• News Ticker alerts

The DAB Safety Team, a group of San Diego and Orange County citizens with engineering backgrounds, will shortly ask Southern California Edison, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for all e-mails, letters, notes from meetings, phone calls, and other documentation abut the San Onofre replacement generators dating from November 2, 2001 to the present. Mitsubishi manufactured the generators to Edison's exact specifications. Documents would include such things as Edison's performance and design specifications, bid documents justifying Mitsubishi as low bidder, test reports and the like. DAB, which will be releasing more information, wants San Onofre decommissioned now for safety reasons.

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

Founder Sept. 21, 2012 @ 6:50 p.m.

Seen on the web: Big money Utilities don't want to lose their market share and they are making it almost impossible for Solar to be installed! Until the people of California DEMAND freedom from their Energy Taskmasters, they will continue to be slaves to them...

It is amazing to think that the people of California who pride themselves on being so independent allow this Energy SHAM to continue, especially since they like many other Countries are totally dependent on Middle Eastern oil or RISKY Nuclear!

Until our Governor decides to shake up the CPUC, California will continue to drag its feet instead of race toward Energy independence; just imagine, we could be Solar (of all flavors) Energy EXPORTERS and jump start our economy providing we have true energy Leadership instead of a Nuclear Fix*

The nuclear industries policy of donating massive amounts of money to insure that all levels of Government support Nuclear Energy to protect their market share despite it’s enormous environmental RISK of yet another Fukushima, instead of supporting less expensive, NON RISKY Eco Friendly Solar energy.

2

Don Bauder Sept. 22, 2012 @ 7:17 a.m.

Agreed: The big California utilities are making it difficult for individuals to install solar. The utilities' charges make solar uneconomical. Agreed on second point: it is urgently necessary for Gov. Brown to replace the head of the CPUC, Michael Peevey, and his buddy, Timothy Alan Simon. They are completely in the utilities' back pockets Best, Don Bauder

2

Founder Sept. 22, 2012 @ 8:40 a.m.

Agreed, If Gov. Brown fails to act then he is part of the CA Energy Ripoff Problem!

CA will never have low cost "CLEAN" energy until the CPUC is replaced with a non Energy Industry/Utility lapdog...

1

Founder Sept. 21, 2012 @ 6:52 p.m.

More frm the web:

Here are some questions (Others posted on other sites) about these Replacement Generators that were ordered:

  1. According to some News Paper Comments and Industry Reports in 2004, the going price for each 620 Ton CE Replacement Steam Generator was estimated between 200-250 Million Dollars (Per Piece). How did SCE CNO/President in 2004 convince MHI to build such large complicated and premium generators for 569 million dollars, which is almost 230 million dollars short of the market price and funds approved by CPCU?

  2. Since MHI had experience building only Fort Calhoun Generator of less than 300 tons, how did the SCE Engineers Technically Qualify MHI?

  3. Which other utilities’ QA Program, SCE took credit to approve Mitsubishi’s quality assurance program. Fort Calhoun?, French? Belgium? Japan?

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

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

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

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

  8. Who made the decision to make all these numerous design changes and determined the changes were “Like for Like” and did not need a Licensing Amendment Process?

  9. Which SCE Engineer furnished all these changes, information/documents to which NRC Engineer, who decided it was OK to proceed without a Licensing Amendment Process?

  10. Which SCE engineer approved/validated the MHI Thermal-Hydraulic FIT-IIIFIVATS code Inputs and Calculations?

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

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

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

  14. Were the OLD CE Steam Generators and new replacement generators exact in Thermal Output (MWe) or were there minor differences?

2

Founder Sept. 21, 2012 @ 6:52 p.m.

======

Why are all these questions important?

The answers will help determine if the SoCal rate payers or SCE + SDG&E shareholders have to foot the bill for SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) which will be over a BILLION DOLLARS...

Remember, SoCal rate payers are now also paying about 65 Million dollars a month for the SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) yet they are receiving nothing in return except more Nuclear Baloney* (NB)...

This money would be much better spent adding additional Solar (of all flavors) capacity and then jump starting the SoCal economy with the multibillion dollar decommissioning of SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency).

2

Don Bauder Sept. 22, 2012 @ 7:21 a.m.

You can bet that Edison and Sempra will try to hang the cost on ratepayers, not shareholders, and Peevey et al will enthusiastically agree. Best, Don Bauder

2

tomjohnston Sept. 25, 2012 @ 9:13 a.m.

Founder, You posted all of the above questions on the KPBS website a while ago. Obviously they weren't of your own creation, so I would be interested in reading them in their original context. Can you please provide a link?

0

Don Bauder Sept. 22, 2012 @ 7:19 a.m.

These are all good questions, Founder. Best, Don Bauder

2

Founder Sept. 22, 2012 @ 7:36 a.m.

Great article and a large number of comments: Proposed Changes To San Onofre’s Decommissioning Fund - KPBS

http://is.gd/7qGGg5 + Kudos to KPBS and Don Bauder of the Reader for being brave enough to discuss the 1.2 BILLION DOLLAR PROBLEM at San Onofre and then allow readers to post comments without requiring a FaceBook account like the Union Tribune and now Channel 10 are now doing! When the North County Times is sold, I expect the same thing to happen to them!

