Song of SONGS: The Moral Dimension of Nuclear Energy

The San Diego Union-Tribune offers an exceptionally interesting op-ed on the closing of San Onofre (which is about midway between San Diego and Los Angeles):

For economical reasons alone, it would be shortsighted to exclude nuclear from California’s future power mix, particularly given major technical advances made in the 60 years since SONGS technology was conceived.

San Onofre didn’t stand still in terms of technology, but it’s a good point. What’s really striking about the editorial is that it spends many of its column inches waxing philosophical about nuclear energy and electricity production more broadly. That’s not usual in case-making op-eds.

Electricity empowers modern industrialized nations. Those that don’t have economical energy are at a disadvantage in an increasingly globalized economy. If energy is expensive because of insufficient supply or high costs of generation, consumers suffer. This can mean lower productivity, slower business and jobs growth, lower wages and lower living standards.

This is what Japan is finding out. Writer Linden Blue, vice chairman of General Atomics, departs from the specifics of SONGS to elucidate what we might call the moral argument for nuclear energy.

Failing to have diverse economical sources of energy can have adverse consequences. Today, about 40 percent of the world’s population is without electricity. Frequently that also means no sanitation facilities or potable water. Without those, health deteriorates. Without good health, people are only marginally productive. This alone should put reliable low cost electricity on top of our priorities.

Why moral? Because people must have access to electricity to thrive. The industrialized world would like developing countries to avoid oil and wood and fossil fuels, but how do you enforce that preference when people must have electricity and, it’s fair to say, will have it regardless of larger issues? Nuclear energy answers to that question and facilitates progress without producing harmful emissions. That’s a strong point in its favor.

Blue does return to the sandy site of SONGS:

The good news is that better generator alternatives have evolved with time and technical progress (including compact, high speed turbine generators, magnetic bearings, solid state inverters and permanent magnet armatures). With advanced ceramic fuel cladding materials, it is technically possible to make reactors whose cores last 20 times longer than today’s reactors, and noncorrosive helium can replace water. The risk of Fukushima-like hydrogen explosions also goes away.

Fair enough, and Blue probably has a company in mind that can deliver this – but he does stay fairly general in his view. It’s a really good op-ed, especially because it addresses issues beyond just the SONGS situation. 

Read More

Does Nuclear Energy Still Have a Future? You Better Believe It Does.

Ever since last week's announcement of the closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, we've been seeing a spate of stories in the press questioning whether or not nuclear energy has a future as part of the nation's energy mix. Here at NEI, the answer is a resounding yes, and part of the confidence springs from the fact that we've passed this way before. Back in the 1990s, we saw 10 reactors shut down for a variety of different reasons, and it wasn't uncommon for the press to wonder if the only growth part of the business was in decommissioning reactors.

So what happened? Well, the industry got back to work figuring out how to do our jobs better than before. Over the course of a decade or so, the industry's average capacity factor rose from the high 70s to near 90% across the entire fleet. And thanks to a number of companies performing plant uprates, the U.S. nuclear fleet actually produces more electricity today from fewer reactors.

So reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated before. So what's the good news today? How about five reactors currently under construction in the U.S. with plenty more planned or on order overseas? How about small reactors? And, as we've recently seen, there's growing realization on the part of many environmentalists that keeping the lights on while constraining carbon emissions means that nuclear energy must be part of the world's energy mix going forward.

NEI's Scott Peterson and Monica Trauzzi of E&E TV

But that doesn't mean folks aren't entitled to ask tough questions, which is exactly what Monica Trauzzi of E&E TV did earlier this week when she had NEI Senior Vice President Scott Peterson in the studio to talk about recent items in the news, including the San Onofre shutdown. Here are some highlights from the transcript:

Monica Trauzzi: How big of a hit is this to the industry, and is it in some ways a sign of surrender on some of the sticky safety issues that surround nuclear energy?

Scott Peterson: Absolutely not. The nuclear industry will continue to play a vital role in the electricity system for hundreds of millions of people in this country. San Onofre is an unfortunate situation for the consumers of Southern California, who relied on that plant for reliable power, for grid stability particularly in the hot summer months. And it'll be interesting to see how they survive this coming summer. But we believe that nuclear energy certainly has a role to play in this country. San Onofre is a unique situation, to the replacement of those steam generators, but when you look at the prospects of our industry, we're building five reactors today in this country. We just finished a major uprate at, FPL's plant's putting on another 500 megawatts. We're renewing licenses, and we're developing new reactor designs for the future. So we feel very good about nuclear energy's role in the electricity system going forward.

And on the progress in Georgia and South Carolina at Plant Vogtle and V.C. Summer:

Monica Trauzzi: The nuclear industry has seemingly taken hit after hit recently. What - how are investments looking in your sector? Is it difficult to secure investments?

Scott Peterson: Not at all. When you look at the new projects that we're putting in in Georgia and South Carolina, both projects are getting the financing they need. In fact, they're over-subscribed in the financing as they go into the markets to get financing for building those four AP1000 reactors. So there is a, very much the financial support for the industry. As we're putting new technologies online, we want to make sure there's an equal commitment with a cost-shared program to develop small modular reactors at the Department of Energy and through the appropriations that Congress provides for that program, as another part of moving our industry future. So there is investment happening today. There is still a strong support for nuclear energy, certainly a strong role to play, particularly when you're looking at meeting 28 percent electricity growth by 2040, and doing it in a way that really reduces greenhouse gasses as a whole.

Bottom line: not dead yet. Not by a long shot.

Read More

Reactions to San Onofre Closing: It “ought to jolt the governor”

The reaction to the closure of San Onofre in the California Press has been mixed, to say the least. The anti-nuclear feeling out there has faded a bit, as demonstrated by the failure to get enough signatures for ballot measure to close San Onofre and Diablo Canyon, but there’s still a fair amount of it.

