Thursday, September 27, 2012

Silent Spring 50 years on: The silence is still deafening...

September 27th, 2012

Dear Readers,

Silent Spring was first published 50 years ago today. Rachel Carson was my age, just 56, when she died of breast cancer 18 months later.

I had cancer too (in 2007) but thankfully it was successfully treated -- I'm fine now.

But everyone around the world has already inhaled, eaten, and drank billions of nanoparticles and thousands of larger "hot particles" that have spewed from Fukushima since March, 2011, and from every other nuclear accident and chemical spill. Fukushima and Chernobyl continue to spew, and will for generations to come. That can't be good for any of us, and it isn't.

At a city council meeting last night in Encinitas, California, the top emergency planner in the Southern California area assured citizens and council members that although it's true that an accidental radioactive "puff" (his word) from San Onofre might cause problems with avocados (undoubtedly our state's favorite fruit), we need not worry, because they'll test all those truckloads of avocados (after WHO picks them?) and even if they're "hot" on the outside, once you peel them they might be okay, he said.

Imagine trying to sell "hot" California avocados after a meltdown at San Onofre by assuring customers around the country that "they're only hot on the outside!" He said they might also make great guacamole.

Later he admitted he's not a nuclear physicist. It appears he also neglected to study the uptake of cesium by plants through the soil after it's soaked in for a few years.

Two scientists who HAVE studied such things are Joe Mangano and Janette Sherman. They have co-authored a wonderful article honoring Rachel Carson and the 50th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring, which I am happy and honored to be able to include below, as it was sent to me this morning by one of the authors.

Yours,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


September 27, 2012

Dear Friends:

I'm sharing an essay I co-wrote with Dr. Janette Sherman marking the 50th anniversary (today, September 27) of the publication of Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, and its enduring legacy. It is being published in the October 1 issue, available online now to subscribers of The Washington Spectator.

We at Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) believe we must continue the effort begun by Carson to reduce the poisons in our environment, and improve the health of our people, by continuing our research on radiation health risks from nuclear reactors (30 journal articles, 8 books) and spreading the word to public officials, citizen leaders, and the public at large.

We would like you to consider subscribing to The Washington Spectator. A subscription to this outstanding journal supports RPHP in two ways: not only are outlets like this crucial to informing people of our research documenting the hazards of nuclear power, but the Spectator has kindly offered to share 50% of the revenues derived from this special promotion, so we can continue our crucial work.

To obtain your subscription to The Washington Spectator, and provide much-needed support for RPHP, go to https://secure.ablesoftsolutions.com/pdmg/SecurePages/newsub.aspx?pi=tws&o=webrphp to begin. Please be sure to click Apply Code as part of Step 1 in order to identify your order as a contribution.

With kind regards,

Joe Mangano, Executive Director, RPHP


The Washington Spectator is a project of The Public Concern Foundation, Inc., a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational foundation. Since 1974, this bimonthly bulletin has given independent-minded readers behind-the-scenes insight into significant news ignored by the corporate media. In concise and fact-packed reporting, the Editor of the Spectator and other expert contributors offer insightful commentary on issues of war and peace, the environment, religion, education, law, and economics. Over the years, The Washington Spectator has stood consistently­and persistently­for human rights, international peace, civil liberties, and for an open, accountable government.

http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/One-Book-and-the-Truth/rachel-carsons-brave-groundbreaking-silent-spring-at-50-years.html#comments


One Book and the Truth

Rachel Carson's Brave, Groundbreaking 'Silent Spring' at 50 Years
October 1, 2012 | by Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman

Fifty years ago, a Johns Hopkins­educated zoologist did something that few at the time thought was possible. With the publication of one book, she started a national debate about the universally accepted use of synthetic pesticides, the irresponsibility of science, and the limits of technological promise. She also challenged the metastatic growth of the synthetic chemicals industry that grew out of World War II.

Silent Spring was Rachel Carson's third book, following The Sea Around Us and The Edge of the Sea. The Sea Around Us had won the 1952 National Book Award for nonfiction and remained on the New York Times bestseller list for 21 months. Yet it is unlikely that Carson, who had spent most of her career as an editor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, had any idea of what the publication of Silent Spring would engender.

Carson became interested in the harmful effects of pesticides, especially DDT, in the late 1950s. DDT was first commercially produced just prior to World War II, and was used to reduce the threats posed by insects to U.S. troops overseas. After the war, DDT was promoted as a great scientific advance and was widely and successfully used as an insect killer in the United States. The chemical was considered to be so benign that parents casually watched their children running in billowing white DDT clouds sprayed from trucks in residential neighborhoods.

Carson's research focused on organic pesticides like chlordane, heptachlor, and aldrin, as well as DDT. She documented the widespread death of birds that had been exposed to the chemicals, as well as reproductive, birth, and developmental abnormalities in mammals. All life, she wrote, is a 'chemical factory' dependent upon oxygen to power the cell machinery. Citing the work of Nobel scientist Otto Warburg, she explained in clear terms why repeated small exposures to pesticides and nuclear radiation change the ability of the cell to carry out normal activities, resulting in malignancy or defective offspring­the reason there is no 'safe' dose of a carcinogen. Many scientific experts shared her concerns.

