Nuclear Power Plant Basics

Nuclear News - Nuclear Power Plant Basics

December 12, 2012

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

The basics of how a nuclear power plants works plus a diagram of its radioactive coolant and non-radioactive steam components

Figure 1 – Typical Pressurized-Water Nuclear Power Plant          Credit: Enformable

In a Pressurized Water Reactor type nuclear power plant, the energy (in the form of heat) from the reactor is transferred in a two-step process to create steam, which is then transferred by piping where it is used to spin a turbine (bladed shaft), which also turns a generator, which produces electricity.

·       In the first step or radioactive loop, core coolant liquid is heated by the radioactive fuel rods inside the reactor vessel.  This very hot radioactive coolant is then pumped under very high pressure into the steam generator where it travels through the inside of thousands of separate thin walled steam generator tubes, which lowers the coolant’s temperature before it is pumped back to the reactor to recirculate through the loop all over again.  This forms a closed loop system, which contains the majority of the radioactivity of the nuclear power plant.

·      In the secondary or non-radioactive loop, water is pumped into the lower portion of the steam generator, which then flows upward around the outside surfaces of all the very hot metallic tubes (called U tubes because of their shape).  Nearly 10 thousand tubes are very tightly packed together inside each steam generator.  These tubes, each about the diameter of a penny and not as thick as a dime, transfer their heat to the non-radioactive water/steam mixture, turning it into almost pure steam.  The steam then exits the top of the steam generator and is transferred by a pipe (called the main steam line) to spin the turbine.  Turning the turbine cools the steam back into a water/steam mixture, which is further cooled and condensed with ocean water.  The secondary loop water is pumped back to the steam generator to recirculate through the non-radioactive loop all over again.

 

Important Note: The steam generator’s tubing wall thickness is thinner than a dime (0.043 inches) to help transfer heat, but it also serves as a vitally important boundary between the radioactive coolant circulating inside the tubing which must remain separated from the non-radioactive water/steam mixture which circulates outside the tubing.  A leak, crack or worse, a complete failure of one or more of any of the tubes inside the steam generator would allow highly radioactive coolant to mix directly into the non-radioactive water/steam mixture which would then escape into the environment.  Additionally, should a main steam line break or other similar problems occur, the rapid loss of core coolant that is needed to constantly cool the radioactive fuel rods in the reactor could lead to a catastrophic meltdown of the entire radioactive reactor core.

SCE’s claims that SONGS Unit 2 Steam Generators are Safe for Restart are Erroneous because they can create a Fukushima-type nuclear meltdown in Southern California

Nuclear Power Accidents

Nuclear power plant accidents include Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), Fukushima Daiichi  (2011), and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 3’s near miss nuclear disaster (2012).  After the SONGS 3 Replacement Steam Generators (RSG’s) tube leakage, additional testing found that 8 tubes failed in-situ testing and could not sustain their structural integrity during a main steam line break (MSLB). Additionally, one RSG tube was discovered with 90% through wall wear in Unit 2 and the structural integrity of thousands of damaged tubes in both SONGS Units 3 and 2 RSG’s has been termed by NRC as a “very serious” safety issue.  Now the safety of SCE’s RSG design is being questioned by the public because these almost new SONGS RSG’s now have more damaged and/or plugged tubes than all the rest of the US power plants combined, which is unprecedented in the history of the U.S. Operating Nuclear Fleet.  Chart Credit: sanonofresafety.org;

·       Unit 3:  1 Tube leaked core coolant/radiation, 8 Tubes then failed in-situ testing, 1600 tubes damaged, 807 tubes plugged - WORST US Record!

·       Unit 2: 1 tube found with 90% wear, (almost core coolant/radiation leak/failure), 510 tubes plugged all tubes still not fully examined! 2nd WORST US Record!

Copyright December 12, 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.

NRC, Edison "Far From The Truth Of San Onofre In Maryland"

The NRC should find a suitable location on this map. 

The 12/18/12 NRC public meeting regarding Edison's proposed restart of its defective San Onofre nuclear reactor should NOT be held in Maryland.

It should be re-scheduled for next year in a location near the public and media most impacted by the NRC's decision. NO TRUST. NO RESTART!"

Thank You for your Support --

The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre

Dear Senators Boxer and Feinstein, and NRC Commissioners,

As one of almost 9 million residents, parents, business owners, workers and/or students within 50 miles of the defective nuclear reactors at San Onofre in Southern California, I am very disappointed and angry that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff is holding a "public meeting" on the operator's proposed restart of one of these defective reactors one week before Christmas at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. NOT in the vicinity of the plant, where those of us most impacted by the NRC's decision on this proposal can attend in person.

I accept the fact that not everyone who attends an NRC public meeting in person and wants to speak will have a chance to do so, but at least those who do speak are in a forum where local citizens are present, as well as our local media. Limiting us and our local media to indirect, one-way access to the meeting via Webcast is NOT in the public's best interest. The NRC has an obligation to put our needs before NRC staff's convenience. While Webcasting and a Telephone Bridge may be appropriate for those who live far from the plant under discussion or could not physically attend the meeting, it is certainly a disservice to those of us who stand directly in harm's way if things go terribly wrong.

I demand that the NRC Staff reschedule this "Category 1 Public Meeting" until after the New Year to a location readily accessible to the public impacted by the NRC's decision on Edison's proposal to restart this defective nuclear reactor in our midst.

On the NRC's website, "Important Information for Meeting Attendees," describes "Category 1 Public Meetings" (such as this one) in the NRC's open meeting policy as: 'The public is invited to observe these meetings and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned."

How are the "opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned" afforded when public access is primarly via one-way Webcast and/or Telephone Bridge? EFFECTIVE "open public meetings" must be held in the area impacted by the action or decision being contemplated by the NRC.

My trust in the NRC, and that of many others in the vicinity of San Onofre, can only be restored by our personal witness of the NRC in action and the ability to ask questions interactively. NO TRUST. NO RESTART.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)
(Your City)

Send the foregoing message to:

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. Tel: (202) 224-3553/ E-Mail: via Webform athttp://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/policycomments.cfm

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. Tel: (202) 224-3841/ E-mail: via Webform at https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane. Tel: (301) 415-1750/ E-Mail: Chairman@nrc.gov

Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki. Tel: (301) 415-1855/ E-Mail: CMRSVINICKI@nrc.gov (She is on Facebook, too: Kristine Svinicki -- you can Message her w/o being Friends.)

Commissioner George Apostolakis. Tel: (301) 415-1810/ E-Mail: CMRAPOSTOLAKIS@nrc.gov

Commissioner William D. Magwood. Tel: (301) 415-8420/ E-Mail: CMRMAGWOOD@nrc.gov

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff. Tel: (301) 415-1800/ E-Mail: CMROSTENDORFF@nrc.gov

Edison’s Claims About SONGS Unit 2 Pressures Are Erroneous

Press Release

The DAB Safety Team: December 7, 2012

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

SCE’s Claims About SONGS Unit 2 Steam Generator Operating Pressures Are Erroneous Because They Conflict With SCE’s Submitted NRC Reports And SCE’s Plant Procedures (Operational Data).

Now SCE is claiming in their Unit 2 Restart documents, “Limiting power to 70% significantly reduces fluid velocity. The reduction in fluid velocity significantly reduces the potential for FEI.”  What they are not saying is that reducing power to 70% significantly increases the steam generator operating pressures, (as the NRC said in its AIT Report) which will:

·      Increase the pressure inside all the already damaged SG tubes

·      Do nothing to completely eliminate FEI from happening at any time during normal plant operations, and especially during a MSLB or similar accident, which can cause a nuclear incident or worse!

SCE’s attempt in using evasive and misleading technical inconsistencies to justifying their dangerous and possibly catastrophic restart plan cannot hide the truth, revealed in their actual plant operational data provided to the NRC and published in the NRC AIT Report.

Background History:

After the radioactive leak occurred in the San Onofre Unit 3 steam generator, Arnie Gundersen along with a team of anonymous steam generator experts were the first ones in the industry to absolutely state, “The pitch to diameter ratio of tubes in the original CE generators is dramatically different from any of the Westinghouse generators fabricated by Mitsubishi.  As water moves vertically up in a steam generator, the water content reduces as more steam is created.  With the Mitsubishi design the top of the U-tubes are almost dry in some regions. Without liquid in the mixture, there is no damping against vibration, and therefore a severe fluid-elastic instability developed.  The real problem in the replacement steam generators at San Onofre is that too much steam and too little water is causing the tubes to vibrate violently in the U-bend region. The tubes are quickly wearing themselves thin enough to completely fail pressure tests. Even if the new tubes are actively not leaking or have not ruptured, the tubes in the Mitsubishi fabrication are at risk of bursting in a main steam line accident scenario and spewing radiation into the air.”

SCE’s Restart Plan Justification Is Just Scientific Misinformation:

Based on analysis of the NRC AIT Report, Westinghouse’s Operational Assessment, SONGS procedures, operational data, plant daily briefing sheets and engineering calculations the DAB Safety Team concludes the following:

·      Secondary side lower pressures (833 psi) along with higher reactor thermal power and design deficiencies (low tube clearances) at 100% power created conditions of “ALMOST NO WATER” in certain regions of both Unit 3 steam generators tube bundles.  This resulted in fluid elastic instability, where unprecedented tube-tube wear was observed.  At the June 18, 2012 AIT presentation, the NRC said, “Throughout the US nuclear industry, this is the first time more than one steam generator tube failed pressure testing…. Eight tubes failed. The pressure testing identified that the strength of eight tubes was not adequate and structural integrity might not be maintained during an accident… this is a serious safety issue.”  Southern Californians were lucky, that SONGS Unit 3 tube leakage was detected and stopped in time.  Otherwise, this condition could have potentially caused a reactor meltdown like Fukushima in Southern Californian’s backyards. 

·      Secondary side higher pressures in Unit 2 (864-942 psi) at 100% power negated the effects of  “low tube clearances” and prevented steam “dry-out” (high void fractions) in the Unit 2 tube bundle region, where no fluid elastic instability (tube-tube wear) was observed. 

The DAB Safety Team’s findings are summarized as follows:

·      DAB Safety Team “Strongly Agrees” with Arnie Gundersen and his team of anonymous steam generator experts and with MHI on the causes of fluid elastic instability in Unit 3.  What did SCE do, instead of thanking Arnie Gundersen, who first identified the real cause of the problem, tried to discredit him by implying, “What does he know about steam generators, he is just a high school math teacher.”

·      DAB Safety Team “Agrees” with Westinghouse, why fluid elastic instability did not occur in Unit 2.

·      DAB Safety Team “Strongly Disagrees” with both SCE’s conclusions “that fluid elastic instability Most Likely Occurred in Unit 2” and “secondary side operating parameters were similar in the U3 and U2 SGs”. 

·      DAB Safety Team “Strongly Disagrees” with NRC that the differences in the actual operation between units and/or individual steam generators had an insignificant impact on the results and in fact, the NRC AIT team did not identify any changes in steam velocities or void fractions that could account for the differences in tube wear between the units or steam generators.  Discussions with two of the NRC panel members gives us the perception that the NRC panel members disagree amongst themselves and also with SCE on the effect of operational parameters on fluid elastic instability in Unit 2 Steam Generator E-089.

Adverse operational conditions, such as larger reactor thermal power and lower steam generator pressures (e.g., 833 psia) and design deficiencies (low tube clearances and no-in-plane fluid elastic instability structural protection) cause areas in the U-tube bundle of a nuclear steam generator to have “ALMOST NO WATER” as observed in SONGS Unit 3 steam generators.  When this happens, fluid elastic instability occurs and the thin steam generator tubes carrying radioactive coolant move with large sprinting amplitudes and hit the neighboring tubes with violent and repeated impacts.  Therefore, multiple tube failures can occur, as was observed in SONGS Unit 3 at main steam line break testing conditions.

MHI states, “The higher than typical void fraction is a result of a very large and tightly packed tube bundle, particularly in the U-bend, with high heat flux in the hot leg side. This high void fraction is a potentially major cause of the tube FEI, and consequently unexpected tube-to-tube wear (as it affects both the flow velocity and the damping factors). In general, larger thermal power is more severe for vibration, because the steam flow rate increases. At constant thermal power, lower steam pressure is more severe for vibration than higher pressure.” MHI is indirectly saying that steam generator pressures of 833 psia created fluid elastic instability in Unit 3, where unprecedented tube-to-tube wear was observed.  AREVA states, “At 100% power, the thermal-hydraulic conditions in the U-bend region of the SONGS replacement steam generators exceeded the past successful operational envelope for U-bend nuclear steam generators based on presently available data.” MHI has officially notified the NRC that all SONGS damaged RSG Tubes subject to tube-to-tube wear (FEI) should be plugged and or stabilized.  SCE cannot certify this as having been done, since they have not inspected the majority of Unit 2’s RSG tubes using the most advanced technology, as indicated in HMI’s official notice to the NRC.  Again SCE is caught guessing about the amount of tube fatigue damage, which directly affects the RSG tube structural integrity; all RSG tubes are subject to tube-to-tube wear, extreme pressure variations and other stresses during a MSLB or other unanticipated operational transients.

NRC AIT Report states, “The team performed a number of different thermal-hydraulic analysis of Units 2 and 3 steam generators. The output of the various analyses runs were then compared and reviewed to determine if those differences could have contributed to the significant change in steam generator tube wear. It was noted that Unit 3 ran with slightly higher primary temperatures, about 4°F higher than Unit 2. The result of the independent NRC thermal-hydraulic analysis indicated that differences in the actual operation between units and/or individual steam generators had an insignificant impact on the results and in fact, the team did not identify any changes in steam velocities or void fractions that could attribute to the differences in tube wear between the units or steam generators. It should be noted that increases in primary temperature and steam generator pressures has the effect of reducing void fractions and peak steam velocities, which slightly decreases the conditions necessary for fluid elastic instability and fluid-induced vibration. The analysis included the varying of steam generator pressures from 833 to 942 psia.”

SCE says in their Root Cause Analysis, “Secondary side operating parameters were similar in the U3 and U2 SGs and well within their design limits (e.g., steam generator pressures, 833 psia).”  Note, NO mention varying the pressure to 942 psia at all…

Copyright December 7, 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.

SCE’s Technical Ability To Perform Safe Restart Questioned

SCE’s misleading and embarrassing technical presentation at their NRC public meeting when explaining fluid elastic instability in SONGS Unit 2, creates doubts about Edison’s ability to perform a safe restart of their damaged “Radiation Steaming Crucibles” aka Replacement Steam Generators (RSG's).

==============================================================

After spending almost a year, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of rate payer’s money and hiring World’s Best Experts, Southern California Edison brought out SONGS Senior Vice President of Engineering, Tom Palmisano, on November 30, 2012 (Friday night) to give an intense technical presentation and a dazzling performance in a bid to convince the regulators they should be able to restart Unit 2 at the plant. However, Palmisano failed miserably to convince the DAB Safety Team, NRC Region IV Panel and the Public/Technical Experts, that Southern Californians will be safe from the effects of a potential nuclear radiological accident by the restart of Unit 2’s “Sick and Unsafe” Steam Generators by operating them at 70% power for a trial period of 5 months.  When questioned by NRC Panel Members, the unprepared and uncomfortable Palmisano tasked with convincing the NRC, the Public and the News Media that Unit 2 is safe for restart “stumbled several times during the presentation”, then in response to the panel members questions for further technical details said sometimes irritatingly, “I will get back to you” and then finally “hesitantly” admitted, “SCE and MHI analysis are still not yet complete and will continue for several months for a detailed analysis and investigation to this problem.” 

Palmisano declared with his face beaming that tube-to-tube wear was caused “Most Likely” by in-plane vibrations (fluid elastic instability) in Unit 2 Steam Generator E-089 (U2SGE089).  Two affected tubes in U2SGE089 with 14% wear depth were plugged and they preventatively plugged 321 tubes to conservatively add to the safety margin.  It is astonishing and alarming to note that SCE’s Vice-President contradicted the World’s Leading and Pioneering Nuclear Plant Designer, Westinghouse Operational Assessment, which concluded, “ In-plane vibrations (fluid elastic) instability did not occur in U2SGE089 in two affected tubes.  The tube-to-tube wear is most likely a result of out-of-plane vibrations (flow-induced random vibrations) of the two tubes in close proximity to the level of contact during operation.”