Still, this leads to a Jekyll-Hyde response to the closure. Here, as exhibit A, is the Sacramento Bee. Take it away, Jekyll:

But San Onofre and California's one remaining nuke, Diablo Canyon, delivered more than 15% of the state's electricity. San Onofre, located in northwest San Diego County, supplied power to 1.4 million homes. The plant cannot be replaced solely with sun and wind, at least not with current technology.

Still to be answered: Will the bills of Edison customers go up because of the utility's need to purchase more expensive power from elsewhere?

Your turn, Hyde:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and anti-nuclear energy activists hailed the closure. Clearly, nuclear power long ago failed to live up to its promises.

Yes, clearly. At this point, Jekyll strangles Hyde:

But word that a huge source of California's electricity will be dark forever ought to jolt the governor [Jerry Brown], the official who will be held most responsible if California faces rolling blackouts this summer and beyond, as happened during [former Gov.] Gray Davis' truncated tenure.

And the two merge gracelessly:

California is leading the nation and in many respects the world into a future that embraces renewable energy. But the power grid -- and the economy -- will require reliable baseline power for the foreseeable future. With the San Onofre plant forever shuttered, there must be alternatives.

Reliable baseline power? Isn’t that the promise of nuclear power?

---

Over at the Los Angeles Times, Marc Lifsher makes sure the implications of the closure are clear:

Without that nuclear plant, which accounted for about 9% of the electricity generated in California, power supplies will be tight in parts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties for at least the next three summers, officials said. That means periods of reduced use of air conditioners, lights and swimming pool pumps for customers of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

"Losing 2,250 megawatts from the system is a big deal, and if we ask for conservation, we need them to respond," said Steve Berberich, chief executive of the California Independent System Operator, which manages most of the state's long-distance electric transmission system from a control room in Folsom, east of Sacramento.

It’s a big deal.

---

The L.A. Times editorial blames Southern California Edison for the whole situation – which cannot really be true when dealing with a situation like this  - but notes:

To its credit, Edison was trying to replace its old steam generators with ones that were better and safer when it contracted with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

Which isn’t nothing. Then, it’s back to the blame game.

---

The San Diego Union-Tribune is really unhappy:

As for a long-term fix, there is none in sight. California needs more power plants, but they’re not being built. California law prohibits the construction of new nuclear plants until the industry finds a way to permanently dispose of radioactive waste. The state also has a “loading order” law that says fossil-fuel burning plants, regardless of how efficient, should only be considered once efforts have been made to reduce demand and find power from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

Even before the decision was made to close San Onofre, state regulators said the idled plant presented “operational challenges” and warned that a severe heat wave could lead to rolling blackouts. ISO officials also expressed concern over the potential threat from wildfires to transmission lines carrying imported power into the region.

Feels like our very own slice of Germany, doesn’t it?

The theme linking all these stories and editorials together is the fear of shortages that could occur because California makes it so difficult for most energy sources to thrive. It already imports about 40 percent of its electricity and if the spigot slows for any reason or for any length of time, California’s resources will thin out. Californians have seen this happen-they really don’t want to see it again. And yet, San Onofre and SoCal Edison got boxed in.

To repeat the statement made by NEI spokesman Steve Kerekes two posts down:

He said that “this situation underscores the need for an efficient and effective regulatory process that results in timely decisions on the operation of these critical energy resources.” He said that independent firms had endorsed plans to restart San Onofre’s Unit 2 and that “it’s simply intolerable to delay decisions that impact millions of customers and the company’s obligation to provide electricity to those customers.”

That’s about the size of it – and California is now waking up to the implications.

---

Speaking of news, “All Things Considered,” will include a piece today on San Onofre closure impacts in California and relevance to the nuclear energy industry more broadly. NEI will be represented.

Read More

NEI on the San Onofre Shutdown

Earlier today, NEI's Steve Kerekes spoke to the Washington Post concerning the announcement today by Southern California Edison that they intended to close the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station:

“This is a situation that is unique to Southern California Edison and the replacement of steam generators at the San Onofre reactors,” said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the NEI, who added that the closures were “a blow to California’s energy diversity.” 

He said that “this situation underscores the need for an efficient and effective regulatory process that results in timely decisions on the operation of these critical energy resources.” He said that independent firms had endorsed plans to restart San Onofre’s Unit 2 and that “it’s simply intolerable to delay decisions that impact millions of customers and the company’s obligation to provide electricity to those customers.”

For additional links and coverage, please follow our Twitter feed.

Read More

In California, Nuclear Turns Off and Prices Go Up

What would happen to electricity prices in the event of a significant nuclear power plant shutdown? If recent events in Southern California are any measure, electricity prices would go up.

In January of 2012, both reactors at San Onofre in Southern California were taken out of service. The result? Electricity prices in the north and south of the state are no longer comparable. Prices were up 12% in 2012 in “the Southland” compared to Northern California where PG&E’s Diablo Canyon keeps humming along, according to new data from the US Energy Information Administration.



Electric Light & Power magazine says that the difference is one of simple substitution. Switching off nuclear power has led to more expensive alternatives.

But don’t look to natural gas prices as the culprit.

Relative differences in natural gas prices do not seem to be driving the gap between Northern and Southern California power prices…

Electricity imports (from other states) aren’t to blame either. In fact, one of the more affordable import sources turns out to be nuclear energy from Arizona.

Generation from outside the state is often less expensive [emphasis added]. Some power plants located in adjacent states are partially owned by California utility companies, and special agreements exist for exporting power to California. For instance, 18% of the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant, located in Tonopah, Arizona, is owned by California-based utilities.

Rather, it’s local (non-nuclear) sources of electricity generation that may be causing the price increases.

The major nearby alternative sources, however, are more expensive, and seem to be contributing to higher wholesale power prices.

The article isn’t clear on whether this price rise is due to “transmission congestion” or local natural gas plants (see chart below). But the root cause remains the same: The lack of nuclear-based generation from San Onofre is driving electricity prices higher in Southern California.

