San Onofre (SONGS)

[Nuclear NASCAR]

4. Please learn to be respectful, tolerate and support each other.  NukeWorker.com's goal is to help others, not see how many people we can annoy. Do not initiate arguments or tension. This will only cause the triggering of other members and make this site less professional.

[Nuke of the North]

Lots of talk about welding, cutting, delamination, etc so far. But yet no word about the real Root Cause(s) at work here. What were the Management, Organization, Program, and Process factors involved that led to this debacle?

This kind of stuff happens far too frequently at SONGS to be dismissed as mere coincidence and bad-luck, or blamed on "isolated" manufacturing defects.

[HydroDave63]

Lots of talk about welding, cutting, delamination, etc so far. But yet no word about the real Root Cause(s) at work here. What were the Management, Organization, Program, and Process factors involved that led to this debacle?

This kind of stuff happens far too frequently at SONGS to be dismissed as mere coincidence and bad-luck, or blamed on "isolated" manufacturing defects.

Remember the turbine replacement debacle? There's a starter....

In other words, not blaming folks that love the plant, but the underlying get-by philosophy

[MeterSwangin]

the underlying get-by philosophy

Not sure what is behind this criticism.  Plant is considered very conservative, high cost, risk-adverse.  Opposite of "get by."

Can offer one fact (rather than uninformed opinion:)  this week there was a big sitewide celebration.  NRC closed the last cross cutter.  NRC Column 1.

CNO Pete always says "proud but not satisfied."   Good thing he and the NRC aren't subject to negativity here.

[Longtime Nuke]

San Onofre is one of my favorite outage stops.  Treat contractors fairly, keep folks informed, run safe outages, and spare little expense.  Love the free camping onsite.  RP treats us right.

One wonders if some here criticize for sport, and/or have not been onsite in many years....if ever.

This steam generator problem on Unit 3 is a shame, but I have no doubt it will be carefully and properly managed to successful conclusion.  All the signs are there if one looks.

[Nuke of the North]

, but I have no doubt it will be carefully and properly managed to successful conclusion.

Based on what evidence?

Hydro's mention of the Turbine replacement project is quite apropos. Eeerily similar circumstances. Multi-hundreds-of-millions spent to upgrade large, critical pieces of plant equipment. The projects themselves get so complex they spin off into the stratosphere - plagued by numerous time and dollar consuming snafu's and various "vendor problems". Finally, the newly installed, brand spanking new pieces of equipment basically self destruct under mysterious circumstances only a tiny fraction of the way into their expected lifetimes (and both on U3 for that matter).

Lets face it. SONGS has a track record of not keeping their expensive, shiny new toys out of harm's way.

Coincidence? Bad Luck? Conspiracy? Ancient Voodoo Curse? Or something more tangible like poor processes or oversight?

You guys tell me...

[OldHP]

Hydro's mention of the Turbine replacement project is quite apropos. Eeerily similar circumstances. Multi-hundreds-of-millions spent to upgrade large, critical pieces of plant equipment.

Lets face it. SONGS has a track record of not keeping their expensive, shiny new toys out of harm's way.

Coincidence? Bad Luck? Conspiracy? Ancient Voodoo Curse? Or something more tangible like poor processes or oversight? 

Maybe 'lowest bidder' along with the tangibles?  Look back to Unit 1!

[Fermi2]

Not sure what is behind this criticism.  Plant is considered very conservative, high cost, risk-adverse.  Opposite of "get by."

Can offer one fact (rather than uninformed opinion:)  this week there was a big sitewide celebration.  NRC closed the last cross cutter.  NRC Column 1.

CNO Pete always says "proud but not satisfied."   Good thing he and the NRC aren't subject to negativity here.

Yet you, an employee of that facility felt an event that is a precursor to a Steam Generator Tube Rupture is business as usual and normal.

[Frankie Love]

Unit 3 SGs had a big problem...channelheads "delaminated" when SGs undergoing final pressure testing.  MHI cut off the channelheads to fix, then welded SGs back together.  Appears tube bundles tweaked a bit in the process.  Few tubes now wearing funny.

A couple of questions regarding the quote...could you explain what "delaminated" means. As an ex circle-bar-W FOSAR dude, I don't remember that one. Second, wouldn't you have a huge problem with the cutting off and welding of the channelhead section? From an engineering standpoint I can see why they were "tweaked".

Thanks!

[MeterSwangin]

A couple of questions regarding the quote...could you explain what "delaminated" means. As an ex circle-bar-W FOSAR dude, I don't remember that one. Second, wouldn't you have a huge problem with the cutting off and welding of the channelhead section? From an engineering standpoint I can see why they were "tweaked".

Thanks!

Gets a little over my head, but I can tell you what we were told/shown.   Pictures showed that, after final pressure testing, the U3 SGs had a problem in the primary channelheads.  Divider plate had leaned over, causing the stainless liner inside to peel up some.  "Delaminated," I guess.  Repair took months in Japan.

