Monday, December 10, 2012

Press Release: SCE’s Claims About SONGS Unit 2 Steam Generator Operating Pressures Are Erroneous ...

Subject: Press Release: SCE's Claims About SONGS Unit 2 Steam Generator Operating 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:

A
fter 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." [See Mr. Gundersen's actual credentials, below.]

*      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 degrees 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.

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


Arnie Gundersen

Arnie Gundersen has 40-years of nuclear power engineering experience. He attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) where he earned his Bachelor Degree cum laude while also becoming the recipient of a prestigious Atomic Energy Commission Fellowship for his Master Degree in nuclear engineering. Arnie holds a nuclear safety patent, was a licensed reactor operator, and is a former nuclear industry senior vice president. During his nuclear power industry career, Arnie also managed and coordinated projects at 70-nuclear power plants in the US.  (from Fairewinds Associates)

=====================================================
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:

A
fter 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." [See Mr. Gundersen's actual credentials, below.]

·      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.

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


Arnie Gundersen

Arnie Gundersen has 40-years of nuclear power engineering experience. He attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) where he earned his Bachelor Degree cum laude while also becoming the recipient of a prestigious Atomic Energy Commission Fellowship for his Master Degree in nuclear engineering. Arnie holds a nuclear safety patent, was a licensed reactor operator, and is a former nuclear industry senior vice president. During his nuclear power industry career, Arnie also managed and coordinated projects at 70-nuclear power plants in the US.  (from Fairewinds Associates)

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


************************************************

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

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, December 7, 2012

From CounterPunch: "Double Your Trouble With Nuclear Power"

December 6th, 2012

Dear Readers,

This superb synopsis of the current state of the nuclear industry was originally published in CounterPunch yesterday, and is presented here at the request of the authors.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


December 05, 2012

Bad for Health, Bad for Business

Double Your Trouble With Nuclear Power

CounterPunch

by JOSEPH MANGANO and Dr. JANETTE SHERMAN, MD

Industry leaders will have no problem closing nuclear reactors that don't generate expected profits. Exelon, the Chicago-based company that owns 17 of the 104 U.S. reactors, recently saw its stock price drop below $30 a share, the same level as mid-2003, and a whopping 70% below its peak of over $92 a share in mid-2008.

The standard explanation for this reversal is cost. In particular, electricity from growing natural gas and wind sources costs less to produce than that from nuclear reactors. The famous 1954 promise by Atomic Energy Commission head Lewis Strauss that the atom would create energy "too cheap to meter" has failed miserably. But while cost is the reason why utilities will be closing reactors, most reports fail to look beneath the surface and understand WHY nukes are so expensive.

The answer is that nuclear power poses great danger to safety and health. This danger means that reactors must comply with numerous safety regulations; must be built with many safety features; and must be manned by a large and highly trained work force ­ each a high-ticket item. In addition, the fleet of 104 U.S. reactors in operation is aging -- most over 30 years old -- requiring that corroding parts be replaced, pushing costs even higher.

Another element in the high cost of nukes won't be faced until they are decommissioned (after closing). Decommissioning costs run hundreds of millions of dollars per reactor. Utilities are forced by federal law to keep a large decommissioning fund while operating reactors, to prevent them from simply closing reactors, not securing them, and sticking taxpayers with the bill.

Even with all these extensive and expensive efforts to protect the public, nukes still aren't safe. The chance of a meltdown exists every day, from human error, natural disaster, or terrorist act. The disasters at Chernobyl in 1986 and at Fukushima last year remind us that catastrophic meltdowns that affect thousands to millions are a sobering reality. In addition to meltdowns, there is the matter of routine emissions from reactors and elevated cancer rates near reactors, demonstrated in many studies. Finally, the U. S. and other nations still have no long-term plans to store the massive amounts of hazardous nuclear waste.

Dominion Nuclear recently announced that the Kewaunee reactor in Wisconsin will permanently shut down in the spring. This action is a milestone. Not only will this be the first U.S. reactor closed since 1998, but it will likely be followed by numerous other shutdowns. An October 23 New York Times article was headlined "Reactors Face Mothballs."

Kewaunee's closing also represents a turning point. For over a decade, nuclear leaders steadily proclaimed an era of a revival, after years of no growth. But the word "renaissance" has vanished, and nuclear power is now in full retreat.

So which reactors will join Kewaunee and be the next to close? Nobody knows for sure, but there are a number of reactors that are faring poorly, and are candidates for shutdown:

- Crystal River (Florida), closed for over three years, needs considerable funds to replace defective parts

- San Onofre (California, two reactors), closed for nearly one year due to faulty steam generators, will require millions to repair.