The New Yorker ran three excerpts of Silent Spring in June 1962, before the official September 27 publication date. The response was swift and resounding. CBS began preparing a nationally broadcast special on the book. Page one of the July 22 New York Times featured a story entitled 'Silent Spring Is Now a Noisy Summer.' On August 29, a reporter attending President Kennedy's press conference asked if the federal government was examining the growing concern about DDT and other pesticides. Kennedy responded: 'Yes...I think particularly, of course, since Miss Carson's book.' A month before the publication date, Houghton Mifflin had advance orders for 40,000 copies and had a 150,000-copy contract with the Book-of-the-Month Club.

The chemical industry didn't wait to read the book. Carson's short but devastating treatise was a threat to their bottom line, and the industry that manufactured DDT and other pesticides Carson had described reacted angrily to her scientifically sound arguments that their products were harmful. They attacked Carson's expertise. They attacked her methods. They attacked her motivations. They attacked her conclusions. They threatened to sue Houghton Mifflin and The New Yorker.

In a relentless campaign to destroy her character, the industry distributed pamphlets, published articles, and vilified Carson in media interviews. They described her as 'fanatic' and 'hysterical,' yet almost all international scientists agreed with Carson. A Scientific Advisory Committee assembled by Kennedy issued a supportive report in May 1963. In response to the shrill attacks of her industry critics, Carson calmly stuck to the facts. She died at age 56 from breast cancer, 18 months after Silent Spring was published.

Many regard Carson as the founder of the American environmental movement. Yet the movement had already begun. Albert Schweitzer, well-known scientists such as Linus Pauling, pediatrician Benjamin Spock, and Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas had already been speaking out against the dangers of above-ground atom-bomb testing. Citizen groups like Women Strike for Peace organized increasingly large demonstrations against such tests.

But to a large extent, Silent Spring sparked the movement that endures today. In 1967, scientists and activists founded the Environmental Defense Fund. On April 29, 1970, one week after widespread demonstrations on the first Earth Day, President Nixon's Advisory Council on Executive Action proposed the Environmental Protection Agency, which became a reality later that year. And in June 1972, after three years of federal hearings and scientific inquiries into the question Carson raised in Silent Spring, EPA Director William Ruckelshaus issued an order that banned the use of DDT in the United States. The environmental movement was in full swing.

Despite the efforts of Carson and others who followed, a long list of chemicals is still in daily use -- arguably more than ever. It includes pesticides, herbicides, industrial agents, fuels, preservatives, food additives, dyes, household products, medicines, and more.

The benefits of chemicals must always be weighed against their risks­but those risks must be objectively calculated. As Carson wrote in Silent Spring:

"The most alarming of all man's assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials. This pollution is for the most part irrecoverable: the chain of evil it initiates not only in the world that must support life but also in living tissues is for the most part irreversible. In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world­the very nature off its life."

Fifty years after the publication of the book, the corporations that produce and market the chemicals are far larger. Their lobbyists and PR machines are more well-funded and sophisticated and exert unprecedented influence over regulators, the media, and, most critically, elected officials.

A Congressional resolution introduced by Maryland Democratic Senators Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski, honoring Carson on what would have been her 100th birthday in 2007, was blocked by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who complemented his vote with disparaging remarks about the author. "Millions of people in the developing world, particularly children under 5, died because governments bought into Carson's junk-science claims about DDT," he said in response to the resolution.

Today, the industry and its trade associations echo Coburn's remarks and depict Carson as the leader of a mass-murder campaign that today allows diseases such as malaria to proliferate because there is no chemical check on mosquitoes. In 2009, Todd Seavey of the industry-backed American Council on Science and Health wrote on World Malaria Day:"We need DDT Day.... Anti-chemical greens (inspired by Rachel Carson's fear-mongering book Silent Spring) may already be humanity's most prolific killers."

The EPA never banned DDT for use against malaria, and Carson herself never supported a universal ban on pesticides. Instead, she wrote, "Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity.'"

Man-made chemicals will always be a part of life on earth. The volume of chemicals is massive, and the slow decay of many means they will be part of the biosphere for decades and centuries. The legacy of Silent Spring is that much can and should be done to reduce the health risks they pose, without sacrificing progress. About 41 percent of Americans will develop cancer. The current generation of children, compared to their parents or grandparents, has higher rates of disorders including low weight births, cancer, asthma, diabetes, autism, and ADHD. While multiple factors influence disease risk, exposure to toxic chemicals is one factor.

We have ignored Carson's findings to our peril.

Joseph J. Mangano is Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project and author of Mad Science: The Nuclear Power Experiment (O/R Books). Janette D. Sherman is an internist and toxicologist and a contributing editor of Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (New York Academy of Medicine). Visit www.radiation.org and www.janettesherman.com.


(added 9/28/2012):

Mad Science

THE NUCLEAR POWER EXPERIMENT

Joseph Mangano
Foreword by Alec Baldwin
"Joe Mangano is the constant, tireless voice that has helped keep me linked to reports from the front lines of the battle to expose the staggering risks to public health posed by nuclear power . . . Joe has been one of the most dedicated, intelligent and even-handed public activists I have ever known. He has also proven to be one of the most effective, on a battlefield where gains are measured in inches, if not centimeters." —from the foreword by Alec Baldwin

