U.S. NRC Blog

Transparent, Participate, and Collaborate

Two Important Reports about Steam Generators at SONGS Go Public

Victor Dricks
Senior Public Affairs Officer
 

The NRC made public today redacted versions of two reports prepared by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries concerning the steam generator replacement at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

The Steam Generator Root Cause Analysis Report and a Supplemental Technical Evaluation Report  were prepared by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as part of its effort to determine what contributed to the unusual wear in the steam generators after they were installed in 2010 and 2011 at Units 2 and 3, respectively.

The NRC is using a variety of regulatory actions, such as inspections and investigations, to ensure that it is comprehensively addressing the issues that have arisen at the SONGS nuclear power plant.

On Sept. 28, 2012, the NRC began an expansive investigation on the completeness and accuracy of information that Edison provided to the NRC regarding the steam generator degradation under the NRC’s regulatory requirements.

These reports are included in an array of documents being reviewed by the NRC as we investigate whether Edison demonstrated sufficient due diligence in its oversight of the redesign of the steam generators; how design changes that were made or rejected may have affected the safety of the steam generators; and the truthfulness and accuracy of all the information Edison has provided to the NRC regarding the redesign and replacement of the steam generators.

Separately from the ongoing investigation, the NRC is evaluating Edison’s responses to questions the NRC has raised about their request to restart Unit 2 at the plant.

Additionally, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is reviewing issues related to the Confirmatory Action Letter issued by the NRC staff to Southern California Edison.

45 responses to “Two Important Reports about Steam Generators at SONGS Go Public

  1. richard123456columbia April 26, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    If they try to repair the problems and it does not work, who pays for it or if the repairs cause a new problem. Who will insure this change? Who will be responsible if it goes bad, will they be charged with murder if people die and pay for all damages. NO, they will not so they have no risk if it goes bad 10 or 20 years from now. This will turn into a one of a kind plant with unique problems that no one has seen or experienced before so the out come is questionable at best. The top group to blame will be the NRC(Public Money) no matter who else will be next. The public’s risk is above what they want to take for the possible gain. This is uncharted water with extreme consequences. STOP

  2. Corey April 26, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources
    back to your site? My blog is in the exact same niche as yours
    and my visitors would certainly benefit from a lot of the information you provide here.
    Please let me know if this okay with you. Many thanks!

  3. HAHN Baba April 3, 2013 at 11:27 pm

    Sincere Thanks to NRC Chairman, Mr. Victor Dricks, Mr. Cale Young, Mr. Ryan Lantz, Mr. Randy Hall and entire NRC Staff. Thanks to NRC posting this blog. San Onofre NRC/SCE/MHI/Public Awareness Series – by Hahn Baba

    Albert Einstein, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    NRC, INPO, CPUC, NEI and Scientists expect a responsible nuclear utility to supply safe and reliable power at a reasonable cost and not conduct unsafe experiments at the expense of public safety and charge ratepayers for its mistakes.

    First Strike – 1992 – Decaying generator tubes helped push San Onofre’s Unit 1 reactor into retirement in 1992, even though it was designed to run until 2004.

    Second Strike – 2001Power Uprate – To generate more power, Edison Engineers increased the steam flows and lowered the steam generator pressures, which increased vibrations, and shortened the life of Rate Payers Paid Original Steam generators.

    Third Strike – 2011 – SONGS Unit 3 – To generate more power, believing that Unit 3 anti-vibration structure was built better than Unit 2, Edison Engineers tested the new supports by increasing the reactor coolant flows, steam flows and lowered the steam generator pressures, which increased vibrations, and destroyed the Rate Payers Paid brand New Replacement Steam generators. Edison has said that because of manufacturing differences, Unit 2’s generators did not suffer the extent of deep tube wear witnessed in its sister plant. Unit 2 was not operating in the test mode and did not experience fluid elastic instability because of lower reactor coolant flows, lower steam flows and higher steam generator pressures. Unit 2 better supports and double the contact forces unproven theory is just a conjecture on the part of SCE/MHI based on hideous data, faulty computer simulations and an excuse to start defectively designed and degraded Unit 2. Unit 2 better supports and double the contact forces unproven theory is just a cheap SCE scheme to charge insurance money from MHI and more money from ratepayers. This bogus and unconvincing theory is contested and challenged based on the available plant data and review of Dr. Pettigrew’s research papers and testimony, John Large, MHI, Westinghouse and AREVA Reports.

    Fourth Strike – 2013 – Edison officials are also preparing long-range plans under which the plant might run for years, even though some of Edison’s own research has suggested tube damage could cut short its life span. Precise projections about the future are dependent on a restart — Edison engineers need to study how the reactor behaves at 70 percent power before being able to sharpen longer-range calculations. The plant could be started then shut down, as many as five times during a trial run to assess its operation and safety. “To propose an experiment in which the damaged reactor is repeatedly turned on and off shows a disgraceful contempt for public safety,” said Kendra Ulrich, a spokeswoman for the Friends of the Earth. Unit 2 restart without complete and thorough review by NRC Brilliant Engineers and Public Hearings on the basis of meeting peak summer electricity demands is an unapproved experiment and just a cheap SCE scheme to charge more money from ratepayers.

    Last Strike – Albert Einstein, “Any intelligent …. can make things bigger, more complex, and more ….. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” Ted Craver needs to tell Ron, Pete, Tom, Rich, John, Mike, Vic, Doug and others to stop wasting NRC and Public’s time and money and award a turnkey contract to Westinghouse and Bechtel to repair or replace both Units Steam generators. This will be expensive, but wise for Ted, Ron, Pete, Tom, Rich, John, Mike, Vic, Doug and EIX/SCE shareholders, and will be in the best interests of NRC, INPO, NEI, Nuclear Industry, CPUC and the Public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,449 other followers

%d bloggers like this: