South Korea: Cables fail tests; Government suing LS Group; Price Fixing

This website has been tracking the developments concerning corruption (including bribery for contracts) and faked certification of parts in the South Korean nuclear industry since July of this year; you can click here to see the original post on this topic on Atomic Power Review, which detailed the developments as then released dating back through June 2013.

In that post, I asked a number of questions; two can now be answered.  In terms of "will parts with faked certificates actually work," the answer appears in at least one case to be "no," and "do parts supplied under these bribery-induced contracts meet specs," the answer also appears to be "no."  Much else has developed in the interim.

Let's detail developments in recent times, since it was announced that about 100 people had been indicted overall in the scandal (which wasn't reported on this site.)

•In early October, it was found that eight nuclear cable suppliers were price fixing; a fine was imposed and a case referred to prosecutors.  See this link.

•The cable makers were found to have been paying very high dividends - and it was noted that the fine amount was insignificant to deter the practice when compared with the profit derived from a successful bid.  See this link.

•A large number of faked testing results were discovered in connection with investigation into the corruption scandal, including 277 used to cover parts at operating plants.  See this link.

•Suspect cables have failed inspections at two reactor plants.  See this link.

•On October 17 it was revealed that the Korean Government would sue LS Group, which owns JS Cable - the major culprit in supply of suspect cables.  See this link.

•Another piece hinted that LS Group might sue Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power.  See this link.

•On October 22, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power confirmed it would sue LS Group for very significant amounts in damages.  See this link.

Some of the reporting linked above includes the revelation that the easy movement of public officials to nuclear power or utility companies (and back) is part of the problem, and a moratorium period of three years during which this transfer cannot occur has been suggested.  No action has been definitively taken on this measure, however, as the major focus at this time is discovery of the extent of possible threat due to truly undocumented and untested parts and discovery of the extent of the corruption that led to this entire episode in the first place. 

As always, I will continue to update on this situation periodically as warranted.

1:40 PM Eastern 10/25/2017
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

SCE Requests Arbitration in SONGS Steam Generator Dispute with MHI

Press release below from Southern California Edison.

----------

Media Contact: Maureen Brown, (626) 302-2255
Investor Relations: Scott Cunningham, (626) 302-2540

SCE Asks for Arbitration Against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries over Defective San Onofre Steam Generators

ROSEMEAD, Calif., Oct. 16, 2013 — Southern California Edison (SCE) today submitted to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) a Request for Arbitration which states claims against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems for the defective steam generators Mitsubishi designed and built for the San Onofre nuclear plant.

The request for binding arbitration seeks to hold Mitsubishi accountable for the defective replacement steam generators, a failure which led to the permanent shutdown of the plant and caused billions of dollars in harm.

“We are taking this step today to ensure that Mitsubishi takes responsibility for providing defective steam generators and to recover, on behalf of our customers, all damages from Mitsubishi for its failures,” said Ron Litzinger, SCE president.

SCE requested arbitration after the Notice of Dispute it filed against Mitsubishi in July did not produce a resolution. The Request for Arbitration says that Mitsubishi totally and fundamentally breached its contract by failing to deliver what it promised. Among other things, SCE also alleges that Mitsubishi failed to submit to a contractually mandated audit requiring it to disclose documents relevant to the design and other aspects of the replacement steam generator project and its implementation.

A panel of three ICC arbitrators will oversee the proceedings in San Francisco. The contract is governed by California law.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced in September that it had identified flaws in the computer codes that Mitsubishi used to design the failed steam generators, and the agency issued a “Notice of Non-Conformance” against Mitsubishi for the failed design that resulted from the implementation of the codes. The NRC also cited SCE for the failed design created by Mitsubishi.

SCE announced June 7 that it would permanently shut down San Onofre Units 2 and 3, and begin the process to decommission the nuclear plant.

SCE has made public key documents regarding the failure of the San Onofre replacement steam generators in a Digital Document Library. The library, however, remains incomplete because Mitsubishi has refused to make public other key documents.

For more information about SCE, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

About Southern California Edison
An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of nearly 14 million via 4.9 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California. 

11:55 AM Eastern 10/17/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

SCE Demands Mitsubishi Allow Contractually Mandated Audit

The following press release was received last evening from Southern California Edison.

----------

Media Contact: Media Relations, (626) 302-2255

SCE Demands that Mitsubishi Submit to Contractually Mandated Audit

Mitsubishi Has Refused Repeated Requests to Allow the Audit in the Months Since Its Failed Replacement Steam Generators Resulted in the Permanent Closure of San Onofre

ROSEMEAD, Calif., Oct. 7, 2013 — Southern California Edison (SCE) today announced that it has formally demanded that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries agree to undergo a contractually mandated audit of Mitsubishi's design and manufacture of Replacement Steam Generators (RSGs) for the San Onofre nuclear plant. On Sept. 20, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concluded that a flaw in Mitsubishi's computer model led to the failure of the Replacement Steam Generators. The NRC's investigation also uncovered internal Mitsubishi consultant materials that expressed concerns about Mitsubishi's computer model.

Edison's latest formal audit demand, set forth in a letter from SCE president Ron Litzinger, can be found at http://www.songscommunity.com/docs/093013_letter.pdf. The letter notes that SCE “officials and lawyers have made this [audit] request on at least three prior occasions, but Mitsubishi has steadfastly refused to date to submit to this audit.” Litzinger wrote that he was appealing once again “because Mitsubishi's repeated refusal to agree to such an audit is harmful to the public, regulators and our entire industry, as it hinders efforts to understand and learn from the RSGs’ failures.”

The SCE audit demand letter says that “[t]he contractual language requiring Mitsubishi to undergo this audit could not be clearer . . .: Section 1.9.6 of the contract gives [SCE] the right to ‘examine and copy’ Mitsubishi's ‘books, accounts, relevant correspondence, specifications, time cards, drawings, designs, and other documentation, to the extent that these are related and relevant to the Work under the Purchase Order[.]’”

In repeatedly refusing to submit to the audit, Mitsubishi has argued that this contractual language applies only to financial information necessary to support invoices. SCE’s demand letter characterizes Mitsubishi's excuse as “disappointing” and says that it “will only confirm the suspicion that Mitsubishi refuses to be transparent.”

Litzinger's letter concludes by saying that SCE “stands ready to begin the audit as soon as Mitsubishi advises that it will abide by the straightforward terms of the contract.”

In July, SCE filed a Notice of Dispute with Mitsubishi in an attempt to recover all damages caused by Mitsubishi’s failed design and manufacture of the San Onofre Replacement Steam Generators that led to the shutdown of the nuclear plant. SCE has also announced that it continues to reserve all of its rights as to any and all legal remedies available against Mitsubishi. Finally, SCE has made public key documents regarding the failure of the San Onofre Replacement Steam Generators in a Digital Document Library located at www.SONGScommunity.com/library, although the Digital Library remains incomplete because of Mitsubishi’s continued refusal to permit other key documents to be made public.

About Southern California Edison
An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of nearly 14 million via 4.9 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California. 

----------

10:24 AM Eastern 10/8/2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Resin-based solution to Fukushima water problems

Below is a very interesting press release I received this morning.  I think all of us knew that (among many other things) the Fukushima Daiichi accident would lead to new technologies, or useful developments of existing technologies.  This announcement seems to herald just that kind of development.

