Latest Headlines on OCRegister.com
[x] Close
Green OC ~ All things green in Orange County.
« Previous Post
Next Post »

Safety complaints soar at San Onofre

February 19th, 2010, 3:22 pm · 27 Comments · posted by

Employees at the San Onofre nuclear plant made 10 times more safety complaints in 2009 than the mid-range level for the industry, according to a leaked management memo posted online by a local environmental group.

The same memo said a quarter of the employees fear retaliation from management if they call attention to safety problems.

The number of complaints made by employees does not necessarily correspond to actual safety problems. And, while the San Onofre plant remains under scrutiny by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a variety of procedural and personnel issues, the agency has repeatedly said the plant is being operated safely.

“We want to make clear we have a zero-tolerance policy here for any sort of retaliation,” said Ross Ridenoure, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer at San Onofre, which is owned by Southern California Edison. “We really want our employees to feel comfortable at any level raising a safety concern.”

The NRC believes it is safe for the plant to restart its unit 2 reactor, which has been down for maintenance, said spokeswoman Lara Uselding; questions had been raised about whether the reactor should be restarted in light of the memo. The reactor likely will be restarted within the next two weeks.

Uselding said the memo contains preliminary findings that will be released to the public by the NRC once they are finalized, though she did not know when and would not comment on their contents until then.

Still, the memo — a summary penned by San Onofre management of the findings of NRC officials during a “safety culture review” — seems to bolster allegations, made in recent months, of widespread fear of retaliation among employees.

The allegations were made by two men now on medical leave from their jobs at San Onofre, Mike Mason and Richard Busnardo, who worked in an on-site shop to make casks for storage of spent nuclear fuel rods.

In November, the men contended in a complaint to the U.S. Department of Labor that San Onofre management attacked their reputations and cut their responsibilities in retaliation after they complained about an employee who knowingly violated the plant’s welding procedures.

“Their complaint is consistent with what the NRC found to be true throughout the plant,” said David J. Marshall, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing the two men. “That is that the company clearly retaliates against whistleblowers.”

The memo, on a Web site belonging to a group called San Clemente Green, said safety “allegations” from employees at San Onofre were six times the median level, or mid-range level, for the indusry in 2008. In 2009, that number spiked to 10 times the median level.

The memo says there were 63 such allegations at San Onofre in 2008 and 2009, and that 37 of those allegations raised 57 separate concerns about San Onofre’s “safety culture.”

In 25 of the 63 complaints, concerns were raised about retaliation. Seventeen of them claimed actual retaliation.

NRC inspectors have visited the plant repeatedly since 2007, when the first of many problems was reported.

The troubles started with an improperly soldered joint leading to the precautionary shutdown of a reactor. There also was a report of a faulty diesel generator. In March 2008, a loose battery connection was found that had left some safety systems inoperable for four years.

NRC officials have raised concerns about San Onofre during public meetings, questioning whether the plant is making sufficient progress in problem-solving and “human performance” issues.

Neither the public nor San Onofre employees have been placed in danger because of the problems, although some were considered “low-level” safety concerns, NRC officials have said.

Safety concerns can be related to handling of nuclear material, but can also deal with radiation-exposure safety and industrial-type safety issues unrelated to nuclear material.

Ridenoure, who said he was brought to San Onofre in 2007 to make significant changes to improve performance, said increases in safety complaints can occur in nuclear plants that are experiencing major transitions.

“San Onofre in some areas has fallen quite behind the industry,” he said. “You’re talking about changing behaviors, expectations and standards.”

Such periods of rapid change can bring discomfort.

“In some cases you see a rise in the number of allegations at the plant,” he said.

Latest posts:

ADVERTISEMENT

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.
  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic.
  2. No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

 27 Comments

  • OhBoy says:
    February 19, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Ridenoure most likely has a large bonus structure around him improving productivity. So I take his comments with a grain of salt.

  • sowhatsays says:
    February 19, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    yeah, the agency I work for has many complainers about minial problems that they make it out to be catastrophic….they make the compliants because they are poor performers and want the benefits of good employees but not at the same cost……

    I don’t doubt that they have some valid complaints since it is a nuclear power facility, so at least try to weed out the poor performers complaints..

  • Complainers says:
    February 19, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    The Cask group has been butting heads with management for years now. The two in question have been in trouble for their performance and complaining. It’s one thing to raise concerns, its another to just sit back and take pot-shots.
    So, everyone is afraid of retaliation, but there are ten times as many safety concerns voiced? Anyone else see the contradiction here?
    The San Clemente Greens group is a head-in-the-sand group that opposes nucs under any circumstances, and yet they bought their homes in San Clemente, right next door.
    These are the kinds that buy houses next to railroad tracks and sue the railroad because of the noise.

    • so true says:
      February 19, 2010 at 6:52 pm

      perhaps the 2 on medical leave were also guilty of what they accused. Any cask group members have any knowledge of their ethics? Were Mr. Mason or Mr. B in jeopardy of losing their job prior them voicing concerns? Did those two just try to use the system and are off work for a vacation? did the NRC or the San Clemente Green group ask those working there what they thought?