This overall dynamic is not unique to California, Germany has seen electricity prices escalate as a result of its nuclear shutdown and switch to pricier renewables.

Nuclear energy already suffers from a raft of myths and misconceptions. Here’s hoping that if anything is learned from the shutdowns in California and Germany, it’s that nuclear power is one of the most cost effective ways to generate electricity.

Read More

San Onofre: Closer to the Truth, Further from the Bluster

This sounds serious:

[Sen. Barbara] Boxer (D-Calif.) said in a letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Allison Macfarlane that a confidential report obtained by her office shows Southern California Edison and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the Japan-based company that built the generators, were aware of design problems before the equipment was installed.

Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report written by Mitsubishi raises concerns that Edison and its contractor rejected safety modifications and sidestepped a more rigorous safety review.

A little mysterious, yes? This is about San Onofre, which has been off-line for a little over a year because of a steam generator problem. If Edison and Mitsubishi pressed ahead with a problematic steam generator, that would be very bad, but also rather inexplicable.

Just to get you up to date, here’s a refresher course on what happened at San Onofre:

Both of San Onofre's reactors have been offline for more than a year. The Unit 2 reactor had been taken down for routine maintenance early in January 2012, but on Jan. 31, 2012, a small leak of radioactive gas prompted the shutdown of Unit 3.
Inspections revealed unexpected wear among thousands of metal tubes that carry radioactive water inside the plant's four steam generators, two for each reactor.

Our friend Rod Adams over at Atomic Insights explains why the idea of a conspiracy is highly unlikely:

Aside from the fact that such an assertion was absurd – why on earth would any corporation take the risk of installing components known to be faulty into a vital, multi-billion dollar production facility capable of producing between $1-$10 million in daily revenue – it exposed a visceral dislike [by Rep. Boxer] of a power source that has been cleanly and safely supplying 20% of the electricity in the United States for several decades.

Let’s call that last bit an opinion – Sen. Boxer generally nuclear energy a fair shake in her committee, though she can be pretty tough. Let’s call that an opinion, too.

Rod also clarifies what the Mitsubishi report says:

After many months of investigation, tens of thousands of hours of analysis, and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lost production time, it is now clear that the two steam generators installed in San Onofre Unit 3 contained a minor manufacturing feature that resulted in a “perfect pitch” harmonic. At just the wrong condition – 100% steam flow – a combination of relatively dry steam, precisely manufactured anti-vibration bars (AVB), and densely packed u-tubes resulted in a few hundred (out of nearly 10,000) tubes vibrating with a large enough amplitude to make contact. The unexpected vibration and contact resulted in accelerated wear and caused one tube to fail while the steam generator was operating.

That sounds a lot more plausible and certainly not an effort by Mitsubishi and Edison to shoot themselves in the proverbial foot – well, head really, as such a conspiracy would certainly do considerable damage to both companies. The entire Mitsubishi report can be found here.

Now, the report can make your head spin – it’s very dense and detailed. The estimable Will Davis over at Atomic Power Review takes a crack at it:

The root cause of this problem is essentially not a design flaw per se, nor even a miscalculation.  It is the basic, fundamental belief that in-plane fluid elastic instability in a vertical U-tube steam generator is not possible if out-of-plane instability has been guarded against.  This principle is described several times in the linked MHI material.

Well, I told you it was head spinning – and this is the simplified version. A little more:

What this means is that the designers of steam generators have essentially used a Maginot Line principle in preventing out-of-plane fluid elastic instability... which was supposed to inherently then preclude any chance of in-plane fluid elastic instability, which leads to serious tube-to-tube wear.  Singularly focused effort to prevent out-of-plane FEI has led to the situation in which in-plane FEI did actually occur through a set of very complicated circumstances which, when investigated, eventually implicates practices of manufacturing tolerances, fitting, calculation and even design variance between the two units' steam generators.

I’d probably avoid the word “implicates” as it often appears with the word “criminally,” but that’s not what Will means here. These are, rather, the elements that have to be looked at to understand how the problem occurred. This is a hard post to excerpt – you should read the whole thing. Here, for me, is the bottom line:

Now we can see clearly that MHI [Mitsubishi Heavy Industries] felt that it had developed replacement steam generators for San Onofre which were world-class in their design prevention of tube vibration, based on all the years of experience MHI has had in fabricating steam generators for PWR-type nuclear power plants.

This is completely believable. As Rod points out, the nuclear energy industry has a “squeaky clean” profile for manufacturing QA. It’s an industry that avoids – has to avoid - low-quality junk. N-stamps that validate nuclear equipment, a highly capable (and always present) regulator, a very strong safety culture – all these and more keep the vigilance against shoddiness very high. And Mitsubishi isn’t exactly Moe’s Steam Generators out in the valley, running a two-for-one sale.

I’m sure there will be more to say about San Onofre. But the public release of the Mitsubishi report takes a lot of the edge off the harsher statements made by a few politicians about the facility.
---
Speaking of which, both Rod and Will are really furious at the politics around this and particularly about statements made by Sen. Boxer and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) over the last month. Both Boxer and Markey pulled unflattering bits out of the Mitsubishi report to highlight, but the report makes that possible for them. There are unflattering bits in there.

In my view, a report by the maker of flawed equipment would be inherently suspect, but this episode – and perhaps bluster from Capitol Hill - has put Mitsubishi’s reputation on the line. Consequently, Mitsubishi has produced what seems to me an honest assessment, with a lot of detail to back it up.

So why did some of the comments from Congress seem so intemperate? I don’t know. I do know that the motives of politicians, especially the experienced ones, are rarely singular.

