Whats the deal with the July 1st nuke shutdown?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread |
Is the July 1st nuclear power plant shutdown still going through? And if so, are there any plants that aren't going to be shut down?Tom
-- Anonymous, June 13, 1999
No plant shutdowns before December. That's it. Check euy2k.com discussion threads. Search nuclear.
-- Anonymous, June 13, 1999
Tom,Welcome! This subject has been kicked around here quite a bit. You might want to take a look under the "nuclear" category, or use the key word search engine for more details.
In short, the NRC has not mandated shutdown of any facilities in July. The July deadline is only for submittal of a Y2k readiness report by each nuclear facility in the U.S. At a meeting I attended a few months back, the NRC laid out the following rough timetable:
- July - reports due
- August - completion of ongoing audits
- September (?) - possible decision on shutdowns
- October - industry wide drill
I do not expect, at this time, that the NRC will require any nuclear plants to shutdown. The reason? The existing body of evidence in NRC public domain documents suggests that NRC believes keeping the plants operational and generating power poses less of a risk to public health and safety than shutting down all or selected nuclear plants due to Y2k concerns.
My opinion: I don't think that analyzing the risk to public health and safety due to degraded regional generating capacity is their call to make. NRC's primary mission is (supposedly) to ensure that the plants are safely operated. It is most assuredly NOT NRC's mission to ensure that a sufficient number of nuclear plants are operating at any given time to supply adequate amounts of electricity to the regional power grid.
-- Anonymous, June 13, 1999
Rick stated:"My opinion: I don't think that analyzing the risk to public health and safety due to degraded regional generating capacity is their call to make. NRC's primary mission is (supposedly) to ensure that the plants are safely operated. It is most assuredly NOT NRC's mission to ensure that a sufficient number of nuclear plants are operating at any given time to supply adequate amounts of electricity to the regional power grid."
But surely...Rick, the NRC decision-makers cannot help but be GREATLY influenced by the latter consideration, as the time draws near! And there are many 'borderline' maybes involved...
I believe it was you who recently made a reference to Chaos Theory or Fuzzy Logic??
We could safely assume that Both (in general applied theory, otherwise known as educated opinion/gut-level-statisticals & intuition) will play a part in all decisions made.
By Everyone, everywhere. (Right?)
-- Anonymous, June 13, 1999
From the NRC's mission statement:Mission
THE mission of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment in the use of nuclear materials in the United States. The NRC's scope of responsibility includes regulation of commercial nuclear power reactors; nonpower research, test, and training reactors; fuel cycle facilities; medical, academic, and industrial uses of nuclear materials; and the transport, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials and waste.
You can find more information on the scope of the NRC's responsibilities and jurisdiciton at:
http://www.nrc.gov/N RC/WHATIS/mission.html
There is nothing in their regulatory purview that provides for NRC oversight of regional power pools and generating capacity in those regions. The NRC has one function in life: "independent" oversight of the safe operation of any civilian nuclear material licensee.
The objective of keeping the lights on must *never* become a motivator (primary, secondary, or even tertiary) in their decision making processes.
-- Anonymous, June 13, 1999
Alright, thanks guys :)
-- Anonymous, June 14, 1999
Update!As if to confirm my earlier concerns, the NRC today issued SECY-99-135, "INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY REGARDING ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS DURING THE YEAR 2000 TRANSITION".
Roughly translated:
"Gentlemen, keep your engines running."
Unless there is a significant hue and cry from the general public during the comment period, this "mindset" will go into effect. As soon as I learn the publication date in the Federal Register, I'll alert everyone.
Again, as I previously stated in a response on this thread, the objective of keeping the lights on must *never* become a motivator (primary, secondary, or even tertiary) in the NRC's decision making processes. And by issuance of this SECY, it appears as if they are even going one step further - in some cases (say, in the event of communications problems) NRC is abdicating this authority to the industry itself.
Nuclear industry folks: whatever happened to conservative operating philosophies??? A regulatory mindset such as described in SECY 99-135 would have never seen the light of day 10 years ago when I was working L&R (licensing and regulation) in the industry. Has NEI developed into *that strong* of a lobbying entity?
Stay tuned. I'm sure that there's much more to follow on this issue.
-- Anonymous, June 14, 1999
Rick,I have felt for a long time that the decision to operate a nuclear plant would ultimately come from the highest political or military level. IF, we are to look at Y2k as a super serious situation, as apparently the powers that be are, behind the publicity curtain, then some very risky decisions will be made. If Y2k is being looked at as a potential societal disaster, risks that would be unacceptable in current times, will be taken routinely. Such is *war.* IMHO
-- Anonymous, June 14, 1999
This doesn't appear to be behind the curtain at all. Neither does the 5700 MW in capacity additions scheduled to come on line by this fall. Seems to me that the industry, although highly confident, is scared off it's ass to be taking drastic steps like this.Allowing Nukes to violate is about as scary as it gets for me. This sucks. I plan to make a lot of noise during the interim period.