- Oyster Creek (New Jersey), which must shut down by 2019, may close sooner according to Exelon executives who cite costs and market forces

- Vermont Yankee (Vermont), up for sale (and like Kewaunee with no buyers), along with stiff opposition from local citizens and elected officials

- Clinton (Illinois), another Exelon reactor, has been hit hard by cheaper alternatives

- Indian Point (New York, two reactors), faced considerable citizen and political opposition ever since a plane hijacked by terrorists on 9/11 flew directly over it on its way to the World Trade Center.

This autumn has been the worst period for U.S. nuclear reactors in a long time. Hurricane Sandy caused six reactors to close temporarily, while others were shut to change fuel, and others closed due to mechanical problems. From mid-October to late November, U.S. reactors operated at just 70-75% of capacity, down sharply from the 90% figure of the past decade.

Shrinking nuclear power is even more pronounced overseas. In Japan, nearly two years after Fukushima, only 2 of 54 reactors are operating, and the majority of Japanese are fiercely opposed to restarting any reactors. Soon after Fukushima, governments in Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland announced plans to phase out nuclear power, and Germany has already closed half a dozen reactors.

The business troubles facing reactors are nothing new -- historical construction costs far exceeded original estimates, and Wall Street executives stopped lending money for new reactors in the 1970s. Fewer reactors will mean reduced threats to health but also reduced costs ­ proving what's good for the environment is also good for business.

Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, is an epidemiologist, and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (www.radiation.org).

Janette Sherman, MD is an internist and toxicologist. (www.janettesherman.com).



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



Saturday, December 1, 2012

This plant must never be restarted...

12/1/2012

Dear Readers,

If you know ANYONE that works in the nuclear industry, ask them to quit their job -- TODAY!

And ask them not to pour anti-freeze in the fuel oil tank for the Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) on the way out, as apparently some sod did at San Onofre last month, and the FBI have been called in to "investigate," which I presume means looking at old security videos and interviewing people to see who holds a grudge (that apparently won't narrow it down very much), who had access to the area (ditto), who acts nervous during the interview (...), and who had a bad hair day (me). Since the area was unsecured and hundreds of employees had access, I doubt they'll catch the guy.

With a third of the work force -- 730 people -- having been laid off recently at San Onofre, there was bound to be some animosity at the plant during the layoff period. I don't understand why SCE couldn't have offered all their employees (except the guy that poured anti-freeze in the EDG) jobs in their renewable energy division. Then there probably wouldn't have been ANY animosity at all -- here's Southern California Edison's (SCE's) claim:

"SCE leads the nation in renewable energy, delivering approximately 15.5 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable energy to customers in 2011. This constitutes about 21.1 percent of the energy we deliver to customers.*

"In 2011 SCE signed 15 contracts for 920 megawatts of renewable power. These contracts have the potential of providing 2.4 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity - enough for more than 364,000 average-sized homes for a year."

(from: www.sce.com)

In a chart on the same web page, SCE claims to have a renewable "capacity" of over 4,000 megawatts -- double San Onofre's output.

But besides wondering why SCE treats their employees so poorly, surely everyone has to wonder -- the public, the NRC, and the employees that are left -- whether or not 2/3rds of the previous work force is enough for safely run one reactor while simultaneously trying to figure out and fix what went wrong with the other one.

Below are my tweets from listening to last night's NRC hearing. I took advantage of the NRC's webcast, which seemed to have been produced with outdated software. What a surprise.

Southern California Edison is playing a very slick game, gaming the NRC in this case, and duping the public with technospeak. But the short story seems to be this:

Everything that is the least bit different between Unit 2 and Unit 3 is being used to "prove" that SCE can operate Unit 2 safely somehow because it's not like Unit 3. At the same time everything that is similar between the two units can provide valuable data to prove that at 70% power, Unit 2 won't act like Unit 3.

SCE claimed that Fluid Elastic Instability (FEI) occurred in Unit 3 because the void fraction was too high (that is, the steam was too dry), and the velocity of the steam was too fast, and Unit 3 was slightly different in design and fabrication (they ignored the operational differences). Some numbers had been entered wrong into a computer program. Also, retainer bars near the U-bends at the top weren't designed correctly. Anti-vibration bars had too large a gap between the bars and the tubes so they didn't dampen the "in-plane" vibrations enough, while the tube support plates had too small a gap, so liquids could not get through, further drying out the steam.

It sounded interesting, but it was mostly guesswork and they even admitted it several times in one way or another, saying, after prodding by the NRC, that various presumptions were based on "newly developed risk models and assumptions" based on looking at Unit 3 and guessing that what went wrong with Unit 3 provides a good enough benchmark to know how FEI will behave if it happens in Unit 2. But that's not a whole lot of data to risk the entire value -- well over a trillion dollars -- of Southern California over!