Read More

NEI CNO Disputes LA Times Editorial on San Onofre

Tony Pietrangelo

Earlier today, the Los Angeles Times ran a letter to the editor from NEI Chief Nuclear Officer Tony Pietrangelo disputing an earlier editorial by the newspaper concerning the potential restart of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station:

There is a comprehensive, deliberative process at work to resolve the steam generator challenge at San Onofre, one involving the independent federal regulatory and oversight body, the NRC. It's one that even lawmakers and activists with agendas should respect.

For more than 30 years, San Onofre has safely provided clean electricity, employed thousands of workers and become a bedrock community asset in generating millions of dollars in tax revenue.

Edison ought to be accorded due process in a regulatory framework, whose stringency and commitment to safety is second to none.

For more information on San Onofre, please visit SONGSCommunity.com.

Read More

What Is Said About Nuclear Energy–and What It Means

Storing Used Nuclear Fuel at WIPP

From Konrad Szymanski, a European Parliament MP:

“Commissioner [Gunther] Oettinger is responsible for energy policy across all 27 EU countries. It would be extremely disappointing if this became an exercise in forcing Germany’s position on nuclear energy down the throats of other countries.”

I’ve never cared for that phrase, popular during the health care debate, and would be surprised if Szymanski actually used it in whichever language he was speaking when he said it.

What he’s talking about is a European Union report about the stress tests performed on nuclear energy facilities there. The report does not recommend closing any plants; it does recommend spending up to 25 billion Euro (about $32 billion) to make them “safer.” This hasn’t gone over well.

The report is misleading because it conveys the impression that plants are unsafe and a lot of work is needed to make them safer, while in reality the situation is not that dramatic. Moreover, the methodology by which the commission reached this result isn’t clear and the commission is making recommendations in a domain where it really has no powers.

When you start talking about 25 billion anythings, you might as well say 50 or 75 billion – it’s all more than can be reasonably estimated in a fairly tight timeframe. The report might better have left out cost estimates; including them just makes the German Oettinger, who chaired the committee that oversaw the stress tests, vulnerable to charges like those from Szymanski.

The report will be up for discussion in parliament in about two weeks, but so far, the reaction has been very poor.
---
From Ron Litzinger, Southern California Edison President :

"We have concluded that Unit 2 at San Onofre can be operated safely. This plan will get San Onofre Unit 2 back to providing reliable and clean energy to Southern Californians."

This is unalloyed good news, though not one without caveats. San Onofre has been offline with generator problems for eight months, but tests show that one of the two reactors can run at 70 percent power without issue. That’s what Litzinger is announcing.

The caveats:

"The agency will not permit a restart unless and until we can conclude the reactor can be operated safely," NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane said. "Our inspections and review will be painstaking, thorough and will not be rushed."

Which is what you want to happen.

The plan "is a reckless gamble that flies in the face of the utility's claim that it puts safety ahead of profits," the advocacy group Friends of the Earth, which is critical of the nuclear power industry, said in a statement.

To FOE, this would be true of an issue-free facility that’s been turning out electricity for many years. It’s the group’s default position. Just on the level of common sense, putting profits ahead of safety will only lead to tears – not to mention corporate ruin.

Notably, an attempt earlier this year to gather enough signatures (not by FOE) to put an initiative on the ballot to close San Onofre (and Diablo Canyon, another California facility) failed utterly.

Always shouting upwind on a rainy, cold night, our FOE.

So – let’s see how the NRC inspections go.
---
From Jack Volpato, Eddy-Lea Alliance board member:

"The Department of Energy wants this to happen. There are nuclear rods around the country just sitting on a pad, costing $5 to 10 million a year to keep an eye on."

Well, all right, they’re not just sitting on a pad decaying away, they are in used fuel casks, but we get what Volpato is saying. Eddy and Lea are counties in New Mexico that have seen a boomlet in nuclear energy activity. None of it has anything to do with making electricity for New Mexicans, but with byproducts and used fuel.

There is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, that has been a big local success story, even inspiring the Blue Ribbon Commission investigating the back end of the fuel cycle to recommend using the WIPP-derived community consent-based approach to siting consolidated used fuel storage sites (and a permanent repository, too.) That’s what AREVA is helping with.

So who’s better than Lea and Eddy counties to attract a consolidated used fuel storage site? It worked out exceedingly well once with WIPP, why not again?

The Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance has selected French firm AREVA to help create an above-ground interim storage facility to store nuclear fuel on 1,000 acres between Carlsbad and Hobbs. The facility is being billed as a safe way to temporarily house used fuel from nuclear power plants.

Early days of course, but involving AREVA at this point shows real seriousness to make it work. What we can say is: good. Go for it, New Mexico.

I got sidetracked but that corner in southeast New Mexico also hosts or will host the International Isotopes uranium deconversion facility and Urenco’s uranium enrichment plant. That’s not a coincidence, either, but a subject for a future post.

Read More

Guest Post: Managing an Unprecedented Plant Challenge at San Onofre

Pete Dietrich, SCE

For most of 2012, the nuclear industry has been keeping a close watch on the situation at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, where continuing issues with the plant's steam generators have kept both units offline.

As NEI member company and plant manager Southern California Edison (SCE) has been investigating the source of the problem, it has faced a unique challenge with its own employees: how to communicate about the situation when the path forward is uncertain.

In the following guest post, SCE's Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pete Dietrich describes how he and his team embraced this unique set of circumstances. Today's post is the first in an ongoing series concerning the status of the plant.

Part 1 – Aligning the understanding and expectations of a large plant workforce when the path forward is uncertain
At 3:05 p.m. this past Jan.31, control room operators at our San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station detected a small steam generator tube leak from one of our two units. In accordance with our procedures and their training, operators safely shut down the unit and we began the process of determining the source of the leak. You have probably heard what we discovered during the months of inspections and analysis that followed – a previously unknown steam generator tube-to-tube wear mechanism resulting from in plane vibration that here-to-fore had not been experienced in similarly designed steam generators.