The DAB Safety Team perception is that Palmisano is either pretending or really does not understand the Westinghouse Operational Assessment’s conclusions regarding the adverse effects of fluid elastic instability and flow-induced random vibrations, which caused the January 31, 2012, radioactive leak in one of the SONGS Unit 3’s brand new 680 million dollar replacement steam generators (RSG’s) reverse-engineered by the inexperienced SCE in-house engineers and manufactured at the direction of complacent Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.  Southern Californians were very lucky, because a potentially serious nuclear accident in progress was stopped by an emergency shut down. When tested later, in March 2012, eight (8) steam generator tubes (wear range 72-100%, length of wear 23-34 inches) in the newly replaced San Onofre Unit 3 RSGs E-088 failed “in-situ” pressure testing and therefore were plugged, after only 11 months of operation.  After that, several hundred Alloy 690 Thermally Treated tubes were also plugged due to tube-to-tube wear. SCE did not disclose intentionally to the public that one Unit 2 tube had also experienced a 90% through wall wear due to a MHI Manufacturing retainer bar defect.  Southern Californians were once again very lucky that a serious nuclear accident was prevented by a planned refueling shut down. SONGS RSG’s now have more damaged and/or plugged tubes than all the rest of the US reactor fleet combined. Based on analysis of NRC AIT Report and SONGS Procedures, Operational Data, Plant Daily Briefing Sheets, Engineering Calculations and conversations with Plant Personnel, the DAB Safety Team disagrees with SCE and confirms Westinghouse Operational Assessment conclusions that fluid elastic instability did not occur in Unit 2 Steam Generator E-089.  The DAB Safety Team discussions with two of the NRC Panel Members gives us the perception that the NRC panel Members disagree amongst themselves and also with SCE on the effect of operational parameters on fluid elastic instability in Unit 2 Steam Generator E-089.

The inexperienced and complacent SCE Engineers in a rush to make profits for SCE Officers and Shareholders ignored: (a) CPUC advice on applying to NRC for increased plugging limit to extend the life of Original Steam Generators, and (b) SDG&E opposition to the wisdom and viability of the RSG Project.  Although SCE was a shareholder in PVNGSs, the SCE Engineers due to time pressure and complacency did a very poor job of Benchmarking, (a) Especially of PVNGS on the new fabrication techniques and design to prevent the adverse effects of fluid elastic instability (FEI) and flow-induced turbulent and random vibrations (FIRV), and (b) Did not keep up with the research of World’s Foremost Expert and other academic scholars to prevent the adverse effects of FEI and FIRV, prepared a defective 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation and made numerous untested and unanalyzed design changes under the pretense of like-for-like to avoid lengthy and evidentiary public hearings and thorough NRC 50.90 Amendment. If Edison had informed the NRC that the new steam generators were not like-for-like, the more thorough NRC licensing review process would have hopefully identified the design problems before the steam generators were manufactured. The unauthorized and untested design changes made by SCE Engineers to extract more heat and make more money for SCE shareholders from the RSG’s (1729 MWt) compared with the OSG’s (1705 MWt) destroyed the brand new 680 million RSG’s. [Please see DAB Safety Team Papers, “The Big Number 1 Attachment Notes”  & “SONGS Insider Secret)

Based on a review of MHI, AREVA and Westinghouse documents, the DAB Safety Team concludes that FEI and MHI Flowering effect redistributed the tube-to-AVB gaps in Unit 3 RSGs.  It is the DAB Safety team’s strong perception that SCE claims that insufficient contact forces in Unit 3 Tube-to-AVB Gaps “ALONE” caused tube to tube wear are misleading, erroneous, egregious, and designed to put the blame on MHI for purposes of making SCE look good in the public eye so they can collect insurance money for their own design defects.