SCE mentioned a Main Steam Line Break once or twice (it's a "Design Basis Accident" so they have to plan for it), but for all intents and purposes, they completely ignored that issue all night, on the assumption that Fluid Elastic Instability takes a long time to damage the tubes if it happens, just because they think it took a long time (11 months; that's not so long!) in Unit 3. SCE assumes Unit 3's tubes were vibrating from FEI right from the start, but that might not be a valid assumption and might not matter anyway as an indication of how Unit 2's degraded tubes will behave. SCE admitted during the night that tube-to-tube degradation can be "unpredictable and rapid" but they want to risk it anyway!

The tweets shown below are in reverse chronological order, so I recommend reading them from the bottom up.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

* Note added 2025: In the next ten years, by 2021 (latest year available) SCE's renewable percentage had only risen to a pathetic 33.6%.


AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:35pm via HootSuite

NRC says they have "significant work to do" to evaluate SCE's claims & "have a number of significant questions that need to be answered."
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:33pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal NRC's Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator closes by saying the NRC will be forming an oversight panel, charter to come...
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:31pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Roger Johnson asks why we're not talking about public health &safety -- cancer, for example. He wants epidemiologists present.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:28pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Next a teacher and mother asks SCE not to experiment with a 5% chance of Fluid Elastic Instability.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:25pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Dietrich assures us SCE knows why there was FEI, namely that the models were wrong (ignoring design and ops problems).
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:23pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Martha Sullivan asks why they are even thinking of restarting when they don't completely understand what caused the problem?
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:22pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Nancy Nolan asks if we have to wait for a leak to know there's a problem? Other than "predicting," yes, that's the only way.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:19pm via HootSuite

Still playing at: nrc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.ph
AceHoffmanNov 30, 9:16pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Hey? Where did my audio go??? The event ended online at 9:15! I am disgusted with NRC's inability to handle a webcast!
2 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:14pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Joe Holtzman asks Mr. Dietrich: "Why wasn't effective failure mode analysis done before?" And points out U2 & U3 are similar.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:12pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Tube-To-Tube-Wear is "very sobering" to SCE. "Any entity involved" needs to look at this "sobering" problem. That's all PWRs!
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:11pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Lutz also wants to know why, when SCE said it was all done right the first time, should we believe them this time?
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:10pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Ray Lutz points out that all the "experts" were called "independent" but all were hired by Edison.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:07pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal IBEW local 47 supports SanO restart. Asks how many fatalities in the US (since we haven't had a Fukushima yet). Chip skips it.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:03pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Chip discards yet another pro-nuker, then a poet sings a poem: "What part of Fukushima do you not understand?" Pete Dietrich?
AceHoffmanNov 30, 9:01pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal NRC's Ryan says the licensee took about 8 months to come up with the analysis. The NRC says they'll need some time, too.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:00pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal A senior citizen "hopes the work proceeds in a timely manner." Next a chamber of commerce pro-nuker... Time flies...
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:58pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Libbe HaLevy asks, "when can OUR experts speak?" Can we have an ADJUDICATORY HEARING? A "legal environment"? Put SanO on trial!
2 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:56pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal NRC admits to having hired one outside expert & contracted with another. Other than that so far it's all in-house "expertise."
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:54pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Antelope Valley lady asks if the NRC actually has the resources to do a full technical review? The NRC says they do. (We pay.)
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:53pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Gene asks this Q: HOW come SCE says they're going to be responsible considering they're not required by law to be responsible?
1 retweets
AceHoffmanN ov 30, 8:51pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Chip tells a pro-nuke troll his Q will be treated as a comment. Gene Stone points out that the U2 and U3 flows are similar.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:47pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Gary's also pointing out that there are WAY TOO MANY OTHER PROBLEMS besides just the SGs. He's getting a loud applause.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:46pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Gary Headrick is asking first question, pointing out that even though U2 is better than U3 both are worse than industry norms.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:44pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Chip just announced they'll extend the meeting to 9:25 (about 40 minutes from now). They haven't let the public ask Qs yet!
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:40pm via HootSuite

@Shazzamm1971 yeah, this whole idea of running at 70% is an experiment in seeing if their guesswork is reasonably accurate... or not...
Show Conversation
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:32pm via HootSuite
-------------------------------------------

Shazzamm1971Nov 30, 9:27pm via Mobile Web

@AceHoffman Is the 70% is based on the original power specs or the up rated output. So 70% may actually mean 95% of the original.