We were gratified that U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors found that our operators responded to the unique event in a faultless manner that protected public health and safety, using the conservative decision-making and questioning attitude that are trademarks of the nuclear power industry.

A large team of technical experts we assembled to help us understand the cause of the leak, including some of the best minds in the business, determined that tube-to-tube contact arising from excessive vibration in certain areas of the steam generators caused the unusual wear. We concluded that the excessive vibration was produced by a phenomenon known as “fluid elastic instability” which results from a combination of factors, including steam velocity, moisture content of the steam, and effectiveness of the supports in the areas where the vibration occurs.

One of the leadership challenges we have faced during the months of analysis of our steam generators has been maintaining a common set of understandings and expectations about our future across a large plant workforce as the investigation was evolving. I refer to this as a leadership issue, rather than merely a communications challenge, because the technical resolution path we are traveling is extremely challenging, even in this highly technical industry. As a result, countless decisions have been required of senior plant leaders about how we remain transparent to employees while not speculating about timelines, operating schedules and even outcomes.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

The same has been true of our relationship with the public. How does a plant maintain its commitment to openness with its neighbors when it isn’t clear exactly what the analysis process will find? How do we describe the path forward when it is not yet clear? That was the leadership challenge, but more importantly, an opportunity to be fully transparent to the public as facts are determined and understood.

Had you been present in our daily briefings, one of the tactics you would have heard discussed frequently to meet this challenge is “communicate, communicate and communicate again.” We established very high communication expectations both up and down the normal channels and among the consultants during these months. I directed plant leaders to communicate well beyond previous levels, and to do so in person as much as possible. And those of us in senior leadership did the same, hosting an increased number of meetings with plant leaders and individual contributors for updates and Q&As. We believe saying “we don’t know yet” is better than saying nothing or speculating.

Another tactic we have used to fill what could otherwise be a risky information gap, as we await research conclusions, has been to continuously identify milestones that can be communicated. This is a way of signaling progress, even minor progress, and thereby offsetting the false impression that a slow, methodical, meticulous review process is a faltering process. At each of these milestones we have stated what we know so far, what we don’t know, and when we will have more information.

A unique and related leadership challenge we faced was to maintain schedule discipline in the face of unknown results of the ongoing investigations and research. In this situation the usual schedule driver of plant restart is no longer effective. At the same time, leaving the recovery schedule open-ended undermines confidence. Our solution was to impose team and individual discipline with short-term project schedule deliverables for identified tasks needed to define alternate success paths for safe return to service—and periodically adjusting the overall plant startup schedule to reflect the understandings coming from the individual short-term tasks. Our project team heard our message—getting to the right solution was the real priority, and meeting near-term commitments was the path to get there.

In addition to our efforts to maintain a cohesive understanding among employees about our prolonged analysis process, we have worked to align expectations about the prospective outcomes. For example, we’re reminding plant employees that, no matter the technical outcome, when a difficult problem is managed well, it can make a significant contribution to industry knowledge; and that contribution impacts the way a plant staff is viewed by industry peers. We will succeed by continually focusing on the nuclear safety aspects of our analysis and decision-making.

Our goal remains to conduct a comprehensive and independently challenged analysis of why relatively new steam generators would develop significant tube wear issues that benefits both San Onofre and the industry by gaining a full understanding of this new degradation mechanism. We will create a corrective action plan that is viewed by our peers and the regulatory authority as comprehensive and is based on prudent decision-making that assures safe operation of the plant. In this way, we will help our industry avoid a repeat of what our operators experienced on that Tuesday afternoon in January.

Thanks to Pete and his team at SCE for all of their hard work -- and for putting the safe and reliable operation of the plant ahead of every other priority. We look forward to future contributions.

Read More

Can California Survive Climate Change Without the Help of Nuclear Power?

California’s Environmental Protection Agency is required to prepare what are called “periodic science reports on the potential impacts of climate change on the California economy.” This is carried out by the Climate Change Center within the California Energy Commission. The overarching findings contained in the most recent report, ‘Our Changing Climate 2012,’ are seemingly stark:

• “Temperatures in California will rise significantly during this century . . . by 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7 degrees F above [year] 2000 averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century.”
• “Springtime warming – a critical influence on snowmelt – will be particularly pronounced.”
• “Summer temperatures will rise more than winter temperatures . . . Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer.”
• “Wildfire risk in California will increase as a result of climate change.”

The report (to watch the press conference announcing the findings, click here) also delves into energy use in the state the result of a dramatically warmer climate. No surprise: the report posits longer and appreciably hotter summers will “notably” increase annual household electricity consumption for air conditioning. “Increases in average temperature and higher frequency of extreme heat events combined with new residential development across the state will drive up the demand for cooling in summertime,” the report says.

More than 20 percent of California’s electricity generation today comes from hydro, and of that generation, more than 150 hydro plants – 75 percent of the hydro fleet – are located in high elevation (above 1,000 feet). These sites will be vulnerable to the effects of dryer, warmer conditions, creating diminished snowpack, the report says.

It’s impossible to read the climate change impact report and not conclude that if the projections come to pass, even greater stresses will be placed on California’s baseload generation in the years ahead. In fact, the report concludes the state will need to build more baseload capacity in response to changing conditions. “In the near term, higher temperatures in the next decade could increase demand by up to 1 Gigawatt during hot summer months – a substantial amount that would require the construction of one large new power plant in California or the purchase of costly peak power from external sources.”

Hard to imagine any new coal plants getting sited in California, and there’s a moratorium on building new nuclear. Meanwhile, anti-nuclear groups like Friends of the Earth have swarmed into the state this year and noisily advocated for the permanent shuttering of San Onofre, one of the state’s two nuclear power plant sites, and home to 2,200 megawatts of electricity generation. 