San Diego's traditional MSM is now being "fluffed Up" and we are losing information about all of topics of major importance and the ability to discuss them publicly!

2

Don Bauder Sept. 24, 2012 @ 4:37 p.m.

Papa Doug Manchester, owner of the U-T and North County Times, wants the papers to be cheerleaders for local business. Be wary of what you read in either publication about SDGE. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 22, 2012 @ 8:29 a.m.

SAN ONOFRE: CBG Study Shows Safety of Restarting Either Unit 2 or 3 is Questionable http://committeetobridgethegap.org/?p=390 snip In a report released today, CBG conducted an exhaustive analysis of data from nuclear plants nationwide. After analyzing the data, it became stunningly clear that San Onofre’s Unit 2 reactor has about 400 times as many damaged steam generator tubes as the median number at comparable plants over the same operational period, and Unit 3 has more than 450 times as many. Each San Onofre reactor has greater than a thousand times as many indications of wear on the tubes than the typical reactor in its first cycle of operation. And each San Onofre unit has had to plug more tubes than all replacement steam generators nationwide combined.

“San Onofre Unit 2 and 3 are both very ill nuclear plants. They are far, far outside the norm of national experience,” writes Daniel Hirsch, report co-author. “Restarting either San Onofre reactor with crippled steam generators that have not been repaired or replaced would be a questionable undertaking at best.” Hirsch is President of the Committee to Bridge the Gap.

Image from that article link

2

Don Bauder Sept. 24, 2012 @ 4:41 p.m.

There are persuasive arguments for keeping San Onofre out of service. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell Sept. 23, 2012 @ 10:33 p.m.

What I think happened is that SCE did not want to purchase off the shelf generators from Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) or other vendors because of the high cost. So SCE hatched a scheme to use its own engineers to reverse engineer B&W generators at a much lower cost, all the while dunning the rate payers for full retail as if B&W generators had been installed. In other words, SCE wanted to pocket as profit the difference between the cost of the B&W generators and its lower cost internal design. SCE lacked the engineering talent needed to design the generators so the project fell apart. Now SCE is in a real jam. The generators are no damn good and can't be fixed. It's going to take B&W or another vendor 2-3 years to build replacements as generators are built to order with a long time lag between order and delivery. SCE has to figure out whether its cheaper to shut San Onofre down, or halt operations for 3 years while it waits for new generators.

There is no doubt a gigantic struggle within SCE between the engineers who want to fix the reactor and the accountants who want to mitigate the impact of the shut down on the share price. This explains why the situation has the appearance of total chaos.

0

Founder Sept. 24, 2012 @ 10:01 a.m.

A 1.2 Billion dollar jam since rate payers will demand a FULL refund and I doubt that even the PRO Industry CPUC will not order it or it will mean that they are in bed with SCE!

SCE has already laid off about 1300 employees but soon you will see Big Shots start to "retire" with their golden parachutes while the rank in file workers continue to suffer!

Nuclear Gate will start making the National news very soon!

Salute to Don Bauder for being a real reporter, not just another talking head...

0

Don Bauder Sept. 24, 2012 @ 5 p.m.

I wonder how many of those laid off had anything to do with San Onofre. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Sept. 25, 2012 @ 8:30 a.m.

SCE filed documents with the CPUC in 2010 outlining a projected reduction of 500 workers by October of this year, though no staffing cuts actually took place. In August, SCE announced a planned reduction of about 730, bringing the staffing down to 1,500. An outline which jobs are to be eliminated will be finished by the end of October, so no layoffs at San O have happened as of now.

0

tomjohnston Sept. 25, 2012 @ 8:39 a.m.

I am not aware of these layoffs. As I'm sure you are aware of, since it was enacted in 2003, the WARN act would require SCE to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. I referred to the only notifications that I am aware of in my below comment, so I would appreciate any links you might have concerning these other 1300 layoffs that you refer to.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 24, 2012 @ 4:58 p.m.

And where does the California Public Utilities Commission stand? My guess it stands with shareholder interest. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Oct. 9, 2012 @ 6:39 a.m.

This is just the beginning of what will become the biggest Nuclear debacle in the USA!!

The NRC meeting this evening at Dana Point, CA will no doubt see many from the Union speak against N☢T restarting SanO (as many locals call San Onofre) but the fact is that CA now has at least a 40% energy surplus that it can draw upon (should we need additional Energy) without either San Onofre or El Diablo's nuclear reactors!

So the question becomes why take any chance of a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima just so the SCE shareholders can make a profit?

SCE's engineers shot themselves in the foot by trying to sneak a major redesign of the Replacement Steam Generators (RSG's) by the NRC by telling them it was a like for like exchange when it was not, to prevent a lengthy design review by the NRC. This would have cost SCE big bucks in delaying restarting the reactor but when they did restart the reactor, their design failures started to cause the steam generator tubes (SGT's) that carry the highly radioactive, super hot, high pressure steam to vibrate and rub against each other, causing what is known in the industry as fretting wear...

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.”

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close