The NRC Chairman stated that SCE is responsible for the work of its vendors and contractors.  The real crux of the problem with the San Onofre Generators, Palmisano said, was the outdated mathematical model Mitsubishi used. There were mistakes in the parameters concerning the arrangement of the heat transfer tubes, Palmisano said. MHI States, “Minimizing tube wear was given the first priority in the SONGS RSG specification, design and fabrication, and the tube support design and fabrication was discussed by MHI and SCE in numerous design review meetings.” A SCE Engineer along with a MHI Technical Specialist claims in a joint paper published in an International Magazine, “SONGS steam generators are one of the largest in the industry, which called for innovative design solutions and improved fabrication processes when working on the RSG’s. Conceivably, the MHI and Edison project teams faced many tough challenges throughout the entire project in the design, manufacturing and QC areas, when striving to meet the specification requirements.  Both teams jointly tackled all these challenges in an effective and timely manner. At the end, MHI delivered the RSG’s, which incorporated all the latest improvements found throughout the industry, as well as innovative solutions specific to the SONGS RSG’s. In Unit 2, the RSG’s were installed and tested in 2009/10 and in Unit 3 in 2010/11. The RSG post-installation test results met or exceeded the test acceptance criteria for all specified test parameters, thus properly rewarding the effort put into their fabrication.”  Therefore, the DAB Safety Team concludes that SCE engineers did not check the work of MHI with a critical and questioning attitude and did not meet the 10CFR50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Standards, the NRC Chairman’s Expectations and or NRC Regulations.   The SCE claims about MHI Thermal-Hydraulic Computer Modeling errors are misleading, erroneous and designed to absolve SCE of all the mistakes and put the blame on MHI for purposes of collecting insurance money for using outdated computer codes and to appear blameless themselves before the public.

A NRC Branch Chief gifted with MIT Intelligence, Intuition and a Sixth Sense said, "Sir, to resolve any complex technical problem and understand unclear regulations, you have to, 'Read and reread in between the lines', use, 'Critical questioning and an investigative attitude' and 'Solid Teamwork & Alignment." That NRC Chief, if you asked him about the restart of SONGS Unit 2 “As-Designed and Defective RSGs (aka Radiation Steaming Crucibles)” will say, “In Emergency Planning Space, decisions have to be Accurate and Timely. Under-conservative, rushed and profit-motivated analyses based on limited facts, biased and ambiguous operational data, untested deterministic and probabilistic risk analysis, conflicting theories and differing operational assessments of degraded equipment at even reduced power operations for 150 days with conditional monitoring along with unproven and unreliable compensatory and operator actions represent enormous risks to public health and safety, the environment and Southern California’s economy.”

Unit 2 has hundreds of times more bad tubes and a thousand times more indications of wear on those tubes than any 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 in the country combined, over a comparable operating period. Therefore, thousands of degraded tubes present a formidable challenge to the Safe Restart of Unit 2 by making it highly vulnerable to localized steam dry-outs, 100% void fractions, fluid elastic instability, flow-induced random vibrations and cascading tube ruptures during unanticipated operational occurrences and/or Main Steam Line Breaks. 

Even at 70% power operations, if a steam line break outside containment were to occur in Unit 2, the depressurization of the steam generators with the failure of a main steam isolation valve to close would result in 100% void fraction in the degraded U-Tube bundle and the straight leg portion between the Tube Support Plates.  This condition of ZERO Water in the steam generators due to low tube clearances would cause fluid elastic instability (FEI) and flow-induced random vibrations, which in all likelihood would then result in massive cascading SG tube failures, involving hundreds of degraded active SG tubes, along with all the damaged inactive (all the plugged /stabilized) SG tubes. With an undetermined amount of simultaneous tube leaks/ruptures, approximately 60 tons of very hot high-pressure radioactive reactor coolant would leak into the secondary system. The release of this amount of radioactive primary coolant, along with an additional approximately 200 tons of steam in the first five minutes from a broken steam line would EXCEED the SONGS NRC approved safety margins. So, in essence, the RSG’s are loaded guns, or a nuclear accident waiting to happen. Any failure under these conditions would allow significant amounts of radiation to escape to the atmosphere and a major Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA) could easily result causing much wider radiological consequences and even a potential nuclear meltdown of the reactor!  Since these events would happen at an extremely fast pace, no credit is assumed in the first 5 minutes of the main steam line break accident for: (1) Enhanced Unit 2 Defense-In-Depth Actions - SCE Restart Plan Enclosure 2, Item 9.0, and (2) The differential pressure across the SG tubes necessary to cause a rupture will not occur if operators prevent RCS re-pressurization in accordance with their Emergency Operating - Enhanced Unit 2 Defense-In-Depth Actions - SCE Restart Plan Enclosure 2, Item 5.2,2, Probabilistic Risk analysis.