-----

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Purolite Corporation develops an ion exchange resin based solution to the Fukushima radioactive water crisis

Reduces radionuclides to non-detect levels

Bala Cynwyd, PA – October 1, 2013 - Purolite Corporation, a world leader in water treatment and the treatment of radioactive nuclides in high chloride water announced today, that after two years of extensive research and development, it has a solution to the multiple issues surrounding the Fukushima radioactive water crisis. The proprietary process incorporates a total solution to include the four main points identified by TEPCO in its most recent request for proposals.

The Purolite solution can be quickly implemented and can achieve the following goals:

1. Remove 62 identified radioactive nuclides contained in the Fukushima water to non- detectable status. This was confirmed in tests using actual reactor site contaminated water.

2. Eliminate over 80% of the radioactive sludge versus normal precipitation treatment.

3. Eliminate the need for storage tanks for highly radioactive water.

4. Reduce the need to build water intrusion walls around the reactors.

“Our technical experts worked in cooperation with major Japanese companies over the past two years to develop a unique solution to this complex problem,”said Steve Brodie, President. “Our proprietary technology effectively removes the identified containments and will help solve Fukushima Daiichi’s environmental problems.”

The continuous accumulation of radioactive water at the tsunami stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is unprecedented and well documented. Currently there are over 1,000 storage tanks at the reactor site containing over 300,000 cubic meters of highly radioactive water. More and more tanks are being built daily to accommodate the intrusion of about 400 m³/day groundwater into the reactor cooling water loopbecause it remains too toxic to discharge to the environment.

About Purolite

Purolite Corporation is a leading manufacturer of ion exchange media, catalysts, adsorbents and advanced polymers for life sciences. Headquartered in Bala Cynwyd, PA, the company has ISO-9001 certified manufacturing facilities in the USA, China and Romania and operates dedicated R&D centers in the USA, China, Romania, Russia and the UK. Purolite also has a technical laboratory in Japan. Purolite, the only company focused exclusively on resin technology, has 40 sales offices in more than 30 countries.

Contact

To learn more about Purolite, please go to purolite.com or contact

Jeffrey Frain

Global Marketing Manager

150 Monument Road, Ste. 202

Office: (610) 668-9090

Fax: (610) 668-8139



jeffrey.frain@purolite.com

Read More

SCE Demands Reimbursement from Mitsubishi for San Onofre RSG's

Below is a press release from Southern California Edison.

----------

Media Contact: Media Relations, (626) 302-2255

SCE Demands that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Reimburse for Expenses Incurred Because of Mitsubishi’s Failed San Onofre Replacement Steam Generators

SCE Spent More Than $140 Million Investigating the Failure, Yet Mitsubishi Maintains that Just $7.6 Million of Those Expenses Are Its Responsibility

ROSEMEAD, Calif., Oct. 1, 2013 — Southern California Edison (SCE) today criticized Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Mitsubishi) for “stonewalling” and made public its demand that Mitsubishi reimburse SCE for expenses incurred in responding to fundamental defects in the San Onofre replacement steam generators (RSGs) that Mitsubishi designed and manufactured. SCE’s demand follows the Sept. 23 findings from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that Mitsubishi’s replacement steam generators failed because of a flaw in the computer code that Mitsubishi used to design and manufacture them.

According to SCE’s Sept. 27 letter to Mitsubishi, available at www.songscommunity.com/docs/edisoninvoices.pdf, “Edison spent over $140 million investigating the cause of excessive tube wear in the RSGs following a tube leak in one of the Unit 3 RSGs, plugging damaged tubes in all four RSGs, and attempting to restart Unit 2 after both Units were shut down due to the RSG defects.” SCE’s letter states that “it is simply incredible for Mitsubishi to assert that only $7.6 million of those expenses are Mitsubishi’s responsibility.”

SCE’s letter also maintains that, although Mitsubishi claims that “it has still not received sufficient documentation to recognize its warranty obligations,” the facts demonstrate otherwise. According to the letter, “Edison has gone well beyond its obligations to provide documentation supporting its costs,” including:

•   “Mitsubishi employees [were] present at the plant and involved in much of the activity described in these invoices”;

•    “Edison has provided Mitsubishi with several thousand pages of detailed backup documents supporting the charges”;

•    “Edison employees have spent hundreds of hours responding to Mitsubishi’s ongoing demands for information, including by creating specialized reports for Mitsubishi”; and

•    “The documentation Edison has provided far exceeds the level of detail that is customary in the industry — and far exceeds any backup that Mitsubishi has ever provided Edison in support of any charges it is claiming.”

The SCE letter concludes that “Mitsubishi’s actions have made it clear that no reasonable level of documentation will ever be sufficient to support payment in its view. We are therefore unwilling to engage in yet another time-consuming effort, only to face continued stonewalling by Mitsubishi.”

In July, SCE filed a Notice of Dispute with Mitsubishi in an attempt to recover all damages caused by Mitsubishi’s failed design and manufacture of the San Onofre replacement steam generators that led to the shutdown of the nuclear plant. SCE has also announced that it continues to reserve all of its rights as to any and all legal remedies available against Mitsubishi. Finally, SCE has made public key documents regarding the failure of the replacement steam generators in a Digital Document Library located at www.SONGScommunity.com/library, although the Digital Library remains incomplete because of Mitsubishi’s continued refusal to permit other key documents to be made public.

About Southern California Edison
An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of nearly 14 million via 4.9 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California.

----------

10:00 AM Eastern 10/2/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

South Korea Nuclear Corruption Investigation Update

It's been a while since I have reported on the developments in the corruption scandal concerning nuclear plant parts and quality assurance, and production contracts, in the South Korean nuclear energy program.  Here are the important updates since my last post (which I'll link below.)

•There have been no further implications of any sort that plant safety is actually compromised.

•Not long ago a former Vice Commerce Minister was indicted in the scandal, for influencing the decision to award contracts for construction of the nuclear plants in the UAE.  Click here.

•A former Vice Minister for Trade and Energy has just been named as the new head of KHNP, or Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power. Click here for brief announcement.  Click here for detailed piece.

As we can see, the corruption appears to have reached high levels in South Korean government, but as we also see the rate at which further persons are being implicated has greatly slowed.  It may be that the investigation is reaching its ultimate limit; this however is not yet guaranteed, and for that reason I'll keep on the story... and of course should any actual realistic implication against plant safety appear, I'll report on that here as well.

Click here for the previous update on this situation, which includes background links.

2:35 PM Eastern 9/25/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

NRC Finds Flaws in Mitsubishi RSG Design for San Onofre

Those of us watching the San Onofre situation closely have been waiting for a good, solid hint, one way or the other as to which way the continuing situation between SCE and Mitsubishi would play out.  The matters covered in the release below may constitute a significant, if early, hint.