    • Safe Nuc says:
      February 21, 2010 at 10:28 pm

      I have worked in the plant for over 25 years and the cask fabrication was one of the best run organizations on site. The two guys you claim were in trouble had been widely recognized both nationally and internationally for establishing for a program that obtained an ASME N stamp and building the highest quality canisters in the world. While we muddled in mediocrity in the plant the cask fabrication group moved forward promoting safety, quality and valuing input form everybody. Harold Ray, Joe Walmbold recognized the strategic value of the canister shop and the way the group was setup. The current SONGS leadership has made it clear if you don’t blindly agree with them you are a “CAVE MAN or Fence Sitter and don’t belong at SONGS. I wouldn’t call what these two are doing complaining, a large number of us believe what they are saying. Looking at the memo posted on the SAN CLEMENTE GREEN site it is clear to see that the NRC is not making allegations they are stating facts, based on results of the survey they conducted. The saying in management is if you are calld to a meeting with the senior management team, don’t forget your wallet and keys, just in case you are not coming back. If that is not fear and intimidation I’m not sure what is…

  • eviltwin says:
    February 19, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Yes, It’s time to pull the plug. Light a candle & go green!

  • Allen says:
    February 19, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Hey, Eviltwin, other than Hydroelectric, you can’t get much “Greener” than Nuclear Energy. There are no Greenhouse Gas emissions from a Nuclear Power Plant.
    I don’t include Wind and Solar as Green sources, since they are extremely unreliable and nearly impossible to manage as a system resource.

    The NIMBY’s that bought in San Clemente after the mid 1960′s, are fools. Unit 1 came on line back in the late 1960′s. At that time, there was nothing anywhere near the plant, so if you bought in San Clemente after that time, you have no complaints.

  • dude says:
    February 19, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    burning a candle pollutes the air, now what do we do? :-(

  • AK says:
    February 19, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    @Allen: Nothing is zero-emissions. Nuclear plants produce plenty of environmental destruction (including greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals) in the mining of the fuel and disposal of waste.

  • JJ says:
    February 19, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Dude sounds like he’s been hanging around too many nuclear reactors lately.

  • Quigley says:
    February 19, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    Reading between the lines, it appears that there are a couple of slackers in the cask making department who are perpetually out on trumped up medical leave, and are hypocritically upset when the company brings in replacements to do their job. Since they are obviously NOT afraid of retailiation, they file numerous “safety complaints” which are taken seriously by folks without a clue. Since it’s a nuclear power plant, any safety concern, no matter how frivolous, has to be checked into, so these two idiots single handedly are responsible for the trouble.
    There’s no mishandling, there’s just two lazy idiots with access to an overweening bureaucracy.

    • scwe says:
      February 20, 2010 at 6:03 am

      Quigley……you sound like one of those SONGS management employees that are what this article is about. RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS IN A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FOR FEAR OF RETALIATION. Is it possible that these are legitimate concerns ? Is it possible that the NRC’s memo to the company is true ? Is it possible that you don’t know what you are taking about. Thank God for folks in the plant that are brave enough and ethical enough to raise these concerns for the good of the plant employees and public

  • xocqb11 says:
    February 19, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    kaboom

  • Elvis the King says:
    February 19, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    I’m thinking I might reduce the number of times I paddle out at Old Man’s. Don’t want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  • winoroll says:
    February 19, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    Moorlach is out of control!
    NOW WHAT…

  • Joe Holtzman says:
    February 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Southern California Edison has proven to be an inept operator of this facility. The NRC has had to hold Edison’s hands constantly at this facility to assure all of us that the five most populous counties in the country are not vaborized.

    Check the last five–yes five reports— issued by the NRC and see the continuing problematic nature of this facility and management team.

    Folks it is not green when you have every bit of spent nuclear waste still located on site at that facility with a half life of 5,000 years of radiation.

    I believe Southern California Edison should be forced to sell this facility to a competent operator, or it be shut down.

  • bob anderson says:
    February 19, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    Chernobyl #2 here we come.

  • libertylaw says:
    February 19, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    “I felt a vibration”

    Whatever… fix the vibration and light up my jam room

  • f4tweet says:
    February 20, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Safety? They don’t even know how to store the spent fuel rods. They have a half life of 10K years. Remember the 80′s protests at Diablo Canyon? This is why. Lets build more plants. NOT!

  • SHEILA RIDGE says:
    February 20, 2010 at 8:04 am

    , I WANT TO ADDRESS A MESSAGE THAT WAS LEFT ON A BLOG FOR ME., REGARDING A COMMENT ON THE SONGS ISSUE. for “SCARED OF SHEILA”, Honey, you dont know me. I am one of the nicest people in San Clemente. If you REALLY want to be scared, come down to the beach, and run/workout with me. PEACE

  • SHEILA RIDGE says:
    February 20, 2010 at 8:09 am

    BUT, AS FAR AS THE SUBJECT OF THIS BLOG. AND SAFTEY, PEOPLE, WHAT WILL BE, WILL BE.

  • Michael says:
    February 20, 2010 at 9:42 am

    If Nixon still lived in San Clemente, these people would not even consider restarting these reactors.

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline