ML13086A795
| ML13086A795 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/2013 |
| From: | Hoffman A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Macfarlane A NRC/Chairman |
| References | |
| LTR-13-0261 | |
| Download: ML13086A795 (4) | |
Text
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Mar 27, 2013 09:20 PAPER NUMBER: LTR-13-0261 LOGGING DATE: 03/27/2013 ACTION OFFICE:
AUTHOR: Ace Hoffman AFFILIATION: CAc&
ADDRESSEE: Chairman Resource I3
SUBJECT:
Blames Southern California Edison for possible brownouts or blackouts this year - Re: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ACTION: Appropriate DISTRIBUTION: RF, SECY to Ack.
LETTER DATE: 03/26/2013 ACKNOWLEDGED Yes SPECIAL HANDLING: Lead office to publicly release 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after SECY's assignment, via SECY/EDO/DPC.
NOTES:
FILE LOCATION: ADAMS DATE DUE: DATE SIGNED:
Joosten, Sandy From: Ace Hoffman [rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:40 PM
Subject:
If there are brown-outs or blackouts this summer, we will have no one to blame but Southern California Edison 3/26/2013
Dear Readers,
The statement below was written by a long-time (>10 years) highly educated and very technical San Onofre employee who left the company last summer. It is an excellent description of the technical problems at San Onofre. I do not understand why ratepayers in California are still paying about $68 million/month for the upkeep of San Onofre. At the time the steam generator replacement project was approved in 2004, the Public Utilities Commission concluded that operation with only one reactor would not be cost-effective. The reason the SGRP was approved at all was because SCE claimed that doing so would save ratepayers about a billion dollars over the coming two decades. They were wrong: Instead, we've ALREADY spent about TWO billion dollars on the replacement project itself and 14 months of operations and maintenance costs with ZERO output from the reactors -- AND the lights have stayed on.
As the warm season approaches, once again we are being warned about the possibility of blackouts, and once again no effort has been made to replace San Onofre's output with vastly more efficient solar rooftop panels, wind turbines, demand response, and other clean solutions. The complete replacement of San Onofre's electrical output could have been accomplished already. In fact, after the energy crises of the early 2000s, MORE capacity was added in California in a single 14-month period than San Onofre and Diablo Canyon combined could produce!
So if there are brown-outs or blackouts this summer, we will have no one to blame but Southern California Edison. They don't need a CPUC decision to do the right thing. They can decide for themselves, and for the sake of their customers, to decommission San Onofre, and should do so immediately.
But instead, SCE wants to restart Unit 2 at 70% power, which will be just as dangerous in many ways as running at 100% power (see below), and will not be "cost-effective" even without trying to account for the cost of storing more and more spent fuel virtually forever, let alone, trying to account for the cost of potential, foreseeable, catastrophic accidents.
And not only does SCE want to restart, they want to do it without ANY additional public hearings until AFTER the restart! They're having a special meeting with the NRC next Wednesday (4/3/2013) in Maryland just to discuss how to avoid public scrutiny! (The meeting will start at 10 am Pacific time and be webcast on the NRC web site. A phone-in line will also be provided. Call 888-677-3916 and use passcode 2670631. )
Unit 3 (the one that sprung a leak January 31, 2012) cannot be restarted without installing all-new steam generators of an all-new and untested design at a cost of several billion MORE dollars and several years' additional delay. Why bother? Why aren't we already 14 months into decommissioning San Onofre?
California used to be THE leader in renewable energy technology. It's time we were again.
Ace Hoffman Concerned Citizen Carlsbad, CA
Shown below:
(1) The following was written a few days ago by a former San Onofre employee (2) Invitation: Come hear Torgen Johnson, Ace Hoffman and others talk about San Onofre (3) Contact information for the author of this newsletter (1) The following was written a few days ago by a former San Onofre employee:
The basic fundamental problem is that in all the Mitsubishi San Onofre replacement steam generators, the anti-vibration bars and tube support structures are NOT designed for prevention of excessive tube vibrations from the high dry steam (fluid elastic instability).
That is what happened in Unit 3.
Patches of high dry steam in 4% of the area of Unit 3 U-tube bundle in replacement steam generators caused one tube to leak, 8 tubes to fail under main steam line break testing conditions and destroyed almost 400 tubes and that was the end of the life of the Unit 3 replacement steam generators. NRC called it a very serious safety situation, which has never happened in a US Nuclear Plant.
At the most one tube has leaked at US Nuclear Power plant in the last 30 years, and that is the end of story, but not at San Onofre.
According to NRC and Federal Rules, all the steam generators, no matter whether you operate at 0%, 50%, 70% or 100% power, have to be designed against very low probability of a tube leak due to vibrations during any power level and especially caused by high dry steam conditions during a Main Steam Line break accident. During such an accident, in Unit 2 at 70%
power, 100% steam generator will be full of 100% dry steam. Many tubes like Unit 3, can break and leak in Unit 2 in minutes, nobody exactly knows. In 5-15 minutes, 60 tons of radio active coolant can escape into the environment with steam and San Onofre operators cannot do any thing to stop it. Who can predict the end result, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl, Mihama ..... The point is even running at 70% power, SCE cannot guarantee public safety because an accident can happen at any time. This is just an effort on SCE's part to stay in the rate base, make money and hoping nothing happens until Mitsubishi can rebuild these steam generators in 5 years. But meanwhile, Unit 2 is the same as Unit 3 and the same old players SCE and MHI, playing the same old games risking public safety instead of ensuring public safety.
(2) Invitation: Come hear Torgen Johnson, Ace Hoffman and others talk about San Onofre:
Topic:
"From Three Mile Island to San Onofre: Re-igniting a 'No Nukes' Consciousness" When: TOMORROW! (Wednesday, 3/27/2013) from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Doors open at 6:30, refreshments available Where: Friends Meeting Hall, 1440 Harvard St Santa Monica CA (south of SM Blvd -- park in back)
Cost: Free (a hat will be passed to cover the room cost) 2
(3) Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
- Ace Hoffman, Owner & Chief Programmer, The Animated Software Co.
- POB 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018
- U.S. & Canada (800) 551-2726; elsewhere: (760) 720-7261
- home page: www.animatedsoftware.com
- email: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
- To cease contact, please put "Unsubscribe-me-please" in the subject.
3