---------

(Press release from SCE, Sunday evening 9/22)

Media Contact: Media Relations, (626) 302-2255

SCE Announces that Nuclear Regulatory Commission Finds Flaws in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ Design that Led to Failed Steam Generators at San Onofre

ROSEMEAD, Calif., Sept. 22, 2013 — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has confirmed to Southern California Edison (SCE) that the NRC has identified flaws in how Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) used its computer codes to design the failed steam generators at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The NRC further informed Southern California Edison that it is issuing a “Notice of Non-Conformance” against MHI for its flawed computer modeling in the failed design. The NRC is also citing SCE for failing to ensure that MHI’s modeling and analysis were adequate.

In particular, the NRC reports indicate that MHI’s use of its computer codes in the design of the steam generators inaccurately predicted thermal hydraulic conditions in the steam generators, leading to tube vibration and wear, and a steam generator tube leak. The NRC also found that MHI embedded the same computer modeling error in the design of steam generators at four other nuclear plants, although none developed the fluid elastic instability that caused San Onofre to shut down. The NRC inspection findings reinforce an NRC Augmented Inspection Team report a year ago that identified MHI’s computer modeling errors. The San Onofre units were permanently shut down in June.

Pete Dietrich, SCE senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, said it is not unusual for the NRC to cite the licensed operator of the nuclear plant as a responsible party even when problems are created by a vendor or contractor, and that SCE takes its licensee oversight responsibilities seriously. The NRC’s decision to also directly cite MHI reflects the fact that MHI created the flawed design and also failed to properly perform the verification and checking that SCE hired MHI to do.

“Mitsubishi designed the system. Mitsubishi built the system. Mitsubishi’s system failed. They are the experts. SCE was the customer,” Dietrich said.

“SCE is responsible for the safe operation of San Onofre and will continue to make safety our top priority as the plant is decommissioned,” Dietrich added. “MHI is accountable for its failure to provide properly functioning steam generators.”

Dietrich said SCE relied upon MHI, the qualified vendor authorized to design, manufacture and test the steam generators in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code requirements, to meet specifications. Dietrich added that during the design of the steam generators, SCE appropriately questioned MHI about its design and use of computer models on multiple occasions. MHI repeatedly reassured SCE that its design and models were correct.

In its letter to SCE, the NRC also noted that MHI hired consultants with expertise in designing large steam generators, but that MHI did not rigorously evaluate their concerns about MHI’s computer modeling.

No financial penalties were imposed by the NRC.

On July 18, SCE served MHI with a Notice of Dispute http://www.songscommunity.com/docs/noticeofdispute.pdf for breach of contract and warranty for supplying defective steam generators that resulted in the permanent closure of San Onofre. The notice details MHI’s failures in designing the steam generators.

SCE announced June 7 that it would permanently shut down San Onofre Units 2 and 3, and begin the process to decommission the facility.

SCE has provided an online Digital Document Library containing thousands of pages of primary documents about the history of the design and testing of the Replacement Steam Generators, and a summary of design review minutes at http://www.songscommunity.com.

For more information about SCE, follow us on Twitter and on Facebook.

About Southern California Edison
An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of nearly 14 million via 4.9 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California.

----------

BACKGROUND LINKS  (for further information)

SCE:  Rates not impacted by San Onofre (APR Sept. 8)

SCE Releases San Onofre documents (APR Sept. 7)

MHI Document Release by NRC, and evisceration of the claims by Boxer / Markey that "SCE and MHI knew the steam generators were bad."  My analysis of just the MHI documents, an injection of reality, and proof that Boxer and Markey have no idea what they're talking about.  Also contains many further informative links on steam generator design and testing (these are past APR articles as well.)

7:45 PM Eastern 9/22/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Fukushima Daiichi 5 and 6 - finally a solid plan?

Long time readers of this site (as well as people I talk to frequently) will know that I have maintained the position for years that TEPCO intends, or at least, has intended to attempt to restart not only the four units at its Fukushima Daini nuclear station (south of Fukushima Daiichi) but also Unit 5 and Unit 6 at Fukushima Daiichi.

If you don't believe that, look at this post I made in May 2011.

Now we have seen a rather startling and abrupt statement by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has directly asked TEPCO to decommission and dismantle Units 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiichi.

I would imagine for some people the reaction will be essentially "you mean there was a plan to restart these plants, at that site?  Really?"  Really.  Make sure you read the above link and realize that it's two years old.... and that TEPCO has essentially said nothing either way about these two units for the intervening time.

There are numerous stories out today about Abe's statement. Here are just a couple of these news links, carrying information about Abe's most recent tour of Fukushima Daiichi and the revelation that he's asked TEPCO to decommission the two undamaged units at the site:

CNN

Bloomberg


TEPCO continues to release periodic updates on the status of restoration and modification of the Fukushima Daini nuclear station (such as this one) although the alterations and improvements at that plant are absolutely miniscule when compared with work at the gigantic Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant on the opposite coast.

TEPCO appears to have continued, at least until now, the possibility of restarting the two undamaged units at Fukushima Daiichi although it's been silent on the prospect -- the evidence for this assumption being somewhat more omission of data than admission of fact.  Plans to restart the other Fukushima station to the south are more clear; plans for Kashiwazaki-Kariwa could not be more clear.  The Fukushima prefectural government, on the other hand, has stated that no nuclear plant would ever again operate on its soil; it appears now that at least in terms of Units 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiichi, the Prime Minister agrees.

What remains to be seen is a clear response from TEPCO.  When one appears, you'll see it here.

----------

Background link:

Preparing to Restart:  Tsunami Safety Measures at Japanese Nuclear Power Stations.


----------

UPDATE 2:00 PM Eastern 9/19

TEPCO has provided a response to Prime Minister Abe's request to dedicate itself to decommissioning Units 5 and 6.  That terse response, as well as two others to requests made by Abe, can be found at this link:  TEPCO responds. 

Analysis:  TEPCO in fact had no plan to decommission Units 5 and 6.  TEPCO will now have to consider this, and this will kick the lid off the barrel that's been containing the eventually required discussion about operating any nuclear plants in Fukushima Prefecture at all.  TEPCO may be forced to come to grips with a determined future not only for Fukushima Daiichi 5 and 6 but also for the Fukushima Daini site as well through this process.  My feeling is that this is a discussion TEPCO very much did NOT want to have.. at least, not yet.

----------

UPDATE 9:40 AM Eastern 9/20

Japan's Industry Minister, Toshimitsu Motegi, has gone on record as saying that adopting the strategy to scrap Unit 5 and Unit 6 at Fukushima Daiichi could have multiple parallel benefits to the remediation of the site.  His comments include the concept that the area the units occupy could eventually be used for more storage tanks, and that (before this, of course) the scrapping process could be used to train personnel who will be required to scrap the damaged units.

Click here for NHK World link to this story.

Following up on earlier posts, just as a matter of interest... yesterday, NHK posted a brief piece which stands as its revelation that, until now, TEPCO has actually not said anything one way or another about Units 5 and 6 ... click here to see it.  Readers of this blog of course knew this fact, but it appears as if it's been hiding in plain sight in front of many analysts and reporters. 


9:40 AM Eastern 9/19/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

SCE testifies to CPUC that rates will not be impacted by SONGS

Press release from Southern California Edison below.

----------

ROSEMEAD, Calif., Aug. 14, 2013 — Southern California Edison (SCE) submitted testimony to the California Public Utilities Commission today that outlines expected cost reductions due to labor and other operating changes at the recently retired San Onofre nuclear plant that, combined with related financial factors, are projected to leave customer rates unchanged. Key points include:

· A ratemaking proposal to recover SCE’s remaining investment in San Onofre at a lower rate of return over a five-year period within current rate levels.
· A $42 million average annual reduction in revenue collections from customers for San Onofre in 2013 and 2014, followed by additional reductions in the subsequent three years.
· A proposal to apply the operating cost savings to offset replacement power costs; those market costs are up 12 percent over last year in Southern California.
· A proposal to apply similar terms to San Onofre Units 2 and 3 that the utilities commission authorized 20 years ago for the retirement of San Onofre Unit 1.

SCE announced June 7 that it would retire San Onofre Units 2 and 3, and begin preparations to decommission the facility. The site workforce will be reduced to about 600, a reduction of 900 employees, by the end of this year. For more information about SCE, follow us on Twitter.
About Southern California Edison

An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of nearly 14 million via 4.9 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California.

Decommissioning fact sheet: http://www.songscommunity.com/docs/DecommissioningSanOnofreComplete.pdf

----------

This release is important to understand in light of the amount of noise anti-nuclear activists are making about the decommissioning costs of the plant, and potential rate hikes to dismantle it even though it's producing no energy.  The release from SCE -- detailing testimony to the California Public Utilities Commission -- clearly rebuts that type of thinking.

1:10 PM Eastern 9/8/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

SCE Releases SONGS Steam Generator Documents; MHI Info Page

Below is a press release from Southern California Edison.

----------


Media Contact: Maureen Brown, (626) 302-2255

SCE Opens Digital Document Library, Making Public Key Documents Related to the Design of the San Onofre Replacement Steam Generators

Library Contains Nearly 100 Documents Totaling More Than 3,200 Pages,
Many Made Public for the First Time

ROSEMEAD, Calif., Sept. 4, 2013 — Southern California Edison (SCE) today opened the San Onofre Digital Document Library at www.SONGScommunity.com/library. The library makes public key documents related to the design of the replacement steam generators, whose malfunction resulted in the shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

“The San Onofre Digital Document Library will help the public, elected officials and regulators better understand the history of the replacement steam generators that led to San Onofre’s closure,” said Ron Litzinger, president of SCE. “It is vitally important that we all achieve a full understanding of the facts so that future decisions by regulators and legislators are based on transparency and the highest quality information.”

The closure of the San Onofre nuclear plant earlier this year was the result of the failure of the plant’s replacement steam generators, which were designed and manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). SCE previously announced that it had commenced the process of pursuing legal action against MHI to recover compensation for damages caused by the failure of MHI’s steam generators.

The San Onofre Digital Document Library contains a wide variety of documents, many made public for the first time. In total, the library contains nearly 100 documents, comprising more than 3,200 pages. The library supplements the numerous documents related to the replacement steam generators that SCE had previously made publicly available at SONGScommunity.com.

Some of the documents included in the library are partially redacted. The redactions were made because MHI has asserted that the redacted sections contain proprietary information that cannot be made public. SCE has asked MHI to agree that unredacted versions of these documents can be made public.
SCE is planning to include additional documents in the library, and is asking MHI to confirm that these additional documents can be placed in the library without redaction.
About Southern California Edison
An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of nearly 14 million via 4.9 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California. 

----------

There are a large number of documents; let me point out some key portions for the layman to read.

This document details the relationship between Mitsubishi (who designed and built the SONGS replacement steam generators) and Southern California Edison (who bought the steam generators and who exercised some oversight on the whole project.)  It goes on to highlight key areas of design and manufacture that were selected for DRM or Design Review Meetings.  Some of these focus areas did in fact become determinants in the actual failures experienced, meaning that while the focus and attention were on the right topical considerations, the "let down," if you will, was in execution.  (In other words, it is not as if the failures occurred in designs / equipment not even mentioned in DRM material.)

The document then moves along to detail specific relations between SCE and MHI concerning the parts that eventually failed, as well as causal items (simple scale-up of previous designs not guaranteed to perform adequately, etc.) 

Another document, found here, explains the process behind the decision that the replacement steam generators did in fact satisfy 50.59 requirements.  A lot of noise was made on this by anti-nuclear activists back at the time this problem surfaced.

The rest of the material gets about as technical as anyone would like - and I note that while MHI has redacted portions of some of the material, it's significant that this much has been released at all.

----------

In the interest of fairness it's important to note that MHI does in fact have a page of information itself.  That page can be found at this link.

Further historical links:

Mitsubishi receives order for 4 steam generators for SONGS

Mitsubishi delivers two steam generators for SONGS Unit 2

Mitsubishi delivers two steam generators for SONGS Unit 3

Mitsubishi release upon announcement of closure of SONGS

2:25 PM Eastern 9/7/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Carnival of Nuclear Energy 171

Atomic Power Review is proud to host the Carnival this late August weekend, after a period of not having hosted since June.  This long running tradition among pro-nuclear bloggers showcases the best of the pro-nuclear blogs and, should it be the only pro-nuclear blog material you see every week, is a great way to keep up on events.

This site first hosted the Carnival all the way back on July 8, 2011 with the 60th edition.  From that very first time, I began a tradition here of showing readers a photo at the start and asking them "What is this?"  This has continued until now.  Some are easy, some are hard; I had to look for a full hour this morning before I found a photo that I thought could be guessed, but was tricky and which I had also never used before.  So here you go - What is this?

The answer after the Carnival entries.  And here they are!

----------

Canadian Energy Issues - Steve Aplin

Ontario nuclear winning streak rolls on: impressive example of energy efficiency

Ontario’s nuclear generating fleet has produced record amounts of power over the past few weeks. Using current and historical electric power production data, Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues shows that the nuclear fleet is by far the most efficient producer of power in Ontario. Because it emits no air pollution, nuclear is also the only technology that can further reduce electricity-related air emissions without curtailing vital economic and social activity.

----------

Atomic Insights - Rod Adams

Why did gullible reporters promote a student paper about nuclear facility security?

There was a flurry of attention in the press last week when a political science professor held a press conference to tell the world that one of his students had written a paper concluding that all of the nuclear power plants in the United States were vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

For unpublished reasons, a number of reporters accepted the scare story at face value and published articles stoking fear, uncertainty and doubt. Editors at outlets as varied as Fox News, CNN, Reuters, and National Journal ran fear inducing headlines.

{Atomic Power Review note:  This is one of a number of good "debunkings" of anti-nuclear rhetoric which were published this week.  Another one can be found here, at Scientific American, wherein another unrelated scare piece is deconstructed.}

----------

Yes Vermont Yankee - Meredith Angwin

Whack-a-Mole on Anti-Nuclear Claims: Sometimes It's Necessary

"Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" But should nuclear advocates care? Sometimes we have to care. When the outrageous anti-nuclear statements are getting wide play, we have to answer. Sometimes, advocacy is whack-a-mole.

----------

Science and Technology - Robert Hayes

Particle Accelerators Serve in Medicine and Science

What an accelerator really does, in terms everyone can understand, plus details of how these amazing machines serve us in many fields - especially the field of medicine.

