Skip to main content

Leak at San Onofre Not Fault of Southern California Edison Says UCS

By Eric McErlain
Overnight, we've seen a lot of breathless coverage about the steam generator leak that happened at San Onfre Generating Station on Tuesday, one that led to a story on the AP's national wire and another during the first segment of ABC's World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer on Wednesday evening.

What happened at San Onofre is a pretty typical operational event. If you don't believe us, feel free to ask David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Here's what he told one Southern California newspaper about the incident at San Onofre:
The "pinhole"-sized leak in a steam generator tube that caused a partial shutdown at the San Onofre nuclear plant Tuesday is something that is actually to be expected when a plant has new generators like San Onofre does, according to one expert.

San Onofre recently replaced its old generators.

Whenever generators are new or very old, leaks can occur, and engineers know to be alert for the problem, said David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Lochbaum said that as long as sensors detected the problem and the operators were prepared, "it's not the fault of [owner] Southern California Edison. It just happens" with new generators as they are being broken in.
If you want to know why our nation is having trouble devising a sound energy policy, you should know that the sensational coverage we've seen about San Onofre over the past 48 hours is a part of the reason.
Labels:

Comments

donb said…
If we had reports like this of steam leaks at the nation's coal-fired power plants, our eyes would quickly glaze over, as this is a rather common occurrance. But since this is at a nuclear plant, it becomes 'big news' as reporters breathlessly comment on the problem.
February 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM
We are all Part of the Earth said…
Releasing steam is one thing, releasing radioactive steam on a regular basis in a population area of over 8.5 million people is quite another. With the EPA rad system turned off and over 50 miles away from San Onofre when it is working, we have no idea of what was released yesterday and for how long. But we do to know the long-term effect of radiation on human beings, it is not good.

France's recent study of clusters of childhood leukemia around each of their nuclear power plants leads us to demand a epidemiology study in our area. It also calls for us to demand the city and county to form a radiation monitoring system of their own to keep the citizens informed. ROSE http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/
February 2, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Atomikrabbit said…
From the NRC Licensee Event Report:

"All control rods fully inserted on the trip. Decay heat is being removed thru the main steam bypass valves into the main condenser. Main feedwater is maintaining steam generator level. No relief valves lifted during the manual trip. The plant is in normal shutdown electrical lineup."
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2012/20120201en.html

I doubt that anything even detectable was released, since they were able to use condenser steam dumps. But since radiation so easily detectable, even in amounts millions of times less than harmful, if even a trace were found they have to acknowledge it, or be called liars by the likes of Gene Stoner.

Meanwhile he blithely posts references to thoroughly refuted “studies” and no one has the cajones to step forward and sue him for libel. Here is the reality: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Low_risk_from_major_accident_consequences-0202127.html
February 2, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Brian Mays said…
If there's one thing that never fails to amaze me, it is how ridiculously uninformed "anti-nukes" like Gene here are. For example:

"France's recent study of clusters of childhood leukemia around each of their nuclear power plants leads us to demand a epidemiology study in our area."

An epidemiological study of populations near nuclear facilities is already underway and has been for well over a year. The last such large-scale study, conducted by the National Institutes of Health, found no increased risk of cancer for such populations after studying a wide variety of facilities, going back to the 1940's.

As for the French study, this is from the abstract:

"The results suggest a possible excess risk of AL [acute leukemia] in the close vicinity of French NPPs in 2002-2007. The absence of any association with the DBGZ [dose-based geographic zoning] may indicate that the association is not explained by NPP [nuclear power plant] gaseous discharges."

The French study is very weak evidence of anything -- just a couple of statistically significant results, out of many non-significant results reported in the paper, that merit some additional study. That's all.
February 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said…
While the leak that caused Unit 3 to shut down has no major safety significance, there is something wrong with the new steam generators at San Onofre.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/unit-338565-reactor-plant.html

Unit 2 is in an outage and the first of the steam generators they are inspecting has over 800 tubes that have more than 10% thinning. Two of the tubes have enough thinning to need to be plugged, and 69 tubes have thinning greater than 20% of the wall thickness. This is an indication that there may have been some significant problems with their feedwater chemistry control in Unit 2, and possibly in Unit 3 too.
February 2, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Anonymous said…
"...he blithely posts references to thoroughly refuted “studies” and no one has the cajones to step forward and sue him for libel."

Yet another reminder for the constitutionally impaired: Simply posting a reference to a report is not libel. The first amendment is still in effect.

Also, Citizens United notwithstanding, a nuclear power plant is not a person and so can't be libelled. nor can an industry. \

If he claims company X did Y, and they did not, that could be libel. But you just want to sue because you don't like what's being said.
February 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Anonymous said…
And for what it's worth, saying that someone is a "Stoner" (i.e., a marijuana smoker), with no proof (just to make fun of his name), is closer to being libelous than what Gene posted.
February 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Brian Mays said…
"And for what it's worth, saying that someone is a 'Stoner' (i.e., a marijuana smoker), with no proof (just to make fun of his name), is closer to being libelous than what Gene posted."

Sure ... let's put Gene on the stand and have him swear, under oath, that he has never smoked pot. Should be fun!

This seems to me to be much ado over something that is arguably a one-character typo.
February 3, 2012 at 4:21 PM
John Reynolds said…
Who's going to sue "anonymous" for libel? If you believed in what you were saying, you'd use your real name.
February 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Anonymous said…
"If you believed in what you were saying, you'd use your real name."

My employer wants their name kept out of this stuff, so I'm constrained.

It's not a manhood issue, for crying out loud.
February 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more