BUY THIS BOOK

paperback: $20/£13
ebook: $10/£7
print + ebook: $24/£15

ABOUT THE BOOK

Will Americans once again play nuclear roulette?
Just one year after the Fukushima meltdown, all 54 reactors in Japan have been closed, and may never be restarted. Germany recently closed several reactors, and will shutter them all within a decade. Italy revoked its pledge to build new reactors, keeping that nation nuclear-free. All these decisions are based on the understanding that reactors are extremely dangerous and expensive.
In the U.S., the remnants of the once-overwhelmingly powerful nuclear lobby are making their last stand for "clean" nuclear energy. The sixty-year-old vision of power "too cheap to meter" (words originally uttered by a banker promoting the industry) is back. While other countries end their reliance on nuclear energy, Americans contemplate its revival, even as existing reactors, which produce a fifth of U.S. electricity, pass retirement age and are corroding.
In Mad Science, Joseph Mangano strips away the near-smothering layers of distortions and outright lies that permeate the massive propaganda campaigns on behalf of nuclear energy. He explores the history of the industry, with its origins in the Manhattan Project, through its heightening promotion during the Cold War and its entwinement with nuclear weapons.
Mad Science includes an account of nuclear accidents and meltdowns and their consequences, from Chernobyl to Santa Susana and beyond; as well as a point-by-point refutation of pro-nuke arguments. Atomic energy is unsafe – it deals with staggeringly poisonous substances at every stage of its creation – un-economical in the extreme and impractical.
Publication October 2012 • 336 pages
paperback ISBN 978-1-935928-85-0 • ebook ISBN 978-1-935928-86-7 




Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Re: URGENT: Alert: Online WSJ Poll on Nuclear Energy

9/26/2012

Dear Readers,

This Wall Street Journal poll is biased and unprofessional: Its lead-in commentary ignores global health issues, it doesn't mention the huge tracts of land that have had to be permanently evacuated, it claims that nukes can solve global warming, and it ignores the problems of spent fuel. I could go on, but we should all go and vote anyway, and tell all your friends to vote, too! You can be sure the pro-nukers are doing the same thing -- and they got a head start because they all read the WSJ!!

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


Full link to WSJ poll:

<http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2012/09/25/vote-should-the-world-increase-its-reliance-on-nuclear-energy/>http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2012/09/25/vote-should-the-world-increase-its-reliance-on-nuclear-energy/


At 02:41 PM 9/26/2012 -0400, "Ulrich, Kendra" <KUlrich@foe.org> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>The Wall Street Journal is <http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2012/09/25/vote-should-the-world-increase-its-reliance-on-nuclear-energy/>running a poll regarding the future for nuclear energy in this country. The pro-nuke votes are way up. If you have not already voted, please take a moment to vote NO!
>
>Best,
>
>Kendra
>
>P.S. If you received two of this message, I apologize. Some said the link in the earlier email was not working.
>
>
>Kendra Ulrich
>
>Nuclear Campaigner
>FoE Bullet Points
> Friends of the Earth
>Washington, DC 20005

Friday, September 14, 2012

Head of NRC says SanO reactors won't restart "for months"...

9/14/2012

Dear Readers,

Allison MacFarlane, the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), says neither of San Onofre's two reactors will be restarted "for months." That's not good enough! They should never be restarted at all. They should never have BEEN started at all.

Grid operators (California Independent System Operators, CAISO) say they're "bracing" for SanO to be down next summer. That's not good enough! They should be preparing to glide through the next and every summer, with plenty of energy, and they can if a concerted effort is made throughout SoCal to switch to renewables as quickly as possible.

The truth is, we got through this past summer just fine without SanO, and we can get through the rest of them -- forever -- without it and with renewables.

However, large investments in renewables are unlikely to start unless investors are sure SanO's gone for good. And you can't convert its switchyard to a switchyard for an offshore wind farm until then, or convert SanO itself to a gas-fired power plant -- first you have to "decommission" San Onofre, and that's exactly what should happen next, starting immediately.

The chances are pretty good the "root cause" of the problem for San Onofre was, as we all suspected, greed. Technically, they had too much steam and not enough water below the "U" of the upside-down U-shaped tubes in the steam generators. This allowed the tubes (9,737 tubes per steam generator) to vibrate too much. Water is a better vibration dampener than steam.

We've heard rumors that the steam generator manufacturer, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), wants to blame the problem on San Onofre's operators (Southern California Edison, SCE) for trying to extract too much steam from the system. In other words, SanO's operators realized there was an excess of steam and rather than find out why or consider the possibility that that might not be such a GOOD thing, they simply spun the turbines faster to produce more electricity and make more profit.

Of course, we've also heard that computer calculations for how much steam would be produced were off by 300 to 400 percent, and the blame for that error apparently falls on MHI, although both SCE and the NRC could have checked those figures properly if they had cared to. They all trusted the computer programs instead. A more public procedure might have allowed an independent researcher to see the problem before California residents were put at risk by a steam generator tube failure. But the nuclear industry tries to avoid scrutiny as much as possible because so many of their problems are completely unsolvable.

The nuclear industry, San Onofre included, has been striving to eliminate "the human factor" from nuclear reactor operations as much as possible. However, this author, a computer programmer for the past three decades, knows that computer programmers make mistakes too, and relying on automated systems can be utter folly.

In fact, relying on "hard-coded" procedures, rules, guides, manuals etc. can be utter folly, too -- sometimes things happen so fast there's not enough time to review the rules! And yet there's no other way. So you computerize the rule books so the operators can bring up the data faster. But then, one day a virus gets in and you can't look at anything until the system is cleaned and rebooted. Vital computer systems go down all the time. During the millennium rollover, the "eye-in-the-sky", America's sophisticated radar and data-gathering global system for detecting incoming missile attacks, went down for about four hours. This occurred after many years and millions of dollars spent preparing for that moment. Computer software fails, computer hardware fails, attached storage devices fail... attached motors and controls for valves fail, too, which is why so many things have manual backup plans at nuclear reactors. And another "Stuxnet" type virus can ruin everything while making it look to the control room operators like things are going fine!

At least one Airbus jumbo jet has crashed due to faulty computer software, and more than one rocket failure has also been blamed on computer errors.

Another rumor that's been circulating for months was that strange humming noises were coming from San Onofre's reactor containment area, which may have been the sound of the steam generator tubes banging into each other. Even though the reactor had never made that noise before, the idea of shutting down and figuring out what was wrong didn't seem to have occurred to anyone at the plant. That's no way to drive a car, let alone, operate a nuclear power plant!

But San Onofre has had a tradition of safety code violation cover-ups, and harassment of workers who speak out.

Luckily last January only a single tube burst, rather than a cascade of tubes and a significant loss of reactor cooling capability -- or worse: Metal shards could have entered the primary coolant loop, and then might have blocked coolant flow to part of the reactor core itself, causing localized heating and melting of some of the fuel, possibly preventing control rods from fully inserting. Not likely? Who cares! It was POSSIBLE.

San Onofre will be defueling Unit 3 next month and I bet we'll get an announcement, maybe today, that they'll defuel Unit 2 soon as well soon. Defueling, however, is NOT "decommissioning". They can put fuel into the reactor and restart as soon as the NRC gives the okay.

Instead of keeping SoCal residents on the edge of their seats, we need to decommission San Onofre, so it's not there anymore.

And of course, we need to get rid of the waste, but to where? Move it away to another planet?!? Too bad that -- and every other solution ever proposed-- is unworkable!

Yucca Mountain has been stopped by presidential order, and it was a technological failure anyway. The Blue Ribbon Commission appointed by the president to study alternatives could not come up with anything substantive; they recommended localized "interim storage" and suggested the way to site nuclear waste dumps was by preemptive legislation allowing very small, very well-bribed communities to overrule county, state, and national interests by agreeing to host a radioactive waste dump. These "local communities" can be just a few dozen people. The "BRC" did not come up with a technological solution to the nuclear waste problem for a very simple reason: Ionizing radiation destroys any container you put it in.

After more than half a century of study and tens of billions of dollars spent looking into possible solutions, trying things and seeing them fail, that is why there is still no solution to the waste problem.

San Onofre has stopped making more radioactive waste for the time being, but Diablo Cyn and ~450 other nukes around the world have not, and the fight to permanently close San Onofre is hardly over, either.

SCE plans to have new steam generators built, probably at ratepayer's expense (even while we're still paying for the last ones).

Instead, let's decommission SanO immediately. It's prudent and proper and should not be delayed any longer.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA (images added 2025)

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Wednesday, August 29, 2012

San Onofre doesn't have to become our Fukushima...

8/29/2012

Dear Readers,

This was published in LA Indymedia yesterday and if you view the online version at la indymedia, there are some interesting comments by a SanO whistleblower already. I've made a few minor typo corrections to the version included below and should note that as of today, the NRC is arranging a hearing on SanO for late September....

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


From:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2012/08/255184.php

San Onofre doesn't have to become our Fukushima

by Ace Hoffman Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2012 at 5:04 PM

What went wrong at San Onofre last January is a classic tale of the abuse of power. San Onofre should be decommissioned (dismantled). It should never be allowed to restart.

August 27th, 2012

Nuclear power plants generate heat by bombarding "fissile" atoms (such as uranium-235) with neutrons. When the atoms are split, more neutrons are released, which then split other uranium atoms in a sustained "chain reaction." The heat energy released by this process is used to boil water to produce steam to turn a turbine which produces electricity.

The process is inherently dangerous, inherently dirty, and inherently very profitable -- if you don't have to pay the additional costs of: Accidents, cancers from routine releases, or the safe storage of the nuclear waste stream for thousands upon thousands of years. However, somebody will have to pay all these costs. Catastrophic, globally-impacting accidents are inevitable, as the world has seen four times in the last three decades: Three times in Fukushima and once in Chernobyl, with many "near-misses," many of which have been hidden from public scrutiny, and countless less serious -- but still very serious -- smaller accidents.

Every day a typical nuclear power plant operates, it generates about 250 pounds of "high level radioactive waste" which consists of:

* "Fission products," two of which are usually produced whenever a heavier uranium atom is split,

* "activation products," which are produced whenever a neutron is captured by a stable atom (such as in the millions of pounds of steel that are used at the plant),

* plutonium, which is created in copious quantities and can be used for making nuclear bombs, and

* "unburned" uranium ("burnup" is an industry term for nuclear fission. The nuclear fuel is not burned or chemically manipulated in any way.)

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station really should be called San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating and Storage Station. Currently over 1,400 tons of "used fuel" is stored on site at San Onofre. To grasp how vast a quantity that is, one has to consider the lethality of radioactive elements. A few millionths of a gram of plutonium for example, is enough to guarantee lung cancer if it ends up in someone's lungs. It can enter the lung as one "hot particle" or as millions of smaller particles. It's deadly either way.

Plutonium is approximately 200,000 times more deadly than uranium, and many fission products are even deadlier than that, pound for pound (or rather, microgram for microgram): Radioactive cesium, strontium, polonium, iodine, and many others.

Ever since January 2012 when recently-replaced steam generators at one of the two reactors at San Onofre sprung a leak, SanO hasn't been operating. It hasn't been generating waste, and it hasn't been generating electricity, either. The lights in Southern California have stayed on throughout the hot summer months, and the electricity grid is stable -- not counting the earthquakes. There is no need to restart SanO and plenty of reasons not to.