----------

The Hiroshima Syndrome - Leslie Corrice

Japan's Disastrous Flirtation with Worst-Case Scenarios

Last month, TEPCO's president said that all future problems at F. Daiichi would be reported with 'worst-case scenarios.'  Transparency means "telling it like it is" in a timely fashion. The "official" creation of worst-case scenarios makes a mockery of transparency.

----------

ANS Nuclear Cafe - submitted by Paul Bowersox

“Nuclear Energy Development and Slowing Climate Change”

An approachable and informative discussion of the race between
large-scale nuclear energy production and climate change - with an
emphasis on the history and potential of molten salt, thorium,
generation IV reactors - by grassroots supporter Jerry Nolan.

“Fukushima Daiichi: Bolted tanks, blast from NRA”

The discovery of radioactively contaminated water leakage at
Fukushima-Daiichi was declared an INES Level 3 event this week, focusing
the world’s attention on the site once again -- Will Davis with an
update and analysis of the situation and implications for the future.

----------

Next Big Future - Brian Wang

A summary of safety features of all molten salt reactors and a review of design choices for molten salt reactors.

David LeBlanc of Terrestrial Energy makes a new presentation at the Thorium Energy Alliance Conference 2013. He describes the integral molten salt reactor and how they plan to make a demo reactor within 8 years.

Fuel cycle costs for major types of nuclear reactors

----------

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus

Post-Fukushima Japan:  Unseen Impacts

A straightforward and quite honest post by Gail Marcus about the continuing impacts of the nuclear shutdown in Japan on the economy and the country's carbon reduction goals. She notes that the average person may perceive that things are functioning almost normally. That is only because fossil-fired plants have taken up the slack--but at a cost.

 

----------

Captain's Choice Posts -- Blog posts I have selected as important posts of this week, which weren't submitted by authors or administrators.

NRC Blog:  Security and Nuclear Power Plants - Robust and Significant

NEI Nuclear Notes:  Welcoming Progressives for Nuclear Progress

Captain's Choice Blog:  Everyone should check out NuExec Consulting's blog.  This blog posts weekly on Fridays, and is a refreshing change from what we normally see on pro-nuclear blogs because, while it gives lots of insight into the UK nuclear scene, it's also very human and direct.

----------

That's it for the entries this week!  All that's left is to tell you what you saw earlier - and I am willing to bet a number of you guessed it.

The photo is a press release put out by ALCO Products on September 24, 1956, showing its new Criticality Facility.  Below (since historians might be interested) is a view of the back of the photo, with glued-on statement.  I'll reproduce the text of the statement below the photo.

 "ATOMIC DEVELOPMENT -- The new nuclear Criticality Facility in the 112-acre Schenectady plant of ALCO Products, Inc. -- builder of the Army Package Power Reactor for the Atomic Energy Commission.  This facility will be used to perform experimental reactor studies to check calculations against actual performance.  It is one of the first privately owned criticality facilities in the country."

It's interesting to note that the bottom of the release states "Formerly American Locomotive Company," as the name change was still relatively new.  It's also important to note that this facility was built to support the AEC reactor program which resulted in construction of a number of small reactors for various remote locations, and not in support of an oft-rumored nuclear locomotive program. 

ALCO Products did not achieve the front-running status in the nuclear energy programs of the US as it might have wished.  While it had early success with small plants for the Army (not only acting as reactor designer and manufacturer, but also manufacturing the reactor pressure vessels, pressurizer vessels, and steam generators for some projects) it didn't make any break into the larger power reactor market -- although ALCO was in fact offering a 125 MWe commercial nuclear power plant in 1959 which it stated in advertisements was fully designed.  None was built.

In 1963, ALCO Products shed most of its nuclear business and refocused on its roots of locomotive manufacturing.  ALCO briefly made some headway against new, direct competitor (and former partner) General Electric in the diesel-electric locomotive field, with introduction of the new ALCO Century locomotives (so named to mark ALCO's 100th anniversary) and with an attempt to manufacture very large locomotives using hydraulic, instead of electric, transmission.  Reliability problems, coupled with dominance of the field by Electro-Motive (a division of General Motors) and unending expenditure of monies by General Electric in the field made ALCO's position shaky.  After divesting its nuclear business, ALCO had been bought by Worthington Corporation, which later became Studebaker-Worthington.  The owners decided to get out of the locomotive business in 1969, and ALCO's product lines which remained were sold off.

The name remains familiar today in nuclear energy circles not just due to the history so briefly detailed above, but also because of the fact that some nuclear plants still employ ALCO design model 251 diesel engines as part of their EDG equipment.  The 251 product line has passed through a number of hands since 1969 but presently is under the (very competent) roof of Fairbanks-Morse - itself a former competitor in the diesel locomotive field.

Getting back to nuclear energy.. the Critical Facility's days didn't end when ALCO sold its nuclear business; this facility too was sold, and remains today in modified form as the Walthousen Reactor Critical Facility, operated by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.  Click here to see their page about the facility, including a link to a long video which shows the facility off to good advantage.

I hope you've enjoyed the Carnival this week.  Let me know if you guessed the photo before I identified it, using the comments section!

12:45 PM Eastern 8/25/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

 

Read More

INFOCAST Press Release: Waste Confidence Conference in October

Press Release below from Infocast.  See link button on right sidebar to access the Infocast site page covering this timely and relevant conference.

----------------

Infocast Presents their Premier Nuclear Waste Confidence & Storage Management Summit this October in Baltimore

Join policy-makers, regulators, nuclear industry experts and local stakeholders as they chart a new path forward for nuclear waste storage.


Infocast, the leading producer of business intelligence events in various industries, presents the Nuclear Waste Confidence & Storage Management Summit this October 9-11, in Baltimore, Maryland.

Nuclear Waste Confidence is clearly in disarray. The Supreme Court decision in June 2012 invalidating the NRC’s 2010 update to the Waste Confidence Rule and the Temporary Storage Rule have forced the NRC to reopen the long-term waste management Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Proposals are emerging to build consent-based long-term storage facilities, centralized interim storage sites and improvements to existing on-site management facilities—plans that will take billions of dollars to implement. Congress may also have to act to enable new waste confidence processes. Clearly, policies, plans and regulatory initiatives remain in a state of flux, and determining when, where and by whom these facilities will be built is an open question for most nuclear industry participants.

The Summit will bring policymakers and regulators together with plant operators and local stakeholders to explore the technical, financial and political hurdles that must be surmounted to reestablish Waste Confidence. It will provide an up-to-the-minute view of NRC, EPA and DOE initiatives and studies, and will provide invaluable insights into the paths forward for facilities for high-level waste management, and the potential changes in funding of these facilities.

The Summit will also feature speakers from the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, Yucca Mountain Project, Georgia Public Service Commission, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, Union of Concerned Scientists and more!

For more information, to inquire about sponsorship opportunities or to register, visit infocastinc.com/nuclearwaste13 or call 818-888-4444.

About Infocast

For over 25 years, Infocast has produced the highest quality events, tailored to the needs of the industries we serve. We intensively research the marketplace, pulling from an extensive network of experts to give you the information and connections to succeed.

