- NEWS
- Hundreds mourn fallen Marine 3 hours & 37 minutes ago
- Auld Dubliner tries to break world record
- Clerk tackles woman trying to steal diamond rings 3 hours & 36 minutes ago
- Mrs. Claus banned from Christmas parade
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Nuclear regulators: Concerns over San Onofre remain
December 22nd, 2008, 6:30 am · 19 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
(Update: Concerns prompt nuclear regulators to increase oversight of San Onofre)
Workers at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station were ”inconsistent in ensuring that identified problems were thoroughly evaluated in a timely manner,” and many of their assessments ”did not demonstrate the appropriate level of technical rigor to support conclusions made for operability or reportability,” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a recent letter to the plant’s operator.
The NRC has had concerns that human performance could impact the plant’s safety systems for some time. Tthose concerns remain.
“Your ability to effectively evaluate problems has been and continues to be a concern to the NRC,” says a letter to San O’s operators dated Dec. 3. “The NRC will continue to focus our inspections in this area until sustained improvement is demonstrated.”
Good news: San O personnel were willing to raise safety issues and report problems to management. And San O did clear up some technical issues that had been on the NRC’s mind.
In an emailed statement, San O operator Southern California Edison said, “San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station management welcomes the intense scrutiny of regulators such as the findings of this recent report, believing such accountability contributes to improving employee performance and public confidence in nuclear power. While we are encouraged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found very low safety significance to their findings, we are never satisfied with our performance and constantly seeking ways to improve.
“Operating standards at nuclear power plants are very different than at other major facilities. Work rules and regulatory inspections are far more numerous and stringent. Southern California Edison fully supports this meticulous approach identifying and reporting even the slightest variation from company and regulatory work standards.”
Here’s detail on the recent NRC inspection, courtesy of SCE:
Background:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Dec. 3, 2008, issued a report on the outcome of a biennial inspection it conducts at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and all U.S. nuclear power plants. This regulatory review assesses processes used to identify and resolve work practice problems. Reports of such inspections identify process strengths as well as areas for improvement. During the inspection period, NRC inspectors also assessed a new employee training program San Onofre launched last January to correct a performance issue the plant identified during 2007.
Summary of Report Findings:
Areas for improvement - Three incidents during the past two years were cited as examples of areas for improvement. Additionally, inspectors found that some internal process reviews “were not consistent with procedural guidelines” and did not demonstrate “the appropriate level of technical rigor to support conclusions made.” Each of these areas of improvement was characterized as having “very low safety significance.”
Strengths:
Inspectors observed that San Onofre personnel feel free to report problems to their managers and to use a special reporting program when they observe potential safety issues.
Finally, the review of the status of the new training program found that eight of 14 items have been completed. Remaining items are either complete and being documented for submission to the NRC or are on schedule for completion in 2009.
More Watchdog:
- Human error at San Onofre nuclear plant
- Vote: Is nuclear power safe?
- Generosity waned in OC even as incomes grew, IRS figures show
- Snowball Express goes squeaky clean after shaky start
- Amnesty International: Tasers too lethal for police use
- County workers get 800 job cuts, supervisors get remodels
- Victimized twice? State crime victims program spends oodles on itself
- Trustees delay vote on whether to raise their own pay 67%
- Parking ticket purgatory ensnares Tustin man - over car he no longer owns
- Splish, Splash, You’re Taking A Bath
- Free, cool stuff! OC Archives’ generosity irks history buffs
- AIG to OC workers: Thanks for the bailout, happy holidays, you’re fired
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Follow this blog:
-
More from OC Watchdog reports-
ADVERTISEMENT
You can follow this blog: on 
Am I the only one to notice the pair of domes in the picture makes it look WAAAAAYYY too cold to wear a bikini?
My larger concern is that I had a step father about 30 years ago that worked for Edison at the nuclear plant. Picture Homer Simpson and you will get a strong comparison. He led a group of employees that did welding and the like. He was a full blown alcoholic. I sure hope they do regular drug and alcohol testing for current employees.
I actually didn’t notice the pair of huge reactor domes in the background as I was understandibly drawn to the delicious figures in the foreground.
If they are soo concerned then shut down the plant and start rashoning power
I will go without power from 12 midnight to 5am
I nicknamed my ex-girlfriend “unit 2″ cause she looked just like units 2 and 3 when she sun bathed
Nuclear power is the most practical method of generating electricity. If a boiler blows up at a coal or solar powered plant and several people got cut in half parboiled, it would not be a big deal to regulators.
Time to exercise our energy independence and proceed with more nuclear plants.
“Everywhere I looked, it reminded me of her”
-Leslie Neilson
I have worked at this facility many times over the past 15 years. Both for Edison, and later, for a major on site contractor. Nepotism is to me, the major source of many problems at SONGS, as friends and relatives are hired over other MORE qualified individuals and they proceed to jockey around to protect each other.
I have actually been told by Human Resources, that I wasn’t deemed qualified for an entry level job that I twice held at SONGS, for which my qualifications, are INFINITELY in excess. A couple elderly ladies, with no background experience, who were hired as temps during an outage, whom I personally had on my crew, were hired for that position,over me.
I was perfectly willing to take entry level positions at SONGS, if necessary, in order to gain permanent employee status. Yes, I am financially well enough off to do this!
They also have the “Nuclear Safety Concerns” program.