AREVA guys I hang out with say heat exchangers can't be unbolted for repairs...all welded together.  Thus segmenting and rewelding for major repairs is not unheard of   I guess it will be thoroughly examined now, and fought out in court, whether Mitsubishi screwed up, SCE signed off, or both.

Lots of positives to focus on.  Co had a great year, full bonuses paid.  All NRC cross-cutters closed.  Both units planned up for summer.  Makes work interesting.

[MeterSwangin]

Yet you, an employee of that facility felt an event that is a precursor to a Steam Generator Tube Rupture is business as usual and normal.

There was not a SG tube rupture.

Repeat.  No tube rupture. 

Really.  Lets be civil and discuss facts.  Be nice.

Added Fact:  No tube rupture.

[Fermi2]

I said PRECURSOR, you know the type that causes the Ops Staff to enter their rapid shutdown procedure, and trip the reactor and enter their SGTR EOP. I'm discussing facts, in fact I have a much larger awareness than you seem to have, PLUS I am not in denial.
You claimed all was normal and in doing so anyone outside this industry who read your trash probably believes your shoddy standards are OUR shoddy standards. I literally resent having people like you in the Nuclear Industry and here is why, 99% of us have excellent standards and are willing to face facts, the 1% (like you) are enough to put the entire nuclear industry with your low standards and pretend all is well.

[jams723]

There was not a SG tube rupture.

Repeat.  No tube rupture. 

Really.  Lets be civil and discuss facts.  Be nice.

Added Fact:  No tube rupture.

Depends on your EOP... Greater than 1 gallon per minute tube leak after you trip is an entry into the B&W Tube Rupture EOP..... therefore if it is classified ..... It is so.... But I do not know what SONGS procedure says......

[RDTroja]

I said PRECURSOR, you know the type that causes the Ops Staff to enter their rapid shutdown procedure, and trip the reactor and enter their SGTR EOP. I'm discussing facts, in fact I have a much larger awareness than you seem to have, PLUS I am not in denial.
You claimed all was normal and in doing so anyone outside this industry who read your trash probably believes your shoddy standards are OUR shoddy standards. I literally resent having people like you in the Nuclear Industry and here is why, 99% of us have excellent standards and are willing to face facts, the 1% (like you) are enough to put the entire nuclear industry with your low standards and pretend all is well.

Some people require the use of simpler words.

[Already Gone]

I said PRECURSOR, you know the type that causes the Ops Staff to enter their rapid shutdown procedure, and trip the reactor and enter their SGTR EOP. I'm discussing facts, in fact I have a much larger awareness than you seem to have, PLUS I am not in denial.
You claimed all was normal and in doing so anyone outside this industry who read your trash probably believes your shoddy standards are OUR shoddy standards. I literally resent having people like you in the Nuclear Industry and here is why, 99% of us have excellent standards and are willing to face facts, the 1% (like you) are enough to put the entire nuclear industry with your low standards and pretend all is well.

Very well put.
I have a lot of heartburn over MS spewing slogans about how they are proceeding as usual with safety as their highest priority.  If safety is their highest priority, then all their other priorities must be ridiculously low. 

[MeterSwangin]

I literally resent....... 

Resentment ignored.  Rising above.  Try meds.

Required content:  Both units still shut down today while SG issues carefully sorted out.  Safety standards rants from maladjusted lurkers notwithstanding.

[Rennhack]

 

Whooa cowboy.  Lets count to ten and chill out, ok?

4. Please learn to be respectful, tolerate and support each other.  NukeWorker.com's goal is to help others, not see how many people we can annoy. Do not initiate arguments or tension. This will only cause the triggering of other members and make this site less professional.

[tr]

NRC issues Confirmatory Action letter

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2012/12-011.iv.pdf

"...
This Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) confirms that SONGS Unit 2 will not enter Mode 2, and SONGS Unit 3 will not enter Mode 4 (as defined in the technical specifications), until the NRC has completed its review of your actions listed below. The permission to resume power operations will be formally communicated to you in written correspondence.

Actions for Unit 2

1. Southern California Edison Company (SCE) will determine the causes of the tube-to-tube interactions that resulted in steam generator tube wear in Unit 3, and will implement actions to prevent loss of integrity due to these causes in the Unit 2 steam generator tubes. SCE will establish a protocol of inspections and/or operational limits for Unit 2, including plans for a mid-cycle shutdown for further inspections.

2. Prior to entry of Unit 2 into Mode 2, SCE will submit to the NRC in writing the results of your assessment of Unit 2 steam generators, the protocol of inspections and/or operational limits, including schedule dates for a mid-cycle shutdown for further inspections, and the basis for SCE’s conclusion that there is reasonable assurance, as required by NRC regulations, that the unit will operate safely.