----------

11:20 AM Eastern 8/25/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Russian Nuclear Sub Decommissioning: Sayda Bay

Removal of submarine reactor compartment in drydock.  From "Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants," United States Department of the Navy, May 1984

I never thought this would happen, but believe it or not, the Bellona Foundation has actually published something that could be considered positive when it comes to nuclear energy.

On August 9, I published a piece about the USS Miami, and decided to include a large number of links that show and explain the process the US Navy / DOE uses to dispose of the nuclear subs and ships, and their reactor plants, at the end of the vessels' lives.  This morning, while looking for a little bit more information on the Miami, I happened to stumble over a link to a piece on the Bellona site which describes the Russian Navy Northern Fleet's parallel program.

Now, to be completely honest, Bellona has been wholly negative about the Northern Fleet's entire operation (not just submarine retirement) for many years, and a long time back began publishing a series of articles on the rather dire nature of the retired but still-not-scrapped, rusting nuclear powered submarines of that fleet. 

What we see now is a surprising turnaround from 1995 when Bellona published its original huge and now-deleted report on the Russian Northern Fleet.  Today, cleaned up, painted and sealed reactor compartments are being stored on land in a way that's a lot like what the US Navy / DOE is doing.

Click here to see the Bellona article "Cold War Nuclear Legacy Dismantlement in Sayda Bay:  Mission Possible."

Especially interesting are the large, high quality photos that are available on the page (click to enlarge,) and the photo of the Alfa class sub reactor compartment is particularly notable.

More views of the Sayda Bay facility and decommissioned submarine reactor compartments both floating and on land can be found at this Facebook page album.  Keep in mind that the objects in the water that look like submarines or parts thereof are actually decommissioned sub reactor compartments with one compartment retained fore and aft to act as floats.  Some appear to have been the original adjacent compartments as originally built, but at least one boat appears to have a bow and stern section (very tapered) welded on in front of and behind the reactor compartment instead.  I've seen at least one photo of a floating partial boat like this which had additional floatation added externally.

It is now fact that with the help and investment of Germany, the Russian Navy is really getting up to speed rapidly on this long-delayed program, which no doubt will ease the minds of many neighbors who have been given little but misinformation over the years.  My hat is off to Bellona for publishing this piece.  Well done; I like to see success stories.

12:00 Noon Eastern 8/12/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

India's nuclear sub ARIHANT achieves criticality - but prototype operating for years

News came out yesterday that the long-delayed, much debated Indian missile sub INS Arihant hit a major milestone as its reactor was made critical for the first time.  This does not signify an immediate submarine ballistic missile deterrent capability for India, as both the submarine and the missiles have yet to be proven out, but it's a major step.

Now, to be honest, I knew about the Indian nuclear sub program vaguely but had no real details.  When I saw the following post yesterday, I was quite surprised at the photograph contained therein.  Click the link below to see what I saw.

INS Arihant reactor goes critical

The illustration is of the prototype plant which was built some years back to prove out the nuclear power plant for the submarine.  Navy old-timers of a certain vintage will find the photo very familiar looking -- but more of that later.

Here is another article from May, when it was believed that the Arihant would go critical in June:

INS Arihant to be made critical next week

The photo in that article can be enlarged; click here to see it full size.

The Indian submarine program has developed under a solid cloak of secrecy, even using deceptive names for some of its programs.  I've scanned through a number of online sources, and here are the details I've been able to gather.

•  Work on the Indian nuclear sub program dates from the 1970's, and has long been referred to as part of the Advanced Vessel Project or AVP.

•  The prototype nuclear plant is located at Kalpakkam.  It was developed under the program "Plutonium Recycling Project" or PRP, under direction of BARC or Bhabra Atomic Research Center.

•  The prototype plant first achieved criticality November 11, 2003 and after a period of what we must assume was testing and modification was declared operational September 22, 2006.

•  The prototype plant was only shown to the press once, in early August 2009, about one week after the well publicized launching of the Arihant itself.  Apparently only one photo was cleared for distribution.  A report on the press tour can be found here.

•  Most sources list the prototype and the Arihant reactors as being rated 82.5 MWt. 

•  This link gives some details of the program's subcontractors, in order to make clear that this plant is a completely indigenous development.  It names the manufacturers of the reactor vessel and steam generators, for example.

For further reading, here is another news announcement from August 10th.  This covers first criticality of the Arihant's reactor (dockside testing of the steam plant supplied by a shoreside steam supply having already been completed) and gives an overview of the real stretch of time ahead before the sub can be considered fully operational as a military asset.

It has been made clear that India is building more submarine power plants for follow-on units of this class, and that it has more than enough capability to produce highly enriched reactor fuel for these plants independently.  It expects to be able to produce lower-enrichment reactor fuel for large commercial nuclear stations in the future.

I said that some old-timers would find the earlier prototype plant photo of interest.  Below you'll see why.  (Click photos to enlarge.)

This is the front cover of a booklet entitled "They Harnessed the ATOM," published by Westinghouse Electric Corporation in September 1954.*  This advertising / commemorative piece gave (completely unclassified) details of the construction of the prototype for the Nautilus, the launching of the Nautilus itself, and details on the projected Shippingport Atomic Power Station, then years away.

Resemblance of the illustration above to those linked further above showing the Indian prototype plant at Kalpakkam is all too obvious.  The one just above shows the STR Mark I, better known as the S1W plant; this was the prototype for the USS Nautilus, and was built at the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho. 

According to the booklet, Westinghouse Atomic Power Division "took on this pioneering assignment in December 1948."  The reactor was first taken critical on March 30, 1953 and the first steam power was actually developed by the powerplant on May 31.  Full power was achieved on June 25... meaning that the whole project took just four and a half years from contract to full rated power.

Below is another view from page 7 of this book, showing the plant from above.

Clearly visible in both the photos of the Arihant prototype and in the Mark I are large cylindrical tanks around the plants; the booklet describes the tank above as containing 385,000 gallons of water.

Below is a press photo from Westinghouse which was released in January 1954, right ahead of the launching of the USS Nautilus. 

Caption (on back) --  "WINDOWLESS BUILDING ON IDAHO DESERT HOUSES FIRST ATOMIC SUB POWER PLANT ...  National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho -- Inside the large, windowless part of this eight-story building, engineers and scientists of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation are testing the land-based prototype model of the world's first practical atomic engine which will power the USS Nautilus.  Located at the Atomic Energy Commission's National Reactor Testing Station on a southeastern Idaho desert, the specially designed structure is made of concrete slabs bolted to steel framing.  A unique ventilation system keeps the interior of the building slightly pressurized so that dust from outside will not seep into it.  The six steel stacks on the top of the building provide exhaust outlets for emergency purposes.  At the base of each stack is a big fan capable of discharging some 36,000 cubic feet of air per minute.  The large square stack at the left is for normal ventilation.  On May 31, 1953, full-scale testing of the submarine power plant was begun.  This land-based model, designated as "Mark I" was designed and built by Westinghouse in cooperation with the Argonne National Laboratory at the Atomic Energy Commission's Bettis Plant.  The atomic engine which will power the Nautilus, called Mark II, also was built by Westinghouse at the Bettis plant." 

