First Whisps of Smoke - NRC Recognizes Challenges
asked in the Electric Utilities and Y2K Q&A Forum
Is this a first "whisp of smoke" that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recognizes that, within current
regulations and license boundaries, that the nuclear industry will have much difficulty in certifying Y2k readiness?
The NRC issued their draft contingency plan the other day. On page 18, just before the references, there is a
paragraph that sent chills up my spine:
"The NRC has determined that if the agency were to address Y2K issues affecting plant operability
within the existing regulatory framework and procedures, continued safe operation of the facility
could be unnecessarily adversely impacted, thereby potentially resulting in adverse impact on public
health and safety by forcing an unnecessary plant shutdown. NRC approval for relief from a technical
specification or license condition under current practices for notification of enforcement discretion
would be too cumbersome and unworkable given the desire for prompt action if the licensee determines
that continued safe plant operation is possible."
I don't expect that anyone who hasn't dealt in depth with nuclear industry licensing, regulation, and technical
specifications to understand all of the 'governmenteese' in the above statement - but suffice it to say that the above
statement, if adopted as an official position of the NRC, would allow both the NRC and plant operators to
sidestep the regulations and operating requirements that are already in place.
What this tells me is that the NRC has recognized or fears that under current regulations and license conditions,
very few nuclear plants would be able to certify, even in a best case, Y2k readiness. It would appear, from the
above paragraph, that the NRC's concern now extends beyond the bounds of their jurisdiction - their concern is
becoming focused on maintaining an adequate supply of power rather than the safe operation of nuclear facilities.
If my interpretation is correct, this is a completely unacceptable strategy, and again, totally outside of the
boundaries of NRC jurisdiction. While the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may have
emergency rulemaking authority to compel the NRC to issue such guidelines, a unilateral decision such as this by
the NRC (for their stated reason in the draft contingency plan) is clearly not within the scope of NRC's authority.
I've said it many times:
The NRC's charter and mission is to keep the plants safe, not to keep them operating.
Contrary opinions (or interpretations of the above) are welcomed! :-)
Asked by Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com) on December 11, 1998.
Answers
Perhaps I'm not reading this accurately, but this seems to say that the NRC will "not" allow the plant to sidestep
it's (NRC's) charter.
Here's my "layman's" interpretation of this graph.
"The NRC has determined that if the agency were to address Y2K issues affecting plant operability within the
existing regulatory framework and procedures, continued safe operation of the facility could be unnecessarily
adversely impacted thereby potentially resulting in adverse impact on public health and safety by forcing an
unnecessary plant shutdown....",
NRC recognizes that the utility that owns nuclear reactor "x" isn't going to finish remediating the nuke by our
deadline of July 1999 and will be shut down, just like our rules say it should be. This is gonna cause a blackout
and a whole lot of problems. ( I love the "unnecessarily adversely impacted" in place of "shut down")
NRC approval for relief from a technical specification or license condition under current practices for notification
of enforcement discretion would be too cumbersome and unworkable given the desire for prompt action if the
licensee determines that continued safe plant operation is possible."
NRC will not approve your request to sidestep our current laws on a "technicality" because of the inherent
"sluggish" nature of beauracracy, even though you say your plant won't be affected by the y2k bug.
That's how that paragraph seems to read to me but maybe I'm wrong, and I have not read the "draft contingency
plan." I wouldn't be surprised if NRC begins to receive pressure to back down from their charter because utility
owners were either too cheap or shortsighted or plain irresponsible in taking action to fix this problem earlier. I
hope NRC sticks to their guns. Who would get the blame for a Chernobyl here in the U.S.?
Jeff
Answered by Jeffrey D. Wold (jwold@cmdpdx.com) on December 11, 1998.
In response to Jeff:
I think you missed it, Jeff. I see the basic sentence as:
NRC approval... would be to cumbersome.
In other words, normally the agency (the power plant) is required to request and obtain approval from the NRC
before doing anything other than or less than required by the NRC. There are procedures (red tape) for making
said requests. In this sentence the NRC is saying that this red tape "would be too cumbersome and unworkable
given the desire for prompt action". So if the licensee (the power plant) thinks it's safe then it's ok to go ahead
without approval (the last part of the sentence).
Chuck
Answered by Chuck Longest (kilo6@kctc.net) on December 11, 1998.
Chuck-
Did I? I don't think so.
