nrc speaks with forked tongue

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

i believe the nrc does not know of which it speaks. read the what the nrc has to say.

this is from the tmia website:

http://www.tmia.com/Y2K.htm

BBC December 16, 1998 (selected portions)

A task force set up by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says it expects localized power failures in the first hours of the year 2000. The task force has adopted a planning scenario, midway between the hope that everything works as usual and the worst case possibility it has envisaged. That includes widespread loss of communications, a complete loss of the north American power grid, and several major incidents at nuclear power plants.

The planning scenario assumes: localized electrical grid disturbances and power failures, but no major regional or national problems -local or regional telecommunications failures -at least two NRC-licensed facilities will be affected directly or indirectly by a Y2K issue (for example, loss of offsite power) that requires an NRC response

-Y2K issues will affect at least one nuclear power plant outside the US

-unforeseen Y2K issues will place a dozen or more licensees in situations at odds with a license condition or a technical specification.

But even if the power plants themselves are not directly affected, they clearly remain vulnerable to what happens beyond their walls. The NRC says: "The potential for adverse impact on public health and safety results primarily from the fact that an unreliable grid can adversely affect nuclear power plant safety. "Exclusive reliance on emergency power sources increases the overall plant risk from other, possibly Y2K-related problems at the plant." The task force report says it believes the rollover from 31 December next year into the following morning is the crucial time. But it does not think the risk will be confined to that period.

It says problems may not become apparent till much later. The NRC sums up its approach by noting that "because of the nature of the Y2K issue, it is not possible to be 100% certain that all potential problems will be corrected".

now read an excerpt the nrc release of june 14, 1999:

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs Washington, DC 20555 Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234 Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-123 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Monday, June 14, 1999)

NRC PLANS FOR Y2K CONTINGENCIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has developed a contingency plan for dealing with computer problems that could conceivably develop at a licensed nuclear facility at the start off the Year 2000.

Monitoring licensee activities during the Y2K transition. Being prepared to respond to licensees' requests that certain requirements for licensed facilities not be enforced so long as the safety implications are small and using such "enforcement discretion" would help maintain a reliable and stable electrical grid.

now juxtaposing this statement excerpted from the december 16, 1999 task force analysis we find the two statements are diametrically opposed.

The NRC says: "The potential for adverse impact on public health and safety results primarily from the fact that an unreliable grid can adversely affect nuclear power plant safety.

how does this work? the dec 16th statement states that an unreliable grid can adversely affect nuclear power plant safety.

six(6) months later on june 14th we find that we are going to cut the safety regulations at the same nuclear power plants in order to keep the grid stable.

if an unstable electrical grid is hazardous to the operation of the nukes why would we attempt to use those same nukes to attempt to keep the grid stable?

-- Anonymous, June 16, 1999

Answers

Marianne,

Excellent post. This is a real thought provoker. It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it? I get the feeling that the NRC is close to announcing that "desperate times call for desperate measures." What you are highlighting above is a Catch 22 situation, isn't it? If the grid is unstable, that's bad for the nukes, and they should be cooled down, but on the other hand, if they keep the nukes running, maybe they can help keep the grid stable, and things will be OK, unless the grid goes unstable anyway and then the nukes are a threat, not a help, and should be cooled down, except they may need the emergency standby diesel units to cover the cool down period, and the diesels are not 100% reliable, but on the other hand, pulling them off the grid in advance............Catch 22!

-- Anonymous, June 16, 1999


It's comparible to running a race car on ice, you can say it runs just fine until you hit the brakes or try to turn.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

scott.

that is a great analogy...

i had to read it twice before i understood but then the 'light' came on.

yes, that is precisely what worries me about the nukes.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