Perspective

India has clearly done two things:  First, it has achieved roughly the first several important steps in establishing a nuclear powered naval submarine force, at least so far as the power plant is concerned; it has operated a prototype submarine plant, which outwardly is clearly designed along established (and publicly available) lines generally, for some years now and has taken the seagoing version of this plant critical for the first time.  Second, though, it has taken very many years to accomplish these tasks, with first criticality of the prototype plant occurring some ten years ago, operational status three years later, and only just now criticality of the first seagoing plant.  (Nautilus was launched January 1954 and its reactor first went critical in December 1954, under two years after the prototype went critical.)  It remains to be seen if the plant will peform well in a moving, rolling platform and if it will be reliable at sea.  Trials are not expected for the Arihant until at least 2015.

It has been reported that the PWR (pressurized water reactor) type plant used in the Kalpakkam prototype and the Arihant is expected to lead to a completely indigenous 900 MWe commercial nuclear plant, which itself is only in the design stages and is yet many years off.  What's important is that India is very determined, has apparently faced and beaten many problems with its program, and forges into the future with a clear purpose and initiative to both develop a strategic deterrent and, at the same time, a stand-alone industry building pressurized water reactor plants.

----------

*  "They Harnessed the ATOM"  Westinghouse Electric Corporation - Information Services Department.  3 Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, PA.   Pub. No. MB-1862.  Print code 20M---9-54. 

The print code can be deciphered as 20,000 copies, published September 1954.

----------

For more reading:

INL page on Naval Reactors Facility and prototypes including S1W.  "Nuclear Navy Celebrates End of Era in Idaho." 

Another Navy reactor prototype site has been covered on my website before - the Kesselring Site in upstate New York.  Last year, it had an important announcement.



11:30 AM Eastern 8/11/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

USS Miami to be decommissioned, scrapped

I was prophetic, it would seem, in my May 25, 2012 post on the fire deliberately started on board USS Miami, SSN-755, when I said the following:

"We'll wait to see whether the Navy decides to rebuild and return the Miami to service, or decommission her and send her to NPSSRP (Nuclear Powered Ship and Submarine Recycling Program) early."

This week, the Navy decided that damage to the ship's systems and structure was too severe to warrant repair (which would by reports have entailed essentially building an entire front third of the submarine brand new) and announced that USS Miami would be decommissioned and defueled at Portsmouth, then sent to the Puget Sound shipyard on the opposite coast for recycling.

This process involves the removal of the reactor compartment from the other portions of the submarine. The reactor plant remains inside the reactor compartment, which is sealed, but the nuclear fuel is already long gone at this point.  The reactor compartment is then shipped to Hanford, where it is placed in a large burial area which contains the reactor compartments of all decommissioned and scrapped nuclear powered ships including all submarines and cruisers.  The rest of the ship other than the reactor compartment is scrapped and the material recycled. 

The Navy has been recycling nuclear powered vessels for many years.  Click the link below to see the official history of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, in which you'll find the reference to the launch of the Navy's NPSSRP program.

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard History

Below is a link to an interesting, if brief, page on the Brookings Institute site that describes the Navy's nuclear powered ship recycling and provides a number of interesting photographs.

Brookings:  Dismantling Nuclear Subs

The following two site links show a selection of photos from Puget Sound from years long past.

Puget Sound at "Bottom Guns" Sub Site

Sub Recycling at Submarinesailor.com 

...but the "Grandfather" of all NPSSRP pages is that of Don Shelton, found linked below.

Nuclear Submarines undergoing SRP at Puget Sound

I have a paper copy (four large books) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants in my library.  Some interesting observations about the history of the recycling program can be gleaned from this document.

• In May 1984 when the document was issued, the Navy had still not decided to dispose permanently of any nuclear powered submarines or ships at all.  According to this FEIS, at the date of issuance, only seven nuclear submarines (and no nuclear surface ships) had been decommissioned; six of them were in "protective storage at Naval shipyards."  These six were USS Triton (decommissioned 1967), USS Halibut (decom 1976), USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Theodore Roosevelt (both decom 1981), and USS Ethan Allen and USS Thomas A. Edison (both decom 1983.)  USS Nautilus was decommissioned in 1980 but had special status as a historic ship, and was eventually preserved as a museum and memorial. 

• The FEIS states that the Navy expected further submarines to be placed in protective storage in the year 1984; it states that submarines could be stored this way for about 20 years, at which time they would have to be drydocked for maintenance.  After this it expected three to five decommissionings of nuclear subs each year, and a total of perhaps 100 nuclear submarines to be decommissioned between 1984 and the end of the century.

• The Navy had long realized that there would be an eventual need for a program to deal with disposal of nuclear powered ships; the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued in December 1982.  Over 1500 copies were distributed for comment and review.

• The FEIS examined three methods of disposal for nuclear submarines.  First was to cut out the reactor compartment, seal it, and then ship it to either Hanford or the Savannah River Site for burial.  Next was to cut out the reactor compartment, seal it, and sink it in the ocean at a designated and approved area.  Finally, an examination of continued preservation of the entire submarine was made as a comparison.  The first option, with Hanford selected as the burial site, won out, as we now know with the actual recycling program starting in 1990.

The USS Miami will, it is reported, be deactivated (reactor fuel removed) at its present location, Portsmouth, and will then likely be towed through the Panama Canal to Puget Sound for the recycling program.


2:00 PM Eastern 8/9/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Fukushima Daiichi August 6, 2013 update

All of Atomic Power Review's readers are aware that after the declaration that the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi had "reached cold shutdown," which really is a benchmark in the recovery road map and not deliberately an accurate application of the term itself as normally used in nuclear power, this site for most purposes halted having daily or even weekly updates on the situation. 

We find ourselves, now, at a period wherein this author believes that some sort of breaking point may be in the near future -- a point at which outside intervention of some sort, either in a small way such as active, ongoing, daily onsite assistance from other utilities / nuclear operating companies / trade organizations / international regulators may be required, or else on the other end a complete takeover by such entities of the site operations from TEPCO.  Let me be clear - there is no approaching nuclear crisis of any sort.  This chain of events has to do with two things, and two things only:  Contaminated water, and TEPCO's management. 

Readers are sure to know from many sources that contaminated water, at higher levels of activity now than prior, has been found in various locations on site, including in sampling wells, cable / pipe trenches, turbine buildings and even in the inner harbor.  I would recommend that readers click on the link following if they're not up to speed on these developments; the link is an article I wrote for the American Nuclear Society's blog.

TEPCO Faces New Setbacks - July 25, 2013 ANS Nuclear Cafe

(A good TEPCO reference generally describing the event sequence can be found here.  This timeline only runs through July 22, it should be noted - the date of its publication.  Also, the widely circulated reports about high thyroid dose have been addressed by TEPCO at this link.)

There have been a number of other developments since I wrote the ANS article almost two weeks ago. 

TEPCO has released figures on how much contamination may have been released, and these are getting a fairly wide amount of play in the news.  Analysis of these figures depends widely on the news source producing the report, of course, and the quality of who the news source contacts for analysis.  Some are brief, like the following Kyodo News blurb (the blurb is just what is outside the paywall.)

Fukushima Plant May Have Leaked Huge Amount of Tritium

Other news coming from the area reflects the increasing frustration of the nuclear regulator, the NRA, and the local population and officials.