Researchers and environmental scientists in no small numbers believe these forecasted climate conditions are already set in motion, without much hope for reversal, at least not in the next couple of decades. They believe it’s getting hotter and hotter in the Golden state, and that energy consumption will have to rise. Meanwhile, California has mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets to be met, the first arriving in less than 10 years’ time.

Here at NEI, we take pains to point out that we are not climate scientists, and therefore can't and won't pass judgement on projections like these. If policymakers in California are using this document as a guide for future actions, we can only ask this: can the state and its economy possibly move forward without a clean, reliable and emission-free source of baseload electricity like nuclear energy?

Read More

Another Call for Nuclear Advocates

A few weeks back, we asked our readers to participate in an LA Times poll on the continued operation of the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Earlier today, the San Diego Union-Tribune posted their own poll on the ultimate fate of the facility:

If you support the continued operation of the plant, please take a moment to vote.

Read More

A Reader's Guide to the San Onofre Steam Generator Situation

For a number of weeks, we've been paying close attention to our colleagues at Southern California Edison (SCE) as they work to resolve a problem with the steam generators at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station or SONGS. Unit #2 and #3 at SONGS have been out of service for several weeks ever since leaks were detected in the steam generators of both units.

In a press briefing earlier this week, SCE's CNO delivered some good news, and said that there's a 50% chance that one or both of the plant's reactors will be back in operation by the Summer. The thing to remember here is that SCE and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission won't allow the plant's two reactors to restart until both parties are convinced that it is safe to do so.

For real time updates from SCE, please visit SONGSCommunity.com.

A number of outside observers, most notably Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, have been commenting on the situation as well, with Gundersen publishing a pair of reports in conjunction with Friends of the Earth concerning the steam generators.

As the staff at SONGS continue to work on a solution, I thought it would be a good idea to collect a number of blog posts that taken together could serve as a rejoinder of sorts to Gundersen.

First, we should probably point to a post by Will Power at Atomic Power Review (APR) from last month that lays out the issue in very clear terms. Next, here's a post at NEI Nuclear Notes that Victoria Barq wrote after a conversation with Alex Marion, NEI's Vice President for Nuclear Operations. It covers the content of Gundersen's initial report.

More recently, Meredith Angwin, who normally blogs at Yes Vermont Yankee, provided a guest post at APR that dives a little deeper into the issue. To wrap things up, we should point to a blog post by Dan Yurman over at Idaho Samizdat that pulls on a couple of loose threads in Gundersen's reports.

Read More

99th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Welcome to the 99th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, a get together that we at NEI Nuclear Notes have been honored to host from time to time since its inception. This week, we've got selections from seven of the best blogs the online nuclear energy community has to offer. If you would like to host a future edition of the carnival, please contact Brian Wang of Next Big Future to get on the rotation. And please, don't ask to host the 100th edition of the carnival, as that honor has already been parceled out to a well-deserving blogger.

Nuclear Power Talk: What's Good for the Goose. Gail Marcus takes a hard look at Mark Cooper's claims about the economics of nuclear energy.

The Nuclear Green Revolution: The Clinch River Reactor Failure, Lessons Unlearned. Did AEC make a mistake by pursuing the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor over other designs? Read and find out.

Yes, Vermont Yankee: Green Jobs and Taxes. In this guest post, Guy Page of the Vermont Energy Partnership talks about how the plant provides green jobs and how the state's plan to levy punitive taxes on the plant threatens them. In a second post, Meredith Angwin explains why Vermont Yankee Isn't Fukushima.

ANS Nuclear Cafe: NAS Study of Cancer Risks Near Nuclear Facilities. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has released phase one of a study titled Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities. The release officially opened a 60-day public comment period in which stakeholders can provide their inputs to help guide the next phases of the study. Kudankulam Hot Start Within Reach. The provincial government of Tamil Nadu, India’s southern-most state, has dropped its opposition to hot start of twin 1,000-MW VVER reactors at Kudankulam and withdrawn support from local anti-nuclear protests. The long-running controversy over the start of NPCIL’s Russian-built twin 1,000-MW VVER reactors at Kudankulam *may* be coming to an end.

Idaho Samizdat: NRC Sets Conditions for San Onofre Restart. Our man Dan Yurman takes a look at the situation at San Onofre concerning the current situation with the plant's two steam generators. For more on this issue from NEI Nuclear Notes, click here. It would also be worth your time to view a video message from Southern California Edison. Later on Friday, Dan took another look at the SONGS situation in the wake of NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko's visit to the plant on Friday afternoon.

Atomic Power Review: Catching Up on Developments. Leslie Corrice's new book is out; also, APR addresses the new competitive situation in the SMR market with some small / portable reactor background (and the usual obscure illustrations) as well as links to descriptions of the present products for comparison.

Next Big Future: Brian Wang was awfully busy this week ... GE Continues Pushing Prism Reactor ... iRobot Warrior, Packbot To Be Used in Nuclear Plants in the U.S. ... South Korea Makes Big Overseas Nuclear Energy Push ... Transatomic Power's Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor.

Read More

Arnie Gundersen Authors Another Shoddy Report

Nuclear consultants Fairewinds Associates and anti-nuclear activists Friends of the Earth are at it again with a new “report” that seeks to create concern, with little to no substance, over steam generator tube leaks at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The report, “Steam Generator Failures at San Onofre,” claims that without a thorough root cause analysis of why the plant’s recently installed steam generator tubes have become worn, that:

“…radioactive releases might be significantly larger than those that occurred after the January 2012 tube leak. Such an accident would cause implementation of the California emergency evacuation plan and closing of the San Clemente beach and Interstate I-5, potentially for an extended period of time.”

Fairewinds’ opinion misleads the general public to believe that the plant already released a large amount of radiation, which in fact, it has not. In a February 17 press release, Southern California Edison (SCE) clarified:

The radioactivity released to the atmosphere during the steam generator tube leak was barely measurable – 4E-5 millirems or 0.00004 millirems -- which is 200 times less than you would receive by having a smoke detector in your home for a year.