The Final Question – Is Unit 2 Safe At 70% Power For 5 Months Of Operation?

The Answer Is NO.  

SCE is trying to restart their Unit 2’s degraded RSG’s, which are outside the NORM of the NRC Regulations.  The DAB Safety Team has already answered this question previously in their San Onofre Papers posted on the web.

The DAB Safety Team Expert Panel will issue an unbiased detailed technical response in the near future to Edison’s “November 30, 2012  - Public Meeting Presentation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Unit 2 Confirmatory Action Letter November 30, 2012” for the benefit of President Barack Obama, Southern Californians, the NRC Chairman, the NRC Atomic Licensing Board, the NRC Staff, the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, EIX/SCE Management, its vendors, contractors, employees and Union workers. The DAB Safety team will issue the following papers in the near future:

·      Evaluation of SCE Unit 2 Restart November 30 Public Meeting NRC Presentation

·      NRC Poor Public Perception and Future Expectations to meet President Obama’s and Senator Barbara Boxers Open Government Initiative and 100% Transparency to avoid Collusion with SCE to ensure the Safety of 8.4 Southern Californians and a Trillion Dollar ECODISASTER

·      SONGS Profit-Motivated, Production over Safety and Retaliating Senior Leadership Team

·      SONGS Fire Safety, Emergency Preparedness and Cyber Security Concerns

·      SONGS Worker Rights and Anonymous NNs

The Final Fix – Decommission both SONGS Units 2 and 3, or replace them using a 50.90 thorough License Amendment Process and Evidentiary Public Hearings.  According to the DAB Safety Team’s conversation with one of the NRC Panel members, Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein have told the NRC that both of them are in favor of Replacement or adequate inspections and repairs of SONGS RSG’s along with a 50.90 thorough NRC License Amendment Process and Evidentiary Public Hearings. 

According to public sources, Pete Dietrich has already announced in internal SONGS staff meetings that Unit 2 will tentatively restart on February 2, 2013.  If confirmed, this is stunning news for the public and gives the clear perception of collusion between the NRC and SCE.  TEPCO’s reported collusion with Japanese Regulators resulted in Fukushima’s catastrophic nuclear accident (a Trillion Dollar Japanese economic, public health & safety radiation nightmare and Eco-Disaster).

The public expects that the NRC complies with President Barack Obama, Senator Barbara Boxer and the NRC Chairman’s Open Government Initiative by using the NRC Branch Chief’s advice and Reactor Oversight Process, when it audits SCE’s Licensing Basis Documents, facility procedures/records, 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations, Unit 2 Restart Documents and issues/approves Safety Evaluation, License Amendment Applications and Inspection Reports, Responses to Confirmatory Action Letters and other enforcement violations, as appropriate.  The NRC should complete its mission of ensuring public safety with complete public respect, transparency and involvement by issuing all documents, emails, telephone records and holding open and trial-like thorough hearings without any time pressure from SCE, its vendors and contractors.

The position that San Onofre’s “As designed and defective” replacement steam generators (aka radiation steaming crucibles) without replacement or adequate repairs (replacement of tube bundle and anti-vibration supports) are unsafe and fail to meet the Steam Generator Fundamental Tube Integrity Criteria for a Main Steam Line Break Accident is consistent with the recommendations earlier made on this subject by:

·      Arnie Gundersen and his team of anonymous steam generator experts

·      Professor Dan Hirsch

·      Dale Bridgenbaugh (Retired professional nuclear engineer),

·      Union of Concerned Scientist (David Lochbaum, Director of Safety)

·      The DAB Safety Team Panel’s of several SONGS insiders root cause and operation experts

·      Other anonymous steam generator and thermal-hydraulic experts, and

·      Retired NRC Experts 

Copyright December 5, 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.


PRESS RELEASE 

The DAB Safety Team: December 6, 2012

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