However, the utility company that owns and operates the plant is hurting for profits for its shareholders, and would desperately like to get San Onofre operating again. That may be impossible without somebody spending close to a billion dollars to repair the twin reactors. But who will spend that money? The utility would like it to be the ratepayers, not the shareholders. The state regulators, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), made the ratepayers pay -- and are still paying every month -- for the first set of replacement steam generators, at a cost of nearly a billion dollars. Since the almost-new parts have failed unexpectedly early, it will presumably cost about the same amount to restart the reactors again, plus the cost of replacement fuel for several years during the outage -- and plus the extra costs of not cutting so many corners and doing it right.

This is outrageous! The citizens of SoCal, one of the most beautiful places on earth, are put at great risk by San Onofre. It doesn't generate cheap power, it's the most expensive power in the world (when all the costs to society are taken into account). And it's obviously not reliable -- reliable "base load capacity" has always been a claim of the nuclear industry, even though capacity factors are rarely as high as with traditional gas, coal or oil power plants, let alone hydro power or many renewable alternatives. True, the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine every day -- and lately, the rains don't even come -- but when those things do happen -- when the wind blows or the sun shines or the rains fall -- the energy sources are extremely reliable, and stored energy systems such as pumped water, flywheel, pressurized air, or even chemical processes (batteries) can give renewable energy systems virtually 100% uptime. Nuclear can NEVER achieve that; it has never even come close.

What went wrong at San Onofre last January is a classic tale of the abuse of power. It was the culminating event in a long series of missteps by the utility. Eager to replace approximately a billion dollars in parts prior to license renewal (so they could say they were ready and able to operate for another 20 years), the owner/operators redesigned crucial parts of the reactor that were failing prematurely. The parts, called steam generators, consist of nearly 10,000 very thin metal tubes inside a very large (the size of a school bus) container.

Inside the tubes is "primary coolant" directly from the reactor core. Outside the tubes (but inside the steam generator) is water which turns to steam as it rises. Both are normally closed, pressurized loops. A third open loop of sea water is used to condense the steam after it goes through the turbines. All three loops are fed by massive pumps which must continuously operate, using "offsite power". At San Onofre the pressure differential between the primary and secondary loops is about 1,000 pounds per square inch. The primary loop normally operates at about 2,200 p.s.i..

There are two steam generators for each of the two reactors at San Onofre, and all four steam generators were replaced within the last two years. All four have shown significant, unusual wear since then, and on January 31st, 2012, one of the tubes in one of the steam generators sprung a leak.

Since that day, San Onofre's owner/operators, Southern California Edison, have tried to come up with a plan to "safely" restart the reactor. Of course, they can never be operated safely, because many more things than just the steam generators can break catastrophically at a nuclear power plant, but ignoring that fact, as SCE does, SCE wants to at least run one of the reactors -- not the one that sprung a leak, that one's trashed -- at partial power, so they can make some money and, perhaps just as important to them, avoid an investigation by the CPUC of what went wrong (the CPUC has been so supportive of SCE's "need" to make a profit from San Onofre, that perhaps this was not a major concern, but it is always possible that an investigation would reveal something).

By state law, the CPUC is required to initiate an investigation after nine months of unavailability of a power source it regulates. Nine months will be October 31st for the reactor that sprang a leak, and a few weeks sooner, mid-October, for the other reactor, since it was already closed for upgrades (and refueling) at the time the other unit sprang a leak. Subsequent inspections showed all four replacement steam generators to be seriously worn and degraded.

But it's not just the premature wear that is the problem. It's the type of wear. Those nearly 10,000 tubes inside each steam generator have been vibrating uncontrollably and banging into each other in a cohesive and uniform -- and invariably very damaging -- coordinated pattern.

When the decision was made to replace the old steam generators with new ones (so that during license renewal in a few years, SCE could claim the reactors are "ship-shape") a large number of design changes were made -- at least three dozen significant changes.

The problem arose when they used a pair of computer programs to model the behavior of the fluids inside the steam generator. The incorrect mathematical calculations from one were carefully fed into the other, and everyone trusted the final computer output. It was off by approximately 300% to 400%.

In fact, much more steam was produced lower in the tubes than expected, so that the mixture of steam and water was nearly all steam at the top of the U-shaped tubes. Steam doesn't dampen vibration nearly as well as water does because it's about 30 times less dense.

Perhaps the problem could have been avoided if the steam generator replacement project had been accomplished through the appropriate regulatory channels, with public hearings about the exact design changes and a more careful scrutiny by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But instead, SCE chose to present the new steam generators as "like-for-like" replacement parts, which was hardly the case, and slipped it through with minimal regulatory oversight at the federal level, where "safety" decisions are made, and even less at the state level, where rate decisions (and little else) is decided. They were given about $670 million of ratepayer money to pay for the project. Properly submitting the new design as a truly new design for full and open regulatory approval would have required many more public hearings, but SCE said they had merely "improved" the alloy of the tubes, not even mentioning the fact that the new alloy is 10% less efficient than the old, leading them to add hundreds more tubes, and to make each of the tubes a little thinner, and to pack them all a little closer together: A recipe for the end result. The NRC, never an agency to push hard against ANY utility, went along with the "like-for-like" assessment.