Now I'm not any kind of expert on any of this stuff,I'm only trying to interpret this one paragraph. What your
response didn't say is what the utility that owns the faulty nuke is "requesting" from nerc. The way I see it is that
the utility is requesting "approval for relief" from a technical specification or license condition under current
practices for notification of enforcement discretion"
In other words they (utility) want approval from nerc to be excused from the current regulations. Approval which
would be "cumbersome and unworkable given the desire for prompt action."
What else could the utility be asking for? Approval to be shut down?
Incidentally and where my arguement could be really flawed is with the phrase "enforcement discretion" what does
that mean?
Actually I feel like the "devil's advocate." I am normally distrustful of governmental information like this. When I
read Rick's original post I got chills too. But I can't help what I see. Am I making sense?
Jeff
Answered by Jeffrey D. Wold (jwold@cmdpdx.com) on December 12, 1998.
I agree with Rick's definition. I simplify this paragraph as:
1. NRC - The standard safety regulations are not necessarily compatible with this new y2k problem that may
require speedier and prompt action
2. The licensee needs to be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether they can continue to operate in a safe
manner and the freedom to make prompt decisions that the current regulations and red tape hinder.
It sounds good, kindof, but it will actually put the public at more risk if you begin doing away with the regulations
that were put in affect for very good reasons and they do apply to y2k induced concerns as well.
Answered by James Chancellor (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net) on December 12, 1998.
This NRC statement neither surprises me, nor do I consider it to be the first "whisp of smoke", albeit it is the first
which is documented straight from an NRC publication. There was some discussion relating to this in the
10/16/1998 question under Nuclear Facilities on this Forum. At that time this statement was under consideration:
" I heard Mr. Jared Wermiel of NRC speak at the Infocast Y2K conference in Las Vegas last month. Mr.
Wermiel is the NRC's point man for Y2K. What he said was astounding. NRC has been ordered to consider the
lack of nuclear power production in 2000 as a threat to the nation, and therefore to work cooperatively with the
nuclear plant owners to allow them to keep running. "
Rick stated that he chaired this conference and had not heard the above statement, nor was it documented in any
transcript that I know of. At the time, I could understand Rick's correct skepticism that the NRC would in any
way step outside the bounds of their charter, since they have never done so to date. Having less confidence in the
bureaucratic mindset, I did not then, and do not now, think it's beyond possibility for traditional regulatory
agencies to bend their normal steadfastness in the face of "averting a national threat" pressure from on high. Is this
what is happening? The following are reasons why I believe the answer to that question is "Yes."
Context is very important in deciphering any statement. As I understand it, the broad context for the nuclear
generating plant situation is this:
1. According to NERC forecast charts, generating capacity margins (the "buffer" of production above demand)
have been decreasing steadily and now stand at about 15% to 20% for all generation in the U.S.
2. Nuclear power generation accounts for 20% of the U.S. total capacity.
3. For the East coast of the U.S., nuclear power generation accounts for approximately 40% of the power
generation, with some East coast states getting up to 60% of their power from nuclear sources.
4. * If* all the nuclear plants cannot accomplish Y2K remediation under the NRC regulatory time frame, and must
shut down due to those safety regulations, then all the U.S. generating margin is gone in one fell swoop. On the
East coast, not only is the margin gone, but there would be a further 20% to 40% drop in NEEDED generation.
Assuming all other generating facilities have fixed *ALL* of their systems and have no supplier or interconnection
problems at all, just taking the nukes off line would *severely* impact the supply of power to the eastern grid, and
hence all the businesses and people residing there. (Including Washington, D.C., home of the powers-that-be, and
the United Nations complex in New York City.)
5. It has been stated or implied in several documents that year 2000 problems affect the safety systems in nuclear
facilities but that the actual generation of nuclear power is not subject to the same concerns. In other words, a
year 2000 problem may cause a plant's safety systems to "trip" and force a shutdown, but that this would be due
to a problem in the safety systems themselves and would not indicate the reactor was actually unsafe.