The steam generator tube wear leads to very minor leakage within the steam generator, which is something that can easily be detected by sophisticated monitors (as proven in this case) before any significant release of radiation would occur.

In addition, the statement implies that Southern California Edison (SCE), the plant’s owner, is putting Californians at risk, which is an even more egregious stretch of the truth. Not only does the nuclear industry make safety its top priority, but the people who work at the plant also live in close proximity and have a personal stake in the plant’s safe operation.

Given the fact that some news articles have already referenced the misleading Fairewinds report and other activist organizations are using it to push their anti-nuclear campaigns, I decided to get further analysis on this report with NEI’s Alex Marion, an electrical engineer who sits on the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Board on Nuclear Codes & Standards. In a nutshell, here’s what he had to say:

The issue at SONGS demonstrates the stringent safety practices in the U.S. nuclear energy industry. SONGS detected there was an issue with the steam generator tubes while implementing its rigorous inspection program, which has been accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This involves examining the steam generator tubes and if degradation is found, then a more comprehensive examination is conducted that may include pressure testing of the tubes or sending samples of tubing to a metallurgical laboratory for independent evaluations. Once a root cause for the problem is discovered, the plant can fix the problem and restart. However, the plant will not continue operations until this analysis has been completed.

Why is a “root cause analysis” important?

Marion:

Basically, what you have is a large heat exchanger that uses heat from the primary reactor cooling water that flows within the thousands of tubes to transfer heat to a separate flow of water that surrounds the tubes. The water that flows outside of the tubes is converted to steam, which is used to drive turbine generators and make electricity. Because of vibrations that result from the water flow during plant operations, the tubes may rub against supporting structures resulting in “wear,” or thinning of the tube wall. This is a known form of wear that occasionally occurs, however, it was not expected to have occurred on as many tubes as had been found at San Onofre. A root cause analysis will determine what caused this unanticipated wear and how it can be minimized.

The Gundersen report suggests that the tube degradation is an anomaly and that the plant should continue to be shut down indefinitely. Is there a technical basis for this?

Marion:

We agree that the extent of wear in recently installed steam generator tubes is unusual. This is why we believe that you cannot effectively address the issue until a root cause analysis is completed, which is exactly what SCE is doing now, in close coordination with Mitsubishi and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The report also calls into question SCE’s “like-for-like replacement” of its steam generators recently, suggesting that had the replacements been duplicates, “the problems that San Onofre is currently experiencing would have been dramatically reduced or entirely eliminated.” What does he mean by this?

Marion:

Utilities are allowed to replace equipment without prior NRC review and approval if certain criteria are satisfied. The criteria ensures that the replacement equipment still fulfills all safety requirements and does not deviate from the original plant design in a way that could compromise safe operation. Key features of the replacement steam generators at SONGS were modeled or tested to confirm their performance capability and structural integrity to demonstrate that they satisfied the design requirements.

In terms of “like-for-like” replacement, SONGS focused on the principle of form, fit and function. The new steam generator included a new, improved tube alloy versus the one which was previously used. They were able to demonstrate that with improved materials and enhanced design features, the steam generators could be installed and operate within the plant design limits with minimal modifications to the plant systems, instrumentation and controls.

Besides the fact that this report includes misleading claims for the general public, what is your overall conclusion about it?

Marion:

The report calls for Southern California Edison to keep SONGS shutdown until a thorough and systematic root cause analysis has been completed. That is precisely what is occurring now. The plant will remain shut down until the root cause is established and addressed and the NRC deems it can safely restart.

Once again, Fairewinds and its counterparts at Friends of the Earth have created a report that does little other than advance their anti-nuclear agenda. Their tactics, which unfortunately are picked up in news media and further disseminated by flights of television advertisements, do a disservice to the public by mischaracterizing the strong safety record of the U.S. nuclear industry.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has documented actions that must be taken before SCE is permitted to restart the San Onofre reactors. The company must demonstrate to the NRC that 1) the cause of the tube wear in both steam generators is well understood and 2) it will appropriately address the issue in order to ensure safe operation. Elmo Collins, the head of the NRC’s West region office, said:

Until we are satisfied that has been done, the plant will not be permitted to restart.

San Onofre is a safe nuclear plant and is a vital contributor to California’s electricity supply. Learn more about how Southern California Edison is working diligently to identify and fix the problem with its steam generator tubes in a new video with the company’s president Ron Litzinger.

Read More

Nuclear Fact Check: Jamie Reno and the Daily Beast

Earlier this week, Jamie Reno, a reporter for Tina Brown's Daily Beast wrote a story about San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and the situation there concerning excessive wear in the steam generators. For an update on that situation, click here.

In any case, Reno's story attempted to tie the operating difficulties at San Onofre to Fukushima, and efforts by anti-nuclear activists in California to shut it and the state's other nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon.

The anti-nuclear power movement in the United States peaked in 1979, with widespread protests, the “No Nukes” concert in New York City, and the release of The China Syndrome, the gripping film about a near-meltdown at a fictional California facility that foreshadowed a real-life accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania just weeks after the movie’s premiere.

Since then, no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S.

That's incorrect. 50 more reactors were built after Three Mile Island and number 51, Watts Bar 2, will be completed in 2013.

I recently got a note from one of my colleagues on our media team, Tom Kaufmann. For those of you who might not have heard his name before, Tom worked at Three Mile Island as a reactor operator before moving on to a career in media relations.

What bothered him about Reno's article was the contention that the incident with the steam generators at San Onofre should cause the public to worry that a Fukushima-like event could occur at the plant.

Here's the note Tom sent to me in response:

The assertion that the leaking tubes illustrates that what happened in Japan absolutely could happen here is baseless. Amassing more than 3,500 reactor-years of operation, commercial nuclear power plants like San Onofre have been operating in the U.S. for more than half a century. During that entire time, including the accident at Three Mile Island, no member of the public has ever been harmed by a reactor accident or radiation from any U.S. nuclear power plant. Why? Because the facilities were very well designed, the nuclear energy industry is committed to hold safety as its utmost concern, and it has continuously improved the plants by expanding and upgrading the layers of protection.