Where are we today? Unit 1 was closed for similar early wear problems in the steam generators in the early 1990s. Of the two remaining reactors at San Onofre, called Unit 2 and Unit 3, the one that actually leaked (Unit 3) apparently cannot be restarted at all unless the steam generators are replaced. Even SCE has all but admitted it, and "layoffs" of 730 employees, about 1/3 of their workforce, were recently announced and are expected to occur before the end of the year.

SCE has been saying for several months that they would like to restart the other reactor at reduced power. But despite much talk, SCE has still not submitted a restart plan to the NRC. They cannot seem to find the "sweet spot for SanO" wherein they can assure the NRC that they can cool the reactor with only one steam generator, should one of them fail, as happened in January. Running at reduced power is one thing, but what if something goes wrong? So SCE appears to be between a rock and hard place, although there is talk of design changes which they are making and which -- again -- will avoid full public scrutiny before being approved (and they surely will be approved) by the NRC: The new changes would avoid full public scrutiny by being considered minor changes to the current design!

There is only one logical, cost-effective, and safe solution: Keep San Onofre shut down forever. What could possibly be gained from rebuilding it and restarting it? It will just generate more waste -- 250 pounds per day per reactor. More than a ton per week for the two reactors combined. There still is no safe storage place for the "spent fuel" (used and very radioactive reactor cores). "Dry Casks" containing them will just keep piling up on our coastline as they do now. Meanwhile, an accident could require the PERMANENT evacuation of all of SoCal. It's not worth it to anybody -- except, and even this is now in doubt -- the shareholders of SCE and its parent company, Edison International.

In Japan, where three of the four catastrophic meltdowns mentioned in the beginning of this article occurred (at Fukushima in March, 2011), nearly every reactor has been shut down, and the public has been protesting night and day, week after week to keep them closed. They've seen first-hand what happens when a reactor melts down: People are relocated, property is lost, crops are poisoned, and health problems multiply. Farm animals were cruelly abandoned to their fate (ropes the Japanese put on calves eventually cut into their mouths and slowly killed them, if they didn't die of starvation in their pens or barns first). Pets were left to open their own cans of pet food, when people were told they would be allowed to return after a few days and to leave their pets, but now it's clear it will be many generations before anyone can return to many parts of Fukushima.

None of this had to happen, and it doesn't have to happen here. San Onofre doesn't have to become our Fukushima -- but it nearly did! If we keep SanO closed, we'll still have to worry about the spent fuel -- that's a huge problem and can also result in a catastrophic release of radioactive poisons. But at least the problem won't be growing, and at least there won't be any reactors to melt down, which are much more precarious. Time is the only thing that renders radioactive waste safe.

San Onofre should be decommissioned (dismantled). It should never be allowed to restart.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA




Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Friday, August 24, 2012

Unforgiven...

August 23rd, 2012

Dear Readers,

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) president Michael R. Peevey wishes to be forgiven for his several decades as a senior executive, including president, of Southern California Edison:

"I left there in March, 1993, over 19 years ago. I assume I get some pardon some time for having worked there" he stated today to KPFA reporter Sally Schilling (URL below). He continued, "Even if you're a convicted felon you get your voting rights back after a certain period of time."

Well, not necessarily -- it depends on the crime. And Peevey's crimes didn't stop when he left SCE, they had only just begun. As head of the CPUC he not only approved the faulty steam generator replacement at San Onofre, and billions of dollars in profits for his former employer (from whom he surely gets a substantial retirement income), he is now stalling an investigation of what went wrong at the facility.

It's nice to have friends in high places. I sure wish I had a friend like Peevey!

His many global "working vacation" jaunts with SCE and other utility executives strongly suggest he's still in bed, still in cahoots, still in collusion with them. He's their blocker. He rules the CPUC like a lord in his manor. He'll ask the other commissioners for their opinion, and then cut them off before they can give it.

However, Peevey has (FINALLY) realized that San Onofre is in terrible shape.

His comments followed public testimony today at the CPUC hearing by half a dozen activists. (A transcript of my own comments appears below.)

During public testimony, Barbara George of Woman's Energy Matters (WEM) stated that she had heard rumors about the possible sale of San Onofre to a nuclear fleet company based outside California. This would take away most of the CPUC's control of SanO. When talking to the KPFA reporter, Peevey stated bluntly: "Nobody would ever buy that plant. That is just inaccurate. Who would want to buy a non-operating nuclear plant? Nobody."

Let's hope not. But even knowing what shape the plant is in, the CPUC under Peevey refuses to start an investigation into what's gone wrong there, which plays directly into SCE's hand: It keeps the plant on the books, allowing SCE to collect 54 million dollars every month from ratepayers -- for producing nothing. California is currently setting up a joint task force of agencies to look into the problems at San Onofre. This special task force is not required to seek input from anyone. It's just another way to delay the final decision and keep money pouring out of our pockets and into Edison's.

This waiting game is costly and pointless. The proper thing to do is to decommission San Onofre NOW. Unfortunately CPUC president and unconvicted felon Michael R. Peevey, with his blinders on and his close ties to the plant, might be the last person on earth to realize it.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman Fairfax, California (temporarily location, normally Carlsbad, CA)


KPFA report by Sally Schilling: http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/83658
Statement by Ace Hoffman to the CPUC Thursday, August 23rd, 2012:

President Peevey, your reputation is NOT on the line over San Onofre. It's already ruined, just like the plant is. We feel you should recuse yourself from anything having to do with what's going on there. The steam generators cannot be replaced [I meant to say "repaired"] because they're too damaged. Unit two should never be restarted because all you're doing is putting our lives on the line in Southern California. I came up here from Carlsbad to speak.

It was your baby. You put it in. You told us that we needed it.

You didn't look at the differences between the alloys and see that it wasn't going to fit. Lots of things that shouldn't have happened, happened, and what should have happened, back in 2004 when we started to realize that the old steam generators were failing, you should have shut the thing down because of the spent fuel that's piling up on our coast with nowhere to put it. The Federal laws have put everything on hold.

We're replacing San Onofre every five years. The reactor core is completely replaced. Every time we do that we're basically violating the state law that says "no new reactors until the waste problem is solved." Well, when are we going to solve the waste problem? Well, we're not, because ionizing radiation destroys any container you put it in and this reactor is now a piece of junk, so if you look at when it first went down, it was mid-January for Unit Two, it's not going to be back up until... I mean it's going to be nine months in mid October.

The investigation -- the OII [Order Instituting Investigation] -- should be started immediately. The law that says to wait nine months is really to get you to do it eventually if you haven't done it already. We know there's a problem. We know there's a lot of information that's being withheld from us. We would like that information to come out and we think the OII can help encourage that.

Thank you. I have some documents I want to leave with you.




Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company


Monday, August 20, 2012

The sweet spot for SanO Unit II...

To: "Elmo Collins" <eec@nrc.gov>

8/20/2012

Dear Mr. Collins,

I was told recently that "no one" in the legislature of California believes San Onofre Unit III can be restarted unless/until its steam generators are replaced. To this I replied, "No one else thinks so either."

I believe all this talk about Unit II restarting should be stopped cold as well because, in fact, neither unit is capable of being safely restarted, where "safely" is defined by standard nuclear industry benchmarks.

I believe the potential for the complete loss of a single Steam Generator in a two-steam-generator system with weakened tubing is utterly unacceptable. But that's the possible condition any restart of San Onofre's reactors leaves us in. In fact, at San Onofre it's almost the most likely point of failure, except for fire (with earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. also distinct possibilities).

I believe Southern California Edison cannot merely put flow restrictors on the inlets to the Steam Generators in order to guarantee that excessive, vibration-inducing flow cannot occur, because then they won't have enough maximum potential flow rate to cool the reactor sufficiently with only the other Steam Generator, should one Steam Generator fail. But without the flow restrictors, a flow rate would be possible above that which ensures that there is little or no flow-induced turbulence (a chaotic flow pattern), and NO chance of fluid elastic instability (a coordinated flow pattern).

I believe the reason SCE hasn't been able to come back to the NRC with a plan for restart as of this writing is that they can't find the magic "sweet spot" where the flow is restricted, but they could still cool the reactor sufficiently in an emergency with just one Steam Generator. I don't think such a combination of guaranteed low enough flow rates and guaranteed sufficient emergency cooling can be found.

They may also be having a difficulty ensuring there are not similar flow-induced vibration problems within the reactor core itself, since a whistleblower, Dan Johnson, has been adamant in the news media comments section that such vibrations have been a persistent problem at SanO since Unit I.

The difficulty of finding this "sweet (and profitable) spot" and other problems caused by SCE's failure to properly analyze their data during the design phase, their failure to properly inform both the NRC and the public about the extensive nature of the SG design changes, and the NRC's failure to independently analyze the new steam generator design has led to this billion-dollar boondoggle.

The solution is to withdraw SCE's license. It should be noted that they also do not have a solution to their ever-growing used reactor core waste problem, and nor does the NRC. Our coastline is too precious and too packed with people for dry cask storage, wet storage, or any storage of nuclear waste. So shut down San Onofre permanently. The production of waste has stopped -- thank goodness -- and it should never continue. Restarting also violates the spirit of California's state law that prohibits "new" reactors because what is a reactor core except a new reactor every couple of years?

I look forward to hearing the NRC response to these concerns.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

-----------------------------------------

Ace Hoffman
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Carlsbad, CA
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org

-----------------------------------------

Friday, August 10, 2012

San Onofre's MOST fatal flaw is this... and this... and this...

8/10/2012

Dear Readers,

If they thought about it at all, most SoCal residents used to think of San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station as reliable, although this view was false all along.

The false impression was accomplished in part because when one reactor would go down, the other would usually stay up, so the unreliability was masked from public scrutiny. Refueling outages were planned accordingly.

However, recent events have revealed the truth. A widespread blackout less than a year ago brought SanO down for about a week -- both reactors -- as will just about every type of major disaster conceivable, whether it's SanO's fault or not. San Onofre has to shut down if it loses offsite power, which is nearly inevitable in most major natural disasters.

But even if SanO were more reliable, it's two operating units have several basic design flaws. For example, each of the two reactors has only two steam generators. That is a basic design flaw that cannot be fixed.

Most Pressurized Water Reactors have three or four steam generators. Having ONLY a single backup steam generator if one of the two fails has become a serious issue because of SanO's attempts to restart Unit 2 at reduced power due to design flaws inside their new steam generators.

All four steam generators were replaced in 2010 and 2011 with a new design that was supposed to last longer and wear better. But on January 31st, 2012 one of Unit 3's two new steam generators sprung a leak, and a closer inspection of Unit 2's steam generator tubing revealed excessive wear there as well. Technically, Unit 3 is "trashed" as one expert put it recently, but Unit 2 might still be operated at lower power -- if you don't mind risking losing Southern California to do it.

However, so far no one can figure out a "workable" power level. As of this writing, Southern California Edison hasn't applied for permission to restart either reactor.