Actions for Unit 3

3. SCE will complete in-situ pressure testing of tubes with potentially significant wear indications in accordance with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Steam Generator In-situ Pressure Test Guidelines and will plug tubes in accordance with those guidelines.

4. SCE will plug all tubes with wear indications in excess of your Steam Generator Program Requirements (SGPR) and EPRI guidelines as well as perform preventive plugging or take other corrective actions to address retainer bar-related tube wear in Unit 3.

5. SCE will determine the causes of tube-to-tube interaction and implement actions to prevent recurrence of loss of integrity in the Unit 3 steam generator tubes while operating.

6. SCE will establish a protocol of inspections and/or operational limits for Unit 3, including plans for a mid-cycle shutdown for inspections. The protocol is intended to minimize the progression of tube wear, and ensure that tube wear will not progress to the point of
degradation that could cause tubes not to meet leakage and structural strength test criteria.

7. Prior to entry of Unit 3 into Mode 4, SCE will submit to the NRC in writing the results of your assessment of Unit 3 steam generators, the protocol of inspections and/or operational limits, including schedule dates for a mid-cycle shutdown for further inspections, and the basis for SCE’s conclusion that there is a reasonable assurance, as required by NRC regulations, that the unit will operate safely."

[RDTroja]

I can't wait to hear how getting the keys taken away is business as usual, too.

[Fermi2]

This is just more business as usual expected stuff right?

[SloGlo]

I can't wait to hear how getting the keys taken away is business as usual, too.

it's just using valet parking.... very business as usual in socal.

[btkeele]

is this nukeworker or anti-nukeworker?  It seems from the comments of a few here that you are almost gloating in the
wake of the issues going on here at SONGS.  I'm confused as to why that is?  Is it just a personal conflict with MS or is there
a reason?  Have you worked here?  Lately?  I don't hear the same scorn for the issues at Crystal River, or other sites...so what is
it about Songs that has you in this mood?
FYI:  having followed this thread and mostly ignoring it because of the feud and mis-information being bantered about, the letter
that was issued by the NRC to Songs pretty much followed the exact plan the utility put out weeks ago for recovery...nothing new.

Barry

[Fermi2]

I'm Pro Nuclear Safety and guys like Meter Swangin make me ill. It's that simple.

As for the other post, you mean as told to SCE weeks ago...

[Nuke of the North]

Problem Solved!

Friends of the Earth and Barbara Boxer have completed their Root Cause Analysis.

Blame it on Design Changes/Engineers - the perpetual whippings boys at SONGS

Fairewinds review of the Edison/MHI report
determined that the four most critical changes
likely to be a cause of the current tube leaks at San
Onofre 2 and 3 are:

1. alloy was changed,
2. Reactor flow rate was changed,
3. More steam generator tubes were
added, and
4. Modifications were made to the
“egg crate” that holds the tubes
separate in Unit 2 and Unit 3.



Fairewinds believes that vibration within the
tubes in both Unit 2 and Unit 3 were due to the simultaneous implementation of untested
manufacturing and design changes made by the Edison/MHI to the replacement steam
generators.


While Edison and San Onofre consider these steam generator replacements at San
Onofre as a like-for-like replacement, such a distinction is actually part of a procedure that
San Onofre developed in order to avoid the requisite NRC oversight of a steam generator
replacement process. Several years prior to the design and installation of the new San
Onofre steam generators, Edison/San Onofre completed the 10CFR50.59 review process
of replacement steam generators. The Edison/San Onofre 10CFR50.59 review process
of the replacement steam generators enabled Edison/San Onofre to have a so-called prereview,
so that the design and manufacture of the replacement steam generators at San
Onofre did not receive any actual NRC oversight or technical review. The San Onofre
application of the 10CFR50.59 review portrayed the steam generator replacement project
as a like-for-like replacement1 that therefore would not require a thorough NRC review
and approval process.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/03/san-onofre-nuclear-plant-report.html

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/fa/7/1255/Steam_Generator_Failures_at_San_Onofre.pdf

[RDTroja]

is this nukeworker or anti-nukeworker?  It seems from the comments of a few here that you are almost gloating in the
wake of the issues going on here at SONGS.  I'm confused as to why that is?  Is it just a personal conflict with MS or is there
a reason?  Have you worked here?  Lately?  I don't hear the same scorn for the issues at Crystal River, or other sites...so what is
it about Songs that has you in this mood?
FYI:  having followed this thread and mostly ignoring it because of the feud and mis-information being bantered about, the letter
that was issued by the NRC to Songs pretty much followed the exact plan the utility put out weeks ago for recovery...nothing new.

Barry

Being pro-nuclear does not mean supporting bad practices or denying problems that really exist. Hiding issues or brushing them of as 'Business as Usual' fuels the anti-nuke argument that nuclear power plants can't be operated safely. Owning problems and fixing them is vital if the industry is going to survive.

We don't need people to pretend that problems as potentially severe as this one are just routine. Particularly people that work at the plant that has the problem.