Shazzamm1971: @AceHoffman in Vibrational analysis having a baseline is everything, putting monitors on a compromised SG and op at 70% will tell nothing8:35pm, Nov 30 from Mobile Web

AceHoffman: @shazzamm1971 yeah, this whole idea of running at 70% is an experiment in seeing if their guesswork is reasonably accurate... or not...8:40pm, Nov 30 from HootSuite

Shazzamm1971: @AceHoffman Is the 70% is based on the original power specs or the up rated output. So 70% may actually mean 95% of the original.9:27pm, Nov 30 from Mobile Web
-------------------------------------------------
OR until it's back at 100%. Your guess is as good as theirs as to which it will be: FEI-induced meltdown or sweet profits for Edison?
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:30pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Pete Dietrich admits they plan to run unit two at higher and higher power and pressure until ... until... until it breaks.
2 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:26pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal SCE says it was all evaluated under 10CFR50.59. They say. SoCal's commitment is to the profits of the shareholders.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:22pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal But if a sensor fails SCE won't shut down, AND they won't even be able to use the data collected during the five-month run.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:21pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Vibration monitors at the tube sheet area are located outside the SGs. They banged a hammer inside to calibrate them.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:19pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Argon-41 is more easily detected than N-16. Good to know. (N-16 can be used to detect a 5 gallon-per-day leak.)
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:13pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal SCE once again admits that they only have probabilities to go on-that Fluid Elastic Instability is only a power transient away.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:10pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal NRC sees that the AVB functions are being changed, and are asking SCE why they don't see it as a design change.
3 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 8:04pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal The calculated-over-critical stability ratio is considered safe at 75%, or anything less than 1. That's 70% power, they hope.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:59pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal SCE's "new approach" is to give up on fixing the problem and just run at an administratively-set lower power output.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:54pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal I can't imagine AREVA being able to deliver an unbiased opinion to SCE over MHI's bad SGs at SONWGS. That's just an opinion.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:53pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Now they're saying they knew years ago the void fraction was going to be very high, but they went ahead and built them anyway.
2 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:50pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Velocity and void fraction are important. But so are pressure and temperature... and earthquakes and MSLBs!
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:48pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal SCE admits that the void fraction at 100% thermal power would be too high and unsafe. They promise not to turn up the dial.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:44pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal "The paradigm at the time" (~2002) was that other dampening would prevent in-plane dampening. Now they know they didn't know.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:39pm via HootSuite

The SCE guy just admitted that running Unit 2 at 100% power would be very dangerous. But the only thing stopping that is "administrative."
4 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:37pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal The sum total is they might be able to run at 70% power, but if there's a MSLB or a nutcase or a power transient, then what?
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:33pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Why isn't MHI required to be at this? Is it because they're way off in Japan? If so, isn't that a reason to not buy MHI parts?
3 retweets
AceHoffmanNov 30, 7:25pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Ah Ha! They've just admitted they want to run the reactor at 70% power to TEST THEIR WAY TO 100%. That's not safe.
3 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:24pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal What if the guy who poured anti-freeze in the oil of the EDG decides to crank up the power to 100%? What happens then?
2 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:22pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Note how many times SCE says they're still investigating stuff! Yet they want permission to run at 70% power: Voluntarily set.
2 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:21pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Comparing Unit 2 and Unit 3, the thermal hydraulics were NOT as similar as SCE claims...
2 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:19pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Dietrich is talked about the OSGs "cracking" from chemicals, but their main intention with the RSGs was to minimize wear. Oops!
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:16pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal NRC guy asks if the AVB bars had a lower harmonic because of a redesign. SCE blamed MHI for such details, one way or the other.
1 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:12pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Will there be high localized void fractions during a MSLB?? Will the steam be too dry? The velocity too high? Not enuf damping?
AceHoffman Nov 30, 7:11pm via HootSuite

#nukefreecal Unit 2 is NOT "clearly different" - the results were a bit different but that's probably due to operational differences...
2 retweets
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:58pm via HootSuite

Unit 2 had different pressures, temperatures and flow rates which probably caused the different behaviors -- and some design issues.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:57pm via HootSuite

3 tubes failed below Main Steam Line Break accident pressure. In case you wonder whether we almost lost Southern California last January...
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:55pm via HootSuite

A "backward look" at San Onofre from DAY ONE indicates ~4,000,000 pounds of high level spent fuel sitting on site and we don't want any...
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:53pm via HootSuite

Say what, "UNPREDICTABLE AND RAPID"??? Tube-To-Tube wear in 2 tubes is 2 tubes too many!
AceHoffmanNov 30, 6:51pm via HootSuite

2 tubes in Unit 2 with >35% wear, 2 were close enough to be more than that by the next cycle... two tubes with TTW 14% "probably less"...
AceHoffmanNov 30, 6:48pm via HootSuite

The fact that the tubes passed the "integrity requirements" proves that those requirements were/are inadequate...
AceHoffmanNov 30, 6:46pm via HootSuite

There are additional types of probes that are more expensive which SCE did not use... see the DAB Safety Team reports for more information.
AceHoffmanNov 30, 6:43pm via HootSuite