Fukushima Prefecture official monitors inspect nuclear plant site

TEPCO Struggling to Contain Contaminated Water

Fukushima asks Government to take steps to stop leaks

The important fact to note about the flow of the events in the three links above is that Fukushima prefecture inspected the site, and later that day asked the Japanese government to either take a stronger hand or else take over completely at the site.

At an early time, months after the accident, it became clear that buildup of contaminated water on the site would become a major issue.  In June 2011 NISA (now NRA) ordered frequent reporting on the status of water storage, contamination and cleanup on the site.  Here is the latest report of the series.

This is all quite an elaborate and complicated scenario, so I'd like to make a few simple observations.

•The Fukushima Daiichi plant site actually sank several feet after the earthquake.  What this has done is effectively raise the level of normal ground water relative to the level of the nuclear plants.  Remember - the plant site dropped, but the water level of the ocean didn't.

•Water being pumped into the three reactors to keep them cool and safe is leaking out of the reactor plants, into the reactor buildings and then into the turbine buildings.  TEPCO would like to keep the level of this water low in these buildings, because if it's high it tends to leak out and contaminate the ground water.  (This requires pumping out and decontaminating the water.)  On the other hand, if the water level is too low, then ground water seems to leak IN to the buildings.  This increases the total volume of contaminated water on the site.  There is thus a balance -- and remember, the ground water level changes with tide and with rainfall.

•Barriers to outflow of contaminated ground water into the harbor and ocean seem to also be holding water inside the barriers at unanticipated high levels, making the level of groundwater (unnaturally) higher than it would normally be.

•TEPCO did announce in the last several months that it thought that it might have to discharge a fairly large volume of low-level contaminated water deliberately to the sea in order to free up room in storage on the site for much worse water.  That move was denied in all quarters.  It would seem now as if that move would have been the better choice, given the outcome of the last two weeks.

TEPCO's decision to "sit" on the news about contaminated water releases has received a violent backlash in all quarters.  Reaction by news media, local citizens and the NRA has been very stiff - to put it mildly.  This has further damaged the company's reputation, leading some to wonder if it is capable of finishing the job of decommissioning the site.

This has led to the prefecture's request to the Japanese government that intervention occur -- and at this point, that seems to this writer as if it would be a necessary and probably welcome step.

I'll be keeping a close eye on these developments and report findings here; also watch my twitter account @atomicnews for further updates.

2:25 PM Eastern 8/6/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW


Breaking update:  Just as I was about to publish this article at 2:25 PM, Reuters carried a breaking news alert saying that the Japanese government will in fact commit funds to the containment of contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi.  Watch Twitter @atomicnews for more.

---------------------


Update - 12:30 AM Eastern 8/7/2013

My prediction from earlier today didn't take very long to come true.

Chief Cabinet Secretary says Prime Minister will order increased government involvement, expenditure of funds later today.

A slightly earlier report with less detail can be found here, for the record.

I would expect press releases at the least regarding this development from the Japanese Government  and probably from NRA, and perhaps (but not guaranteed) from TEPCO.  If and when those appear I will link or reproduce them on this post.


Update - 7:30 AM Eastern 8/7/2013

News of Prime Minster Abe's announcement has come out widely.

Japanese Government Joins Clean-Up

Govt. to help TEPCO handle water leak (with video)

Japanese Government will take on more responsibility at Fukushima

The website of the Office of the Prime Minister has yet to update with any statements about the situation.  The Chief Cabinet Secretary's August 7 AM Press Conference video is posted on the government website, with the discussion of the Fukushima situation beginning at 02:30 in the video.  The conference was before Prime Minister Abe made his statements and orders to assist, but is worth watching.  Discussion of the topic runs through about 06:00.

Plans are afoot to actually freeze soil in a massive area around the nuclear plant.  As the Chief Cabinet Secretary said, "such plans are unprecedented."  This would be the largest attempted project of its type anywhere in the world.  I myself don't imagine that this plan will be the sole, final solution to the problem.  While the concept is intended to fix the problem in one blow, as it were, the execution at first take seems an engineering nightmare.  It would be extremely desirable for Japan to immediately request assistance from major architect-engineer firms, in my opinion, for input on how to deal with the site.  That aside, they're definitely moving in the right direction and must be commended for their having taken action. 


12:20 PM Eastern 8/7/2013  Further Fukushima Daiichi Update

(The basis of the following information comes from TEPCO, and was broadcast by NHK World News.)

We now have a bit better handle on the basic water flow path from off site to on site and into the ocean at Fukushima Daiichi.  These figures are quite rough and probably change significantly at periods of heavy rainfall. 

• 1000 tons of water flows into the plant site daily by natural occurrence - i.e. runoff from the hillsides surrounding the plant

• 300 tons of this flows to the sea without being contaminated

• 300 tons of this gets into contaminated ground water areas of the plant, and then flows to the harbor area / inlet area now contaminated to yet fairly undetermined levels

• 400 tons of this gets into the reactor buildings and turbine buildings, and mixes with contaminated water already there.  TEPCO is pumping water out of these buildings, cleaning it up, and then injecting some of this into the reactors to keep them cool and storing the rest. 

The NHK report that revealed this water flow balance is found here.

More details as they're made available.  I'm specifically waiting for information to show up at the MEXT or the Prime Minister's sites.

Read More

Governor of Utah endorses Western Initiative for Nuclear

The Governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, has publicly placed his support behind the Western Initiative for Nuclear, an effort to get a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) built at the INL facility in Idaho as a prototype for what is hoped to be a major build out of this kind of nuclear plant.

Click here to see Salt Lake Tribune article on Herbert's statement.

I've written a good deal on the Western Initiative for Nuclear at the ANS Nuclear Cafe site, so I'll not duplicate that effort here but rather refer readers to that article - click here to see it.

12:40 PM Eastern 8/5/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Nuclear Energy's Biggest Hurdles Laid Bare

I first heard Sherrell Greene speak at an ANS meeting -- I believe it was at the 2012 Winter Meeting in San Diego.  I recall having been really impressed by his immense knowledge, insight, clarity and above all his ability to relate issues directly to the entire audience.  I made some serious notes during his talk, and perhaps more than most speakers, Mr. Greene really left me feeling as if I'd gotten one hundred percent of what it was he had appeared at the meeting in order to convey.

The latest post on his blog, which blog is entitled "Sustainable Energy Today," is a very closely related example to the talk he gave in terms of its accessibility.  The post is entitled "Nuclear Power - Staring the Dragon in the Mouth," and it really is an honest, deliberate, hard look at the biggest problems we face in building out more nuclear plants.  It's also written so that the concepts are completely accessible to general folks who have no clue what an FEIS or an RAI is. 

Not always, I've noted, does Mr. Greene pretend to have all of the answers -- or, if he in fact does, he might be employing the Socratic method to get us to where he already is.  No matter which, his writing (and speaking) style get right to you, honestly, where you are -- a style I in fact admire.

I'd very much recommend my regular readers flip over using the following link and check out Sherrell's post -  it will be time well spent.

Sustainable Energy Today:  "Nuclear Energy - Staring the Dragon in the Mouth."

12:15 PM Eastern 8/5/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More