On the intakes to the steam generators they sometimes put devices called "restrictors". The restrictors narrow the inlets to physically limit the maximum flow of water into the steam generator. If they want to run at reduced power, they probably will need to put properly-sized restrictors on, because it would not only be against regulations to run at a higher flow rate, but it would also potentially be very dangerous.

However, this presents a problem if there's an emergency. If one steam generator fails, they would have to cool the reactor with the other steam generator running at significantly reduced maximum flow! That might not be possible.

Why not just set the "maximum flow rate" to the amount that might be needed in an emergency, and run at less than that?

The answer is that they have to limit the flow because a catastrophic accident might occur if the flow rates are too high. So in essence, they will already be operating at their maximum permissible flow rates. That's why simply telling the operators: "Don't turn that dial past 50%!" won't be sufficient. The entire system is designed to push water through those steam generators as fast as practical, and normally that's supposed to keep happening unless they insert the control rods to shut down the reactor and it starts to cool.

But in San Onofre's case, increased flow in the primary loop can cause overheating of the water in the secondary loop, causing there to be more steam than water in the upper area of the steam generator, which can cause tube-to-tube collisions and wear, because steam doesn't dampen vibration as well as water does. This is what caused the radiation leak that occurred in January. So even in an emergency, you can't have excess flow.

So that's one problem: Only one backup steam generator. If the potential failure point of concern was somewhere other than a steam generator, that would be one thing, and maybe two steam generators per reactor is enough. But with the potential point of failure being the steam generators themselves, this becomes a "fatal flaw".

Another "fatal flaw" at San Onofre is that the problem with the steam generator tubes banging into each other and wearing out too fast can't be fixed by going back to the old design.

The old design was made with an alloy (Inconel 600) that had a 10% better heat transfer rate. But that alloy had flow induced vibration problems (i.e., it was too wobbly) AND premature wearing and aging problems (i.e., the "super" alloy wasn't so super after all). Those problems were only partially relieved by the industry's newest alloy (Inconel 690) that the new tubes were made with. There are nearly 10,000 of these tubes inside each steam generator. If one fails, it could cause the whole bundle to fail in quick succession (known as a "cascading" failure).

The new tubes had to be thinner to fit in the same space and have the same overall total heat transfer rate as the old tube bundle had. It's possible the designers purposely tried to make the heat transfer rate even higher so they could produce more steam. In any event, they succeeded way too much.

They took out a "stay cylinder" in the center of the steam generators in order to fit more heat transfer tubes, which may have added to their vibration problems.

In fact, they thought they had lots of better ideas for various other parts of the steam generators -- dozens of areas were redesigned along the way. The whole process took about 10 years. There were hearings, cost estimates, attempts by citizens (including this one) to stop it... same as what's happening today, except the reactors were running at the time.

The NRC was assured by SCE that the new steam generators were "like-for-like" and were going to be "plug compatible" after they tore a hole in the containment domes to cram the new steam generators in and take the old ones out. The assurance of "like-for-like" replacement avoided a layer of public scrutiny that might have stopped the project -- or found the problem.

At least one Unit 3 steam generator registered a "1.3 g" deviation on all three of its accelerometers somewhere along its journey from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Kobe, Japan to SanO. That bump may have contributed to its excessive wear: 1,300,000 pounds (the weight of over 16 fully-loaded tractor-trailer trucks) doesn't take kindly to being knocked around.

Before they left the factory, some of the steam generators were rotated many extra times during repairs of cracks found during inspections.

Steam generator problems aside, an even bigger problem is all the used reactor cores that are stored on site at San Onofre.

Used reactor cores are called "spent fuel" even though they actually are entire reactor core assembly modules, each weighing thousands of pounds. They ARE the "reactor." When they are removed from the reactor pressure vessel, they are thermally and radioactively "hot", and are chock full of "fission products" (i.e., radioactive decay products that are, themselves, radioactive).

These fuel bundle assemblies are yet a third fatal flaw at San Onofre -- and at every reactor. Every 18 to 22 months, a third of the reactor core is removed from the reactor and set aside -- forever. For the first five years the reactor cores must be stored deep under water, they are so hot. After that they are precariously loaded into "dry casks" which are recipes for disaster as well.

The older the fuel, the cooler it is both thermally and radioactively. Therefore, the safer and safer it becomes -- slowly.

San Onofre has many more "fatal flaws" than just these. For example, it's not nearly strong enough to survive large earthquakes that might occur in its vicinity. Its tsunami wall isn't nearly high enough -- just like Fukushima's wasn't. Its backup diesel generators have been left uninspected, have been mis-wired, have had their backup batteries fail, have had vibration detectors set improperly, have failed to start during tests, and their fuel is located below grade and would have to be pumped up through a flotilla of tsunami debris. The sump pump for its emergency core cooling system could become clogged with debris. Workers are intimidated or even fired for reporting safety violations.

Any of these problems -- and many more -- might be "fatal flaws" for San Onofre.

The solution is to keep it shut down forever, and turn to renewables.

The amount of energy from San Onofre (about 2,200 megawatts) has been "replaced" many times over since SanO was built -- sometimes with clean energy, sometimes with cheap natural gas. SanO should immediately be decommissioned and alternative energy options utilized instead.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA (images added 2025)

The author is an educational software developer. He has illustrated nuclear reactors, mechanical pumps, the human heart, and many other processes. He has studied nuclear issues for over 40 years and has interviewed hundreds of scientists in related fields.





Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company