I once utilized this, and the end result…was non investigation of the complaint. Following with an e-mail to me from the upper management responsible authority, which was completely dismissive, without said management ever contacting me about the issues raised. This has led me to believe that Edison has this program in place as Window Dressing so the NRC will think that Edison has a real investigative program in place to resolve issues.
My experience showed me that the NRC should have a system in place to directly follow up on the issues raised, one on one, with the writer of the Nuclear Safety Concern! Otherwise, only Edison site managers have access to the original complaint.
In my case, the public’s safety was never in jeopardy. But, I had been told on many occasions, that, I’ll call it “the making of mistakes” that my complaint was about, was serious enough, in Edison’s eyes, that termination would result to the offending individual.
If you were a site employee, and my concern and the offering of corrective measures, saved you from termination, would you find that to be a laudable goal?
There’s a picture of the power plant there? Sorry, was too focused on looking at the foreground
To John S.: Nuclear is practical? When someone gets “cut in half parboiled” at a coal plant, the steam doesn’t contaminate the surrounding atmosphere. Also, tell me how the “waste” at a solar plant needs to be contained; lead barrels? buried in the desert? Released to your children’s lungs?
Just wondering…
Cynical, you bring up your alcoholic step father from thirty years ago every time there’s an article about SONGS. I assure you that drug and alcohol testing are very much a part of life there. And since 9/11, scrutiny has been tightened up a hundredfold. Nowdays, if you show up to work even needing sleep, you will be sent home. Showing up under the influence not only will get you permanantly escorted from the premises, but could lead to criminal prosecution as well, depending upon your responsibilities.
The rigor exercised is comparable to NASA. People take their resonsibilities very seriously at SONGS.
Rest easy, it’s not the same plant it was thirty years ago.
John S: Excellent point and right on the money.
cycnical: of course they do drug and alcohol testing, duh!
Sean in Newport: anyone who has lived in OC for more than 5 minutes has already heard that joke before.
Perfect beachfront property destroyed for all time. Sounds like that was quite a bargain. Of course, the Nixon-loving republicans were clamoring for this to be built at the time — they still have not changed their ways.
Girl with the blue top looks like reactors One and Two.
To Dave L
Steam from the stacks at a nuclear plant is not dangerous (unless the reactor vessel breaks). Coal ash is radioactive too not to mention the sludge from the scrubbers that must be stored as hazardous (however, there is a company that is making siding from ash). Solar steam is so dilute it takes acres of land to produce relatively small amounts of energy with constant cleaning required. Arsenic and other waste materials that remain toxic forever are produced from manufacturing solar PV panels. Everything has hazards.
It is not that I despise solar or coal or alt energy, it is my opinion that nuclear power has proven to be a safe, compact, reliable source of energy until something better comes along and it could actually make hydrogen powered vehicles practical.
My point initially was the hyper reaction at every event at a nuclear plant while worse events are given less creedence.
The real facts are that Southern California Edison has falsified their Customer Satisfaction Surveys, has falsified health and safety records and was fined a multimillion dollar fine by the California Public Utilities Commission for these multiple falsifications. Southern California Edison has has an issue with Tritium leakage at this very same facility.
In Mission Viejo Southern California Edison erected the Viejo System Project which is in excess of the EMF radiation they said the facility would emit. Soluthern California Edison can not, and should not be trusted.
At the prior hearing concerning Southern California Edisons multiple failures at this facility I stated that ” You best keep and Eagle Eye on Edions…they can’t be trusted.
Obviously with still open issues I still say Southern California Edison can not be trusted—period.
When the Viejo System was proposed Southern California Edison in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Southern California Edison stated that EMF (electromagnetic field) levels would be reduced. Exactly the opposite has happened – the levels are up. This is a health concern for all exposed to EMF.
The City of Mission Viejo hired an EMF expert, Sage EMF Design, to measure the EMF levels from The Viejo System power lines. The City of Mission Viejo refuses to reveal these findings to the citizens, even violating the Right-to-Know Act in the process. So who is the City of Mission Viejo protecting – the citizens, or the special interest, Southern California Edison?
An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its latest report on electromagnetic fields and health. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.
The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health. This report can be found at: http://www.bioinitiative.org.
I would suggest all concerned citizens read these findings and demand the CPUC take action against Southern California Edison.
San O background and security checks are the same as NASA? Really? Do top San O leaders wear diapers on cross country road trips while going after their exboyfriends current flame?
If I were San Onofre leadership, I woulnd’t use NASA or the current astronaut corps as a benchmark for mental stability or profesionalism.
This is how it works John: (refer to the history of how they shut down Rancho Seco, just south of Sacramento, to get the complete script). EVERYTIME there is ANY maintenance issue at a nuke plant, whether it be as trivial as a pile of leaves that have blown into a corner of the yard, or a streetlight burned out, or a lock mechanism on a door that is sticking . . . or ANY other routine maintenance issue such as a redundant recirculation pump that needs replacement, you get people hyped up with fear that “16 million people are at risk”. You do this incessantly, tapping all sources you know in the liberal papers or liberal TV news stations. At the preliminary stages of attack, you ultimately want to:
1. tarnish the image of the owner of the plant (in this case Edison).
2. cause numerous excessive safety shut downs of the plant.
After you manage to start the safety review shut downs, you start to ramp-up in the press regarding how expensive and inefficient the plant is (while repeating the stories about leaves, light bulbs, pumps that were hyped previously.)