Then they looked on the outside and found some wear from the retainer bars... so they plugged the 94 tubes that touched the bars.
AceHoffmanNov 30, 6:39pm via HootSuite

Okay, so they looked at all 20,000 tubes with a bobbin coil. max 76 feet. They looked and looked. Then sampled with the rotating probe.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:35pm via HootSuite

Note that Unit 1's steam generators did NOT function very well, and the original SGs (OSGs) in U2 & U3 didn't function very well either!
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:33pm via HootSuite

9727 things that can fail in each steam generator and dozens of places on each of those "10,000" tubes. So 170,000 inspections isn't much!
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:31pm via HootSuite

The tube-to-tube separation was much less than the design had called for (0.05 inches versus 0.25 inches or more).
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:30pm via HootSuite

They took away ~7 inches of topspace above the U-tubes for the Replacement Steam Generators. They can't put it back.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:29pm via HootSuite

The need for effective heat transfer after shutdown goes on for a long time. If the tubes have cascaded ruptures, look out!
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:26pm via HootSuite

Here's an animation you can look at if you don't have visuals, from my web site. The top two images are like San Onofre goo.gl/t1Njg
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:24pm via HootSuite

Safety margins for SG tube wear are probabilities, guesses, and assumptions. The resultant numbers might be right, but they might not be.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:22pm via HootSuite

Even without TTW (tube-to-tube wear), Unit 2s tubes should have been inspected during the first refueling outage.
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:21pm via HootSuite

600 technicians ensure there are "significant safety margins... to ... maintain tube integrity". Didn't they promise that the 1st time?
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:18pm via HootSuite

Note that unit two's SGs weren't inspected prior to unit 3's blowing a tube. After spending half a billion $ to install them, why not?
AceHoffman Nov 30, 6:17pm via HootSuite

They keep saying they did a good job of shutting down Unit 3. But actually, they didn't recognize fluid elastic instability.
AceHoffmanNov 30, 6:14pm via HootSuite

Pete Dietrich says: "We take full responsibility and accountability for [the] decision." Does that mean SCE is abandoning Price-Anderson?!?
AceHoffman Nov 30, 9:49am via HootSuite

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

Friday, November 30, 2012

Press Release (Revised) 12-11-30 SCE: Don't Gamble Our Future On Probabilities & Un-Verified Data

11/30/2012

Dear Readers,

Here are two press releases related to today's NRC meeting regarding San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station, which has been closed since January and should never reopen.

The "DAB" Safety Team's report (I am a small portion of the DAB team) is attached (below, bottom). Ray Lutz's Citizen's Oversight press release is also below (top).

There are rumors that the NRC would like SCE to give up and stop trying to restart San Onofre. Ain't gonna happen. San Onofre's owners were just given over 5 billion dollars in rate hikes over the next few years by the CPUC; they're rolling in dough to fix San Onofre at a leisurely pace. Current plans are to start SanO Unit 2 at 70% power for six months starting February 2nd, which is interesting because that would mean it would be purposefully shut down right smack in the middle of the summer, when it's supposedly needed the most!

What kind of planning is THAT? Sounds propagandistic to me!

We'll find out what happens tonight at the NRC hearing. (I'll be listening to the web cast, if the NRC's technology works.)

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


San Onofre Safety Press Release about tonight's meeting:
http://sanonofresafety.org/2012/11/29/11302012-laguna-hills-nrc-meeting-edison-plan-to-restart-broken-san-onofre-nuclear-reactor/

NRC video link: http://video.nrc.gov


From: Ray Lutz <raylutz@citizensoversight.org>
Subject: [ShutSanOnofre] Press Rel: NRC Mtg 6pm;
Press Conf. 4pm. TODAY on San Onofre


PRESS RELEASE AND MEDIA ADVISORY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PUBLIC to NRC: No Restart! Shut Down San Onofre!

TODAY: Edison will propose to restart Unit 2 before failure is understood

EVENT DETAILS:

Event: NRC Public Meeting

Date/Time: Friday, November 30, 2012 / 6-9 p.m.

Location: The Hills Hotel, 25205 La Paz Rd, Laguna Hills CA

Event: Press Conference by Coalition to Decommission San Onofre

Date/Time: Friday, November 30, 2012 / 4 p.m.

Location: Outside the Hills Hotel, 25205 La Paz Rd, Laguna Hills CA


November 30, 2012 (SAN ONOFRE, CA) ­ A coalition of community advocacy groups opposed to the restart of the defective San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant will attend the public meeting rescheduled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to consider Southern California Edison's plan to restart the defective nuclear reactor Unit 2 at San Onofre.

This will follows the March to Decommission San Onofre, led by four Buddhist Monks from the Dana Point Harbor parking lot this morning to the pier. The original plans to go by the San Onofre plant were scuttled when high levels of radiation were measured near the replaced steam generator on the road.

