REGION: San Onofre report card omits falsified records
Nuclear Regulatory Commission says problems didn't affect safety
By PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer | ∞
Beach goers play on San Onofre State Beach as the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station stands in the background. SAN ONOFRE ---- San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station received high marks for safe operation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, despite recent reports of falsified records at the seaside plant.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold its annual performance assessment meeting for San Onofre in a San Clemente hotel Thursday. A letter to Southern California Edison, the plant's majority owner and operator, from the commission declares that San Onofre's twin nuclear reactors "operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety" in 2007.
The letter does note several irregular procedures related to maintenance of some of the plant's electrical and cooling systems, but concludes that managers are working to address its concerns.
The letter makes no mention that the commission ordered Edison in January to rework its training procedures after it became clear that a fire protection worker falsified hourly fire watch rounds for five straight years.
Likewise the letter makes no mention of the commission's current investigation into falsified painting logs at San Onofre.
The commission uses color-coded indicators to rate plant safety, operations and maintenance. In the latest assessment, San Onofre's rating remained green ---- the highest rating offered ---- despite the falsified records reports.
Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the commission, said Tuesday that the plant's 2007 performance report is designed to determine whether or not San Onofre operated safely during the course of the year. Because the falsified reports did not result in unsafe conditions at San Onofre, Dricks said, record falsification did not harm the plant's overall safety rating.
With regard to the falsified fire watch logs, Dricks said there are multiple sensors, alarms and other mechanical methods in place to detect and put out a fire in addition to walking hourly fire-watch rounds.
"The change in the overall risk significance created by the failure of this guard was very low when looked at in the large scheme of things," Dricks said. "It doesn't have a significant impact on plant safety."
He added that the commission continues to investigate whether painting records were falsified. (The plant requires frequent painting due to its seaside location and the heat and vibrations that it generates.)
The larger issue, Dricks said, is whether there is a culture of falsifying reports at San Onofre. He said the commission's inspection program, and its annual report on the results of those inspections, are not designed to handle problems with workplace culture.
"If you look at the order we did issue to Edison, it very clearly addresses the issue of safety culture at San Onofre," Dricks said. "We are taking the steps to make sure there is not a problem there."
Rochelle Becker, a member of the California-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said she believes the NRC's annual reports should include an assessment of workplace culture ---- particularly in areas that could lead to safety problems.
"They have lots of training at San Onofre, but I'm not sure they instill in them the importance of following the regulations to the letter," Becker said.
The commission will hold its annual performance assessment for San Onofre in a public meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday at San Clemente's Country Plaza Inn, 35 Via Pico Plaza.
Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or psisson@nctimes.com.
Advertisement
Don S wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:02 PM:If all plants on the planet were run as safely and carefully as San Onofre, the world would be a better place. I work there. Virtually HALF my time is spent in training. HALF of the work I do is spent in checking and double checking, in writing, every screw or nut I turn. Then someone comes around and TRIPLE CHECKS it as well! Feel safe, Southern California. We are doing a good job here. The records spoken of are of a nightwatchman's type.
Green wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:10 PM:Green is Green, and it sure beat the heck out of RED!
SONGS has run clean for nearly 40 years and yet we still have people trying hard to find a reason to shut it down. Europe is so far ahead of the US in production of Nuclear Power, yet the very same people who say we should follow the EU are the ones blocking Nuclear Power. What's up with that? No drilling for oil or gas, no mining of coal or shale, no building of Nuclear Power, Windmills kill migratory birds, hydro-electric Dams kill fish and destroy natural habitats, and well generally anything Americans do to sustain themselves is wrong and needs to be stopped! When will REAL Americans wake up and realize that their freedoms have all been stolen by a bunch of Men in Black Coats?
to Green wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:36 PM:That's Black Robes! But we get the point.
Jim wrote on Jul 30, 2008 6:22 AM:I was there when they were building SONGS 2 and 3. There were some pretty whack people there, but I have to tell you they did some of the best work I have ever seen, bar none. They have more redundant systems for redundant systems, it is almost ridiculous. If I did not feel safe with it I would not be living in Oceanside.
People talk about planes or bombs and what would happen, and then there was that really ignorant movie about terrorists (what a joke) and this nuke plant going hot, NOT going to happen. Even if people could get past the security and place bombs at every required place it still would not go hot. Oh, and did I mention the entire Marine base at Pendleton? It is there backyard. They could drop enough ordinance to annihilate everything living and it would not go hot. The containments were built to withstand several direct missile hits. And as far as someone flying a plane into it, a 747 could hit perpendicular to the dome and it would disintegrate.
If they built them all like San Onofre we would be much better off.
So am I worried about a couple of guards sleeping…..no.
Another Jim wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:31 AM:I love how you skewed the headline so at a glance what you see is "SAN ONOFRE OMITS RECORDS". Your editor could bear to put "SONGS GETS HIGH MARKS" first could you.
been there wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:12 AM:So what are they going to do with the waste material that represents a toxic threat for 1000's of years? Not even Europe knows what to do. We are leaving a potential disaster for generations to come.
Carter wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:40 AM:In omitting the falsified records from the report, another falsified report has been submitted. Falsify records at a nuclear plant, regardless of how insignificant it may appear, shows lack of control and leadership by management of the plant, and now by the commission. If there has ever been a place where leadership and control is needed it is at nuclear plants.
The public safety is paramount, but the public's belief that they can rest easy in the areas around the plant is very important also. Plant management and the commission has let the public down - NCT is doing a very good job. I would like to see some good positive action in correction of the poor management at that plant. Any one who falsified records should be dismissed and never allowed to work at a nuclear facility again - after serving their jail sentence regardless of what plant system the false reports were about. That goes for the commission also.
Karl wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:08 AM:I agree with Jim's comment - the NRC gives the plant high marks, but the actions of one insignificant employee who was terminated for unethical behavior makes for 'better news'. As the article states, the rooms toured by the firewatch have fire protection/detections systems installed - the firewatch rounds are redundant, back-up checks. The fire protection systems are also routinely tested, in addition to frequent area inspections by San Onofre fire department personnel.
Build more plants wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:37 PM:Maybe "Carter" and "been there" should be hooked up to a bicycle connected to a generator to supply power to the area. ...
SHUT IT DOWN wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:00 PM:Oceanside takes all the risk gets no POWER from San Onofre ! Move the plant to Disney Land.
Carter wrote on Jul 30, 2008 6:17 PM:To "Build More Plants:" Hey bright boy, I said nothing about not building more plants. We do what we gotta do, and we gotta put the plants under better control especially if we are to build more. dump the guys that can't keep correct reports coming forth and get somebody that can read, think, and keep the plants safe for the public. Get out of my sight if you are willing to accept falsified reports, and go work on a mushroom farm.
Dave F wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:09 PM:"Shut it Down" says that, "Oceanside takes all of the risk, but gets none of the power....". That is ridiculus. First of all, Oceanside isn't even in the Emergency Planning Zone for San Onofre. Southern Orange County cities of San Clemente, Dana Point, and San Juan Capistrano are though. Those cities along with Camp Pendleton bear most of the preparedness issues for emergency response along with the State and County agencies.
Secondly, SDG&E is a 20% owner of the SONGS project, and some of our power is metered to flow south to SDG&E territory.
To been there wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:22 PM:The interesting thing about the spent fuel is that there have been significant strides made in reprocessing the "waste." In fact, it appears that there are methods in development today, with the aid of remotely operated reprocessing labs, that would enable more than 90% of the spent fuels to be reprocessed into more fuel to be re-used. The byproduct of this reprocessing is lead, that would be used in batteries.
A method under investigation in Europe actually cuts the enriched spent fuels with lead and other materials to a point wherein the waste is no more harmful than the original mined uranium before being enriched.
Still another method extracts the most dangerous radioactive materials, thereby returning the spent fuels to their original fuel condition, then uses the cutting process to encapsulate the highly radioactive materials into relatively safe pellets that can be disposed of in a number of very safe ways.
All are still under development, but if the US were to get re-engaged in the nuclear energy market, I'm quite sure our great scientists and capitalists would soon develop a clean and safe disposal method. If there is a buck to be turned, someone will find a way to make it.
CITIZEN AT RISK wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:21 AM:The brilliant engineers placed the nuclear power plant on a known earthquake fault line. Dare to prepare!
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement
Videos
Advertisement