The improvements made after Three Mile Island and the 9/11 attacks helped the industry produce a safety record that is second to none. The improvements being made in response to the accident in Japan will push safety even higher. The nuclear industry isn’t perfectly safe, no industry is, but it is very well prepared to handle challenges. In fact, a recent state-of-the-art study by the NRC found that the likelihood of a serious accident causing anyone harm is very, very small.

The report that Tom refers to is the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses that the NRC published earlier this month. Click here to read that report. For a closer look at it by NEI's Mark Flanagan, click here.

Back to Tom:

This current situation with the steam generator tubes at San Onofre proves how conservative and proactive the plant operator is toward safety. The problem was discovered early, the plant was shut down so a through investigation of the cause could be conducted, and the regulator and public have been kept fully informed. This is exactly what should happen.

As we approach the April deadline to submit signatures for the California ballot initiative to shut down the plants, we can expect to see more articles like this one. We'll keep an eye out.

Read More

NBC Los Angeles Gets it Right on San Onofre

Over the past few days we've seen a raft of coverage about the incident at San Onofre last week, but little of it has put the events there in the proper context. The one exception to the rule is this report by Vikki Vargas of the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles:

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

More later.

Read More

SONGS Is Vital for California’s Electricity Supply

Earlier this week, we reported on our blog about a steam generator tube leak in unit 3 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in California (see here and here). The key facts are that:

1) the public and plant workers were never in danger;
2) the plant responded exactly how it was supposed to—sensitive monitoring instruments alerted workers to the problem & they were able to quickly shut down the plant and isolate the component within four hours of detection. Southern California Edison, the plant’s owner, also immediately notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation’s nuclear energy regulator, of the issue; and
3) pinhole-sized leaks in steam generator tubes are not an uncommon occurrence while a new steam generator is still being broken in. (SONGS just last year finished installing new steam generators at the site.)

As soon as the event occurred, some groups immediately called for the plant to close.

For instance, in the San Clemente Times:

But Gary Headrick of San Clemente Green said the latest incident is another reason SONGS should close.

"Let's move away from this outdated dangerous technology and replace it with safe and sustainable options that will lead us to a brighter future," he said in a statement.

And San Onofre Safety had this to say:

San Onofre Unit 2 and 3 are both down today (1/31/2012) and yet we still have plenty of power without this nuclear plant running. Unit 2 is shut down for maintenance and Unit 3 is shut down after a possible leak.

Tell me again why we are risking our lives, the environment and the future of California for energy we obviously can live without?

Although I know groups like these will take advantage of any opportunity to push their anti-nuclear energy agenda, this last quote is especially bothersome to me because it glosses over the intricacies involved with supplying electricity to the power grid and paints a picture that Californians can simply “live without” electricity from SONGS. What some may not realize is that the electricity has to come from somewhere else when a nuclear plant is shut down and it’s usually not from where they think.

When a nuclear plant is shut down, either for routine purposes or during an outage like in SONGS’ case this week, fossil fuel plants in the area will start up to offset the power that is no longer being generated by the nuclear plant. The local electricity grid operator will work with the fossil fuel plant to ensure that there is enough electricity to meet the demand in the area to avoid brownouts or blackouts. Given that it is winter and southern California typically does not have cold temperatures at this time of year, electricity demand in the area is low, which allows for other plants on standby to easily fill the gap in the lost electricity supply from SONGS. If this happened during the peak of summer when electricity demand is highest, then SONGS’ shutdown could affect the grid. Throughout the year (and even more so during peak times), SONGS provides the grid with stability in a congested region with its large, continuous baseload power.

Southern California Edison’s Gil Alexander explains this week’s shutdown on the grid:

The plant's only other reactor already had been deactivated for a scheduled refueling and technology upgrade, he said. But the utility has ample reserve electricity, which it buys from independent power producers, to continue meeting customer demands while the two reactors are off line, the company said.

"We don't expect any impact on our customers tomorrow," Alexander told Reuters.

The short-term solution of purchasing power from a nearby utility comes in handy during an unexpected or planned outage, but it is not a long-term option because the costs are higher than what SONGS can produce.

It’s important to consider that SONGS helps control power costs for Southern California, saving its customers some $250 million per year compared to the average costs of other available sources in the region. The plant generates 2,200 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to meet the needs of 1.4 million average homes. Since nuclear energy is emission-free, the SONGS plant also helped to avoid roughly 180 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions.

While it may be easy for some to quickly dismiss the economic and environmental benefits that SONGS provides to the southern California area, I hope that others will take the opportunity to learn more about why SONGS is essential to the region.

Read More

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

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.

Read More

NRC Spokesman Says No Danger to Public From San Onofre Shutdown

We're seeing plenty of activity around the news coming out of San Onfre Nuclear Generating Station, and I think the most important piece of information I've seen thus far has come from Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the NRC.

The following is excerpted from a story that appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Small traces of radioactive gas from a leak at the San Onofre nuclear plant may have reached the atmosphere, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday.

A reactor at the nuclear plant 45 miles north of San Diego was shut down on Tuesday when evidence emerged of a leak in a radioactive steam pipe in the plant's recently replaced generator.

Air extractors apparently carried small traces of radioactive gas from the generator area to an unsealed auxiliary building outside the reactor dome, setting off radiation alarms, said NRC spokesman Victor Dricks. The leak and possible escape of gas poses no danger, he said.

"If there was any radiation that escaped from the auxiliary building it would not pose any danger to the workers on site or to the public's health and safety," Dricks said. "It would have been a small fraction of the natural background radiation."

More later if events warrant.

Read More