Our Coalition stands by our Core Message delivered at the NRC's public meeting in Dana Point on October 9, 2012:

NO RESTART! of the defective nuclear reactor Unit 2 at the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant.

We demand a full License Amendment and Hearing and process, including evidentiary hearings with sworn testimony and cross-examination which include experts independent of the NRC, Edison and the nuclear power industry. Of course will all the facts on the table, this will likely mean there will be no restart attempted.

This public meeting tonight is NOT a substitute for this process. Given how we got to this point and the serious loss of faith by the public in the NRC and Edison as a result, we can see no reason why all five NRC Commissioners would not want this as well.

NRC proceedings regarding San Onofre should be conducted in the area most impacted by the decisions of these proceedings and should accommodate the more than 1,000 concerned citizens who are expected to attend ­ as they have consistently shown this year.

A growing number of Southern California City Councils have added their voice to our call for an adjudicated License Amendment and hearing process prior to restart of the crippled San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in defense of their residents and businesses, including:

Del Mar

Encinitas

Irvine

Laguna Beach

Mission Viejo

Santa Monica, and

Solana Beach.

The cities of San Clemente and Vista have joined in Senators Boxer's and Feinstein's call for the NRC to modify its policies and procedures in light of the Fukushima meltdowns, to further protect their residents and businesses.

On November 8, 2012, the five Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners ruled on petitions filed by Friends of the Earth in June of this year calling for the foregoing. Specifically, the Commission:

Referred to the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) whether the current Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) process is a de facto license amendment process, requiring an adjudicatory public hearing;

Referred to the Executive Director of Operations (EDO) whether Edison should have sought a license amendment, with attendant adjudicatory hearings, when it installed the defective steam generators in 2010-11;

Offered to reconsider convening an adjudicatory hearing if the ASLB denies FoE's request;

Offered to reconsider staying the restart of the idled reactors if restart becomes "imminent" before the completion of the processes ordered above.

The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre is comprised of community-based, grassroots organizations in San Diego and Orange Counties concerned for the safety of 8.5 million residents living within 50 miles of the crippled San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, and for the economy of Southern California. We continue to hold the five members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission accountable.

Additional Key Information:

Southern California Edison wants to restart one of their broken nuclear reactors without fixing it first.1 The plant has been off-line since 1/31/2012 due to radiation leaks and excessive tube wear in newly replaced steam generators2 that are the worst in the nation. See Tubes Plugged Chart3 and Fairewinds Associates report: San Onofre's Steam Generators: Significantly Worse than all Others Nationwide.4 The NRC says design changes in these steam generators are flawed,5 making the reactors unsafe.

California has excess power without California's unreliable nuclear power plants, even during peak summer months, according to California government documents6. And the California ISO's electricity grid Transmission Plan7 says there will be no grid stability concerns with San Onofre shut down.

CONTACTS:

Citizens' Oversight: Ray Lutz / RayLutz@CitizensOversight.org / 619-820-5321

Peace Resource Center of San Diego: Carol Jahnkow / caroljahnkow@gmail.com / 760-390-0775

Residents Organizing for a Safe Environment: Gene Stone / genston@sbcglobal.net / 949-233-7724

San Clemente Green: Gary Headrick / gary@sanclementegreen.org / 949-218-4051


###

1 http://sanonofresafety.org/2012/10/14/union-of-concerned-scientists-questions-restart-of-san-onofre-unit-2-nuclear-reactor/

2 http://sanonofresafety.org/category/steam-generator/

3 http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pluggedtubesbyage2012-10-10.pdf

4 http://fairewinds.org/content/san-onofre%E2%80%99s-steam-generators-significantly-worse-all-others-nationwide

5 http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/badvibrations2012-06-28.pdf

6 http://sanonofresafety.org/energy-options/

7 http://sanonofresafety.org/energy-options/


--



Ray Lutz
Citizens' Oversight
CitizensOversight.org
619-820-5321
ShutSanOnofre mailing list
ShutSanOnofre@citizensoversight.org
To subscribe/unsubscribe/manage settings:
http://lists.citizensoversight.org/mailman/listinfo/shutsanonofre



PRESS RELEASE 
The DAB Safety Team: November 30, 2012
Media Contact: Don Leichtling (619) 296-9928 or Ace Hoffman (760) 720-7261 
Don't Gamble Our Future On Probabilities & Un-Verified Data
SCE erroneous claims about Westinghouse and AREVA Operational Analysis (OA) as being Deterministic Analysis are misleading, confusing and controversial.  These OA’s are Actually Possibilistic Analysis, (PA) which is nothing more than Profitganda, the use of phony "feel good" information to sell an idea, product or concept to the masses.
Safety analysis can be characterized as Probabilistic, Deterministic or a combination of both known as Possibilistic Analysis.  Deterministic Analysis Definition: Analysis of a deterministic problem, without taking the probabilities of different event sequences into account. [Source: Businessdictionary.com]
1.      Attachment 6 - Steam Generator Operational Assessment- 3.6 Summary of All OAs  - The OAs (See Table 3-1) summarized in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 conclude the SIPC and AILPC are satisfied.