-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999
Jim,Sometimes I like to do the Detective Columbo bit, though I'm nowhere near as good at it as Bonnie is. However, look at the explanation given by CL on a previous thread. That they are just making astute business decisions based on deregulation and increased demand. OK. Does that sound like our ancient dinosaur, monopoly protected, electric utility industry to you? I mean, that would be super duper, entrepreneur, think ahead, no moss under *our* feet management. Same way that AT&T behaved when they were facing deregulation. Right? Sure. But, what if (behind the curtain) they were being told to get ALL available generating units ready to go, whether that be coal, fuel oil, or whatever, and do it Right Now. By this fall. All of you. I think Colombo could smell something there beyond what was being said. He might even ask "What's the big need coming up this fall?" That sort of thing. Sometimes, the truth is hiding in plain sight, right before your eyes. Of course, maybe I'm all wet and CL has the simple answer.
-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999
"...to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety..."Unfortunately, many people in the northern hemisphere in January, will freeze to death without adequate generation of electricity. Perhaps Rick Cowles, who lives in Florida, has a different opinion on this matter, but I suspect those who live in Minnesota would disagree with him.
Freezing to death represents a serious risk to the public health and safety of many Americans.
-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999
Robert, first off:I live in New Jersey. There are times from November through March that I most certainly wish I lived in Florida, however...and yes, it gets pretty darned cold here in the winter time as well (not as cold as Minn., I'm quick to concede).
Second, let's make something clear. If *every* nuke in the vicinity of Minn. was shutdown on Jan. 1, you wouldn't notice a thing. Minn., while in a region that has some degree of dependency on nukes, isn't almost exclusively dependent on nukes as is NJ. So, if everything else is up an running, you have no issues at all.
Now, let's wax philosophical for a moment. Let's say you have a choice (which you don't, but let's pretend anyway).
1. You can significantly reduce the safety margin by following the regulatory path that the NRC seems to be choosing (at the industry's behest) and thereby increase the risk of an operational problem.
2. You leave the current regulatory framework intact (which is there for a reason and has been for nearly 40 years), and do a little advance planning just in case the lights flicker because nukes have to be taken offline for "administrative" reasons, however remote the possiblity.
Which one do you choose? (A rhetorical question, I think...)
What you seem to be advocating is industry convienience over safe operation of nuclear power facilities. Even if (and it ain't gonna happen anyway) EVERY nuclear plant was taken offline prior to Y2k, if the industry has the reserve margins that are being claimed, and everything else is "Y2K OK", you have no worries.
So I don't see what the issue is. Keep the existing regulatory framework intact. If a nuclear facility can not demonstrate and certify Y2k readiness prior to (pick a date), it shuts down voluntarily or the NRC shuts it down. If the proposed guidance is allowed to stand, it effectively negates most of the incentive for any plant to certify readiness. Certifying readiness is, for all intents and purposes, making the plant managers accountable for the readiness of their facilities. The industry, through it's lobbying groups, is trying to duck that accountability.
Also, I'd love to see the lawyers swarm on this one if indeed there were a problem at any nuclear plant as a result of Y2k, and the plant was kept operational because of this regulatory relief (and abdication of responsibility) being offered by the federal government.
Now, there ya go, Robert. You got me started. ;-)
And finally, I state once again, and will do so every time from now until the end of the year when this subject comes up:
THE mission of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment in the use of nuclear materials in the United States.There is nothing in their regulatory purview that provides for NRC oversight of regional power pools and generating capacity in those regions. The NRC has one function in life: "independent" oversight of the safe operation of any civilian nuclear material licensee.
The objective of keeping the lights (or heat, or hot tubs, or hairdryers) on must *never* become a motivator (primary, secondary, or even tertiary) in their decision making processes.
-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999
Oh, and I forgot one thing.They want to issue this regulatory relief in the interest of "grid stability". Good God, there are reams of documentation on the NRC website regarding commission concerns in operating a nuclear plant in the prescence of grid stability problems.
Why in God's name would they want to allow the operation of a nuclear plant austensibly to maintain or recover grid stability??
Are the inmates running the asylum? Maybe I'm just dense, and *I'm* missing the big picture.