Now, imagine you are a government official. This is what you might be thinking to yourself: "If the nukes go offline
because of this Y2K bug, we've got an emergency situation on our hands, even if there's nothing really wrong with
them. There's no guarantee the other generating facilities will be fully up to snuff either. If the plants squeak by with
getting fixes in at the last minute, there won't be enough time for all the paperwork to keep them legally up and
running, if the NRC keeps being a stickler for regulations. And if the plants don't get done, I'm told the systems
will automatically force a shutdown if something is wrong. So....seems to me it would be better to keep them up
and give them every bit of time to get those fixes in. It's the only way we've got a chance of avoiding an east coast
blackout or brownout/rationing situation. Yeah, considering this could become a national emergency, it would be a
safe enough risk...probably..... Maybe I'd better see about putting the appropriate pressure on the people at the
NRC."
Let me state that I personally do NOT approve of this mindset, I consider it extremely dangerous - but I can quite
easily imagine it occurring. I also DO agree with Rick's assessment of what the NRC statement is saying. Here's
my paraphrase of the statement:
The NRC has decided that if we were to address Y2K issues affecting plant operability.. [operability is the key
word throughout this statement] using our normal procedures, continued safe *operation*... [operability again] of
the facility could be unnecessarily impacted for the worse... ["unnecessarily" is key, also. This is saying that
shutting down the facilities might actually be unnecessary in regards to their safe operation, but would only be
necessary because of those NRC normal procedures.] thereby potentially causing an adverse impact on public
health and safety by forcing an UNNECESSARY plant shutdown. NRC approval for bypassing a technicality
would be..." too cumbersome and unworkable given the desire for prompt action if the licensee determines that
continued safe plant operation is possible."
I sum this whole thing up in this way: "These fixes are going to go down to the wire. It's a last minute race. The
nation needs all the generation up and running that it can get. If we stick to normal procedures they'll take too
long. If a plant says it's ready one week before 2000, then we're going to take the chance of letting them stay
online because by the time they prove their readiness to us it will be too late for us to say "Go!".
There are no good options. If nuclear generation is shut down for safety reasons, there will be terrible problems. If
they're not, the safety risks present terrible problems and plants may end up doing an emergency shutdown
anyway. I think we're going to be walking on a razor edge of risks, and I think it's obvious our government knows
that successful remediation before 2000 for electrical utilities is in grave doubt.
Answered by Bonnie Camp (bonniec@mail.odyssey.net) on December 12, 1998.
Thanks to all for the further clarification
(I think)
I can just see the poor NRC beauracrat sweating over this one, "Damned if I do, damned if I don't...damned if I
do, damned if I don't"
Jeff
Answered by Jeffrey D. Wold (jwold@cmdpdx.com) on December 12, 1998.
Yes, the first wisp of smoke? I agree with Rick's interpretation, but not that the NRC is, itself, about to take that
action. But they're fishing. The NRC statement is a perfect bureacratic proposition. It states the problem, carefully
puts forward a characterization of the problem ("unnecessarily," repeated), but actually proposes nothing and
takes no position. A whisper of a trial balloon. As a bureaucrat myself, I admire the craftsmanship. What's next, I
wonder... but that probably depends upon the reaction to the trial balloon.
Answered by Rik Cahaan (sphoto2@aol.com) on December 12, 1998.
Jeff. You've pegged the NRC position exactly. If the poor guys don't have ulcers by now, odds are they will have
by Dec.31, 1999.
Answered by Bonnie Camp (bonniec@mail.odyssey.net) on December 12, 1998.
Ooooooops. I'm going to contradict the posting I made a minute ago, as I just noticed, right above the paragraph
which Rick cited, the following recommendation.
"In an effort to help ensure reliable power to the electric grid during the transitional period of the Y2K rollover
date, as an important aspect of the protection of public health and safety in the broader sense discussed above,
the task force recommends the following:
Licensees may invoke 10 CFR 50.54(x) to maintain continued plant operation, providing the licensee determines
that no significant safety concern results during a Y2K transition period of several days beginning on January 1,
2000."
I am not familiar with the regs. What does 10 CFR 50.54(x) say? So NRC is not being coy, as I had thought,
afterall?
Answered by Rik Cahaan (sphoto2@aol.com) on December 12, 1998.
Rik, here it is: "(x) A licensee may take reasonable action that departs from a license condition or a technical
specification (contained in a license issued under this part) in an emergency when this action is immediately needed
to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications
that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is immediately apparent."
Answered by Bonnie Camp (bonniec@mail.odyssey.net) on December 12, 1998.
Contribute an answer to "First Whisps of Smoke - NRC Recognizes Challenges"
greenspun.com |