Table 3-1: Edison OA Approach and Results Comparison



OA Description



OA for Degradation
Mechanisms Other
Than TTW




TTW OA With No
Effective AVB
Supports





“Traditional”
Probabilistic OA
Prepared for TTW






Deterministic TTW
OA

Reference
Attachment 6 Appendix
Appendix A
AREVA
Appendix B
AREVA
Appendix C
Intertek APTECH
Appendix D
Westinghouse
Edison Claim
Probabilistic
Deterministic
Probabilistic
Deterministic
DAB Safety Team Analysis

Probabilistic
Possibilistic
(Alarming)

Probabilistic
Possibilistic (Alarming)


2.  AREVA Attachment 6 – Appendix B: SONGS U2C17 - Steam Generator Operational Assessment for Tube-to-Tube Wear – page 20 - 4.2 - Operational Assessment Strategy: The nominal distance between extrados and intrados locations of neighboring U-bends in the same plane ranges from 0.25 inches to 0.325 inches due to the tube indexing. There are 36 U-bends in Unit 2 SG E-088 and 34 in SG E-089 with a separation less than or equal to 0.050 inches (Design 0.25 inches, Arkansans Nuclear One Unit 2 0.35-0.50 inches).  The U-bends with the smaller separation distances are much better candidates for wear by rubbing yet do not exhibit TTW.  Contact forces, as deteriorated by tube wear at support locations over time, will be calculated using advanced computational techniques. This will be combined with calculations of stability ratios to develop the probability of the onset of in-plane fluid-elastic instability (an alarming statement because a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) accident has no time line), both as a function of operating power level and operating time. The operating power and operating time will be adjusted to provide a probability of occurrence of instability 0.05. This probability is based on considerations and requirements described in the EPRI SG Integrity Assessment Guidelines. Without the development of TTW, the Structural Integrity Performance Criteria, SIPC, is automatically satisfied to a probability greater than 0.95.
DAB Safety team Comment:  This is claimed to be a Deterministic OA but is using Probabilities. This is projecting possibilities using probabilities.  Hence this is an (Alarming)  Possibilistic OA and not a Deterministic OA as claimed by SCE.
 3. Westinghouse Attachment 6 – Appendix D: Operational Assessment of Wear Indications In the U-bend Region of San Onofre Unit 2 Replacement Steam Generators, Page 5, Section 1- Introduction: For the SONGS application, the resulting wear distribution after a cycle of operation is known, or can be inferred from existing ECT data, but for any given tube, there are many parameters that resulted in the wear distribution that are unknown.  It can be assumed that the tube and AVB surfaces will not have significant run-in effects for the first cycle of operation, but even this assumption involves a potential error of several hundred percent. Most importantly, the tube/AVB geometry is expected to be different than the original design intent, but all that can be inferred with the available information is the minimum length of the dominant tube vibration span. In the largest sense, the answer (wear distribution) is known, but the inputs are unknown.
Foot Note 4, Page 101: Westinghouse does not have access to the assembly procedures. The 0.12 to 0.14 dimensions are anecdotal without verification.  NOTE: Anecdotal: Based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation. [Source: dictionary.reference.com]
Foot Note 5, Page 102: Westinghouse does not have access to final manufacturing or inspection details, but anecdotal input indicates that six-pound weights were allowed and used during AVB inspection for consistency with AVB drawing tolerances.
DAB Safety team Comment:  When you start using the words unknown, assumed, inputs are unknown, anecdotal without verification and this assumption involves a potential error of several hundred percent, then this Deterministic OA is using unknown Probabilities and un-validated (Alarming) Possibilities. Hence this is a Possibilistic OA and not a Deterministic OA as claimed by Edison.

4. Enclosure 2 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 Return to Service Report -Section 5.2.2 Probabilistic Risk Assessment: The differential pressure across the SG tubes necessary to cause a rupture will not occur if operators prevent RCS re-pressurization in accordance with Emergency Operating Instructions.

The DAB Safety Team Comment:  Do Southern Californians really want to live at the mercy of SCE’s plant operators, who will be put in the very difficult position of operating defective steam generators that already have thousands of damaged tubes, just so SCE can profit (See SONGS Union Leader's letter that the SONGS workforce thinks a restart is not safe)?  Even an Ex-Plant Shift Manager said, “He was not going to put his license on line and risk public lives because SCE Management wants to make money by restarting a defective reactor.”  The question is, how bad do these steam generators have to be before the NRC tells SCE to pulls the plug? 
The DAB Safety Team believes that SCE’s own data proves beyond a doubt, that these already heavily damaged replacement steam generators (RSG) should never be restarted.
Guessing On Nuclear Safety Caused A Trillion Dollar Radioactive Eco-Disaster At Fukushima!

Copyright November 30, 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

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Southern California Edison's Virtual Tour of San Onofre

11/27/2012

Dear Readers,

Southern California Edison has posted a "Virtual Tour" of San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station. Here's the URL:

http://www.songscommunity.com/virtual-tour.asp

It's the best (and only) way to see the plant. The narrator sounds sooooo cheerful. She claims that San Onofre has been a good neighbor. Not so! They have been building up a deadly pile of radioactive waste -- three to four million pounds of it, of which a millionth of a GRAM will kill you. Also, the reactors have cost a fortune for the public over the years; it's really very expensive energy, and that money could have been spent on renewable energy. Instead, Southern California Edison continues to pour money into the plant, and into the propaganda campaign to keep the plant open. They've fought the activists tooth and nail just to keep making money and charging ratepayers for any mistakes -- and if there is ever an accident, they don't plan to pay for that either.

In the virtual tour, SCE claims they produce "baseload" power. But that ignores the times they have to shut the reactors off all of a sudden, such as, of all times, just when we need the energy the most: After an earthquake, wildfire, or other natural disaster! It's NOT reliable baseload -- as anyone can see by now, 11 months after the last kilowatt was produced! SCE also claims that SanO provides 24% of SoCal's electricity, but what's unsaid is that they define "SoCal" restrictively so the % seems higher than what's really delivered to the whole area that might be affected, say, by an accident. In fact, their plan to "restart" Unit 2 at 70% power will only supply, at best, 2% to 3% of SoCal's energy for five months, and then another shutdown, perhaps permanently if their "experiment" fails. All that risk for 2% to 3% of our electricity? Why bother?

And of course, they didn't mention SanO's 2012 contribution to the grid, which was next-to-nothing.

Regarding the spent fuel pools, the narrator says the radiation will "dissipate over time." She doesn't mention the eons of time this will take.

And the narrator implies -- perhaps correctly -- that all four Emergency Diesel Generators are all located in the same building! Not that that's stupid or anything... but even having two in one building kinda defeats the purpose of having backups, doesn't it?

In the picture of the plant, the growing mountain of dry storage casks is conveniently off-screen to the left, so they only show about 13 of them (probably <1/3rd of the current total).

Dry casks are the approved "solution" to the nuclear waste problem -- because all other solutions have already failed in one way or another. But dry casks are made of steel, concrete, and other materials. They will rust, they will crack, they will leak, and they can catch fire or have a criticality event (nuclear chain reaction). Yet those deadly dry casks are expected to sit on site for 80, 100, 200, maybe even 300 years or more. May God have mercy on whoever has to deal with them then! The radiation will be nearly as deadly as it is right now -- especially the plutonium, 1000 pounds of which is created every year at San Onofre. Plutonium is approximately 200,000 times more deadly than Uranium.

The Once Through Cooling pipes end within the picture. In fact they go much further out, presumably in order to reduce the potential radiation levels on local beaches: Dilution is always their favored solution to pollution. But the scientific consensus is that there is no threshold below which the full range of health effects -- cancer, heart disease, lowered IQ, fetal deformities and a thousand other problems -- do not occur (only their frequency, and in some case their severity, goes down as the dose is reduced). Releasing radioactive waste into the environment is premeditated murder. That's not mentioned in the virtual tour!

On a lighter note, but not much lighter, I suppose it's funny that they don't want to show how the fish elevator actually works (since it's not nearly as successful as they imply, and dozens of tons of fish are killed in it every year, and dozens of sea mammals, too).

And now they are saying that the tsunami wall is only 30 feet above "mean lower low water level" -- they used to say it was 35 feet -- I guess it sank! Or maybe they got cautious thanks to Gary Headrick's efforts to actually measure it???

And they describe a possible 27 foot tsunami as being the "maximum credible" event. That leaves 3 feet of leeway -- but only during "mean lower low water level"!! And every geologist, seismologist, or tsunami expert has had their entire education thrown on its ear by the actual tsunamis and earthquakes of the past decade. Yet San Onofre clings to old and outdated assurances.

But my favorite part of the tour is where they describe the nuclear reactors' turbines as being, well... just like a wind turbine (but not quite in so many words). But a wind turbine doesn't produce deadly nuclear waste that San Onofre doesn't know what to do about, and doesn't kill off the entire ecosystem when it fails.

Take the tour. Then tell San Onofre never 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