-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999
Rick,Dense you are not. But you may have that "whiff of smoke" sensitivity. Please do repeat some of these simple ground rules from time to time. The NRC taking on responsibility of the grid is kind of like Greenspan taking on resposibility for the stock market. Shouldn't be like that, but, there are those pesky interconnections of the infrastructure. Interesting times, as the Chinese say.
-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999
Nuke plants will not shut down. The people have spoken, or rather, not spoken. They have been bullywacked by another great media hoax. Namely: The Atom is Your Friend. Don't expect any last minute storming of the nuclear Bastiel. Nuke power flows from corprate weapons research. This industry is firmly rooted in the soil of Hades. Any and all of it's activities are Evil. Expect nothing less. I would suggest: (1) inform your loved ones about the dangers (2) let you Senators and Representatives know your position (3) Move far away (500+ miles)from any nuke plants, waste storage, and nuke processing facilities of any kind. (4) Continue to educate, organize, and agitate from new location! waste storage
-- Anonymous, June 16, 1999
I have been wondering all along if it shouldn't be called The July 1st NRC Shutdown Threat. If so, I expect plants will see through this and continue with business as usual for the most part. Especially when they hear reports like ... no safety systems were found to have Y2K problems... Why bother fixing a non-existent problem?
-- Anonymous, June 16, 1999
After reading the recent NRC documents, what I personally perceive is the crux of the matter can be summed up fairly simply.First, there are many rules and regulations about control and monitoring systems (and lots of other aspects) in the nuclear industry, which would ordinarily necessitate a regulatory shutdown of a plant if even small problems were encountered.
Second, there now seems to be an assessment that in some cases potential Y2K failures which would require a regulatory by-the-book shutdown might not actually mean the plant couldn't still be generating power and the decision about this will be left up to the plant owner-licensee.
Up until now, the NRC position on detailed "nitpicking" regulations (and I've seen this explained in recent Board of Trustees minutes) has always been that they are there to provide a cushion - or a margin, if you will, so that any mistakes, relaxation of or inroads into those rules would be caught BEFORE a licensee reached the point of actually getting down to the level where real safety would be compromised. This is a recognition of the fallibility of human nature, and so the level of regulation was _deliberately_ set at a point so high that mistakes could still be acceptable without risking critical problems. THAT is the underlying philosophy of the NRC regulatory oversight.
Then along comes a little Year 2000 computer problem. It bothers me a great deal that this new "Interim Enforcement Policy" appears to have FEAR as a motivator. If everything were proceeding with Y2K remediation in the electric industry as well as the public has been told it is, then I can't perceive any reason for the NRC to be concerned at all with whether the nukes are online at rollover or not. The fact that they now seem willing to accept a relaxation of their former regulations in order to facilitate ongoing generation can only be explained if there is a fear (either in higher levels of government and/or the NRC) that doing without some nuclear generation would pose a bigger risk to the nation than relaxing regulations would.
The only other motivation I can think of for the NRC to make this move now, is that they are putting some responsibility for Y2K decisions off on the individual licensees and that is also a fear response. (We don't want to make these tough decisions considering what might be at stake.) I would prefer to think that this reasoning is not applicable, because it implies a kind of bureaucratic cowardice, and in any case, they will not be able to shed all responsibility anyway.
So I am left with only two reasons for these actions. Either the NRC or higher levels of government know there are greater risks to the electrical grids than the public is being told OR those same entities have no assurance from the data they have access to, about what's going to happen one way or the other and are trying to cover all the bases. Unfortunately, either of these reasons is counter to the kinds of government reassurances the public is receiving.
I don't like this at all. There's the possibility it may have as much to do with potential telecommunications failures impacting utilities and contacts between the NRC and licensees, but the public has also been reassured about telecom status, too. Whatever, in my opinion, if the government and/or the NRC were as sure of the situation at rollover as they are leading the public to believe they are, there would be no reason for this Interim Policy to have even been conceived of, let alone see the light of day.
-- Anonymous, June 16, 1999
Egan, you are an asshole. The 'public safety' that they have responsibility for is the safety of the PLANTS themselves, most assuredly NOT what happens if the electricity itself is down. Of course there are unsafe conditions without electricity. THAT is NOT the concern of the NRC. They REGULATE the NUCLEAR industry. THEIR safety measures. They have NOTHING whatsoever to do with anything at all outside the industry itself and their INTERNAL safety measures.It is NOT a legitimate concern of theirs as to what happens if they cut off the juice. They are MANDATED to do so if continued operation makes safety questionable regardless of what decreased electricity means to anyone at all. Their ONLY function is to decide whether they can operate safely and NO other concern factors in.
Your equivocation is an obsenity.
-- Anonymous, June 16, 1999