Largest CE Replacement Generators (800 Tons) in the world, were built in early 2001-2005 time frames and are running successfully?

14 - Were the original CE Steam Generators and new replacement generators exact in Thermal Output (MWe) or were their minor differences?

14 Reactor Safety Questions
That Edison Needs To Answer
Regarding San Onofre 

The DAB Safety Team has transmitted the following report this morning to the Chairman of the NRC, Atomic Safety Licensing Board, NRC Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulations and Nuclear Regulatory Research:

“SONGS Unit 2 Dangerous Replacement Steam Generators:

 SCE’s Embarrassing Technical Performance Trying To Justify A Restart

 Of Unit 2, To The NRC, At Their November 30, 2012 Public Meeting.”

The 78 page technical document includes 14 questions that affect US Reactor SAFETY, that the NRC, NRR and RES Regulators need to ask SCE to answer at their Dec 18, 2012 NRR/RES Meeting.

 ==========

Snip From The Report:

Unit 2 now has hundreds of times more bad tubes and a thousand times more indications of wear on its tubes than the typical reactor in the country with a new steam generator, and nearly five times as many plugged tubes as the rest of the replacement steam generators, over a comparable operating period, in the country combined.  Therefore, the restart of Unit 2 with thousands of degraded tubes present a formidable challenge to the safe restart of Unit 2 plan by making it highly vulnerable to localized steam dry-outs, 100% void fractions, fluid elastic instability, flow-induced random vibrations, cascading tube ruptures during unanticipated operational occurrences and or Main Steam Line Breaks.  In short, SCE is trying to Restart Unit 2’s Degraded RSG’s, which are outside the NORM of the NRC Regulations.

The NRC Chairman has stated that SCE is responsible for the work of its vendors and contractors. Westinghouse states that none of the MHI fabrication issues were extensively analyzed in the SCE root cause evaluation.”  It is the DAB Safety Team’s opinion that SCE claims that insufficient contact forces in Unit 3 Tube-to-AVB Gaps ALONE caused tube "to" tube wear are misleading, erroneous and designed to put the blame on MHI for purposes of making SCE look good in the public’s eyes and for collecting insurance money from MHI’s manufacturing so called defects. 

=========

The full report will also be posted on the web at this link: San Onofre Papers

or here:  SCE NRC Presentation Analysis + 14 Questions 12-12-17

###

The DAB Safety Team: Don, Ace and a BATTERY of safety-conscious San Onofre insiders plus industry experts from around the world who wish to remain anonymous.  These volunteers assist the DAB Safety Team by sharing knowledge, opinions and insight but are in no way responsible for the contents of the DAB Safety Team's reports.  We continue to work together as a Safety Team to prepare additional San Onofre Papers, which explain in detail why a SONGS restart is unsafe at any power level.  For more information from The DAB Safety Team, please visit the link above.

Our Mission: To prevent a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster, like Fukushima, from happening in the USA.

Press Release

The DAB Safety Team: December 17, 2012

Media Contact: Don Leichtling (619) 296-9928 or Ace Hoffman (760) 720-7261 

Concerning SCE’s NRC Technical Presentation on 12-11-30

Copyright December 17, 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.