From the TB2000 forum:

NRC Issues Interim Enforcement Policy On Y2K

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Answers

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs Washington DC 20555 Telephone: 301/415-8200 E-Mail: opa@nrc.gov

News Release Index | News and Information | NRC Home | E-mail

No. 99-153 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Thursday, July 22, 1999)

NRC ISSUES INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON Y2K text: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved issuance of an interim enforcement policy that allows the use of "enforcement discretion" under certain circumstances for nuclear power plants during Y2K transition periods.

well, isn't this just ducky... allowing the fox into the chicken coup.

"enforcement discretion" doesn't that sound innocuous... i wonder how much they pay the guy that comes up with these euphemisms for allowing the licensees full sway with decisions critical to our well being?

text: The interim policy describes the process for utilities seeking exercise of "enforcement discretion" from the NRC would allow a plant to continue operation during primarily the December 31 - January 1 transition. This process without being in compliance with its license conditions, only if there is a minimal potential impact on safety while continued plant operation is considered necessary to help maintain a reliable and stable electrical grid. The interim policy builds on the agency's existing policy on exercise of enforcement discretion to consider the unique aspects associated with the Y2K transition.

let's look at this statement first:

text: "would allow a plant to continue operation during primarily the December 31 - January 1 transition. This process without being in compliance with its license conditions, only if there is a minimal potential impact on safety"

now i thought that this, initially, meant that if something were to go awry at an already y2k 'ready' plant there would be a certain amount of slack regarding the normal regulations binding their activities.

now i am not so sure... does this mean that they do not have to achieve y2k 'readiness' to begin with? the phrasing is very nebulous, perhaps, purposefully so. and then, in the event they go into the rollover in a non y2k 'ready' state are they allowed to deviate even further?

now the next:

text: This process without being in compliance with its license conditions, only if there is a minimal potential impact on safety

now what are the guidelines? and to whom is ascribed the authority to determine what is a "minimal" potential impact on safety? and do all those that decide have they same 'rigid' standards? are there any 'cowboys' among the decision makers?

and this:

text: The interim policy builds on the agency's existing policy on exercise of enforcement discretion to consider the unique aspects associated with the Y2K transition.

ah, yes... the "unique" aspects associated with y2k. so unique no one knows what will happen. so not only do we allow the damn things to remain online, now, we allow them to operate in a much less safer fashion than they were required to before the "unique" aspects.

text: Enforcement discretion will only be exercised if the NRC is satisfied that the action is consistent with protecting public health and safety and is warranted in the circumstances presented by the utility.

this really cracks me up... first they are keeping the nukes up in a potentially unstable environment in order to keep the grid stable and while this travesty unfolds they are relaxing safety standards in an already shaky environment.

who the hell is running this popsicle stand ?

text: Prior communication with NRC and approval to exercise enforcement discretion to allow continued plant operation in certain circumstances are required. Without this approval utilities are expected to take actions in conformance with their license requirements and applicable regulations. A communications loss between nuclear power plants and the NRC is unlikely given the communications contingency plans developed. However, if established communication channels are lost, utilities could use the satellite telephone that NRC resident inspectors will have at each plant site to contact the agency and obtain approval for enforcement discretion, if necessary.

loss of communication unlikely!!!

these people are most assuredly deluded and dangerously so.

who the hell are they kidding? the landlines are in trouble. think about it!! satellite telephones... anyone want to guess about the state of the gps?

i have been made privy to an article that attests to the nonreadiness of the gps system and the dependence of the telecommunications system on same... this includes the satellite phones.

i wonder if anyone ever told 'them' about the inability of satellite phones to operate in certain densely shielded areas... even in the best of times.

aren't nuclear power plants densely shielded?

the government is making contingency plans based on hope... hope that the gps will function properly, and the nrc is tying our lives and the safety of our communities into that same hope.

anyone that believes that the nuclear power plants should not be taken down for the rollover is living in the land of fantasy. anyone that accuses those who are concerned about this issue require some serious psychoanalysis.

we cannot just sit idly by while they play games with our lives. the shabby logistics and shaky base on which they lay their plans will kill us all before this fiasco is over.

text: All nuclear plants are expected to be Y2K ready prior to December 31. The interim enforcement policy is part of interim policy was announced in a June 14 NRC's contingency planning for Y2K. A request for comments on the press release. As part of NRC's Y2K contingency planning, the on the press release.

and this is 'the plan'

text: As part of NRC's Y2K contingency planning, the agency will have staff available at its Operations Center December 31 to respond to Y2K issues and requests for enforcement discretion.

hello... hello... is anybody there? hello...

The interim policy applies to three Y2K transition or rollover periods: December 31, 1999 through January 3, 2000; February 28, 2000 through March 1, 2000; and December 30, 2000 through January 1, 2001.

The full text of the interim policy will be published shortly in the Federal Register and will be available in theNRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC. It will also be available on NRC's Y2K website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NEWS/year2000.html.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Shouldn't the consideration "minimal potential impact on safety" be, rather, "no potential impact on safety"?

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

At least the GAO is doing their job. What is the NRC supposed to do again?

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

You should've seen the email I sent them. I told them that IF there are massive deaths and radiation poisonings from their "interim policy" of non-enforcement, that they should be tried for crimes against humanity, and ROT in prison for the rest of their lives.

Damn bureaucrats. Why not just DISBAND the NRC? They're just a Federal NERC now, aren't they?

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Question for Lane or Whoever might know: Is there some (please, ANY?) board of directors, or person, or even an outside warm body to whom this group must report? Or, are they allowed to make a decision and just have it go forth and be the rule for the way in which the nukes are operated? This reminds me of the way the "safe sex" campaign to prevent AIDS was run. A group of epidemiologists who promoted the safe-sex program was in a room all together, discussing how great a program this was. "Yes, condoms will prevent the spread of AIDS." Somebody asked them,"O.K., how many of you are going to go home to your daughters and tell them that by using a condom, they will be safe from the disease?" (The failure rate in highly-motivated people is approximately 13% per year). Not a single epidemiologist raised his/her hand. We're in trouble, folks.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

I have attempted to follow the various agency Y2K enforcement policies that have been proliferating. I consider EPA's policy to be the standard: http://es.epa.gov/oeca/eptdd/ocy2k.html The intent was to promote remediation, testing and contingency planning in advance of the rollover by offering to waive penalties for insignificant violations that occurred during testing. The Dept. of Transportation followed suit last month for pipeline facilities.

Back in January, EPA was mulling amendments to its original policy. Someone on the Yourdon forum posted a link to minutes from one of Koskinen's meetings. I had extracted the following excerpts regarding the EPA, which indicates that Koskinen was encouraging the EPA and NRC to standardize their approaches. While the upcoming NRC interim policy seems to have a slightly different emphasis, I think it may have a similar origin:

From http://www.y2k.gov/ PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON YEAR 2000 CONVERSION Meeting Minutes January 14, 1999 (excerpt)

"REGULATORY CHALLENGES

Al Pesachowitz, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), discussed EPA's Y2K enforcement policy, which is available on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/year2000/finapol.htm. The policy states that EPA will waive 100 percent of the civil penalties that might otherwise apply, and recommend against criminal prosecution, for environmental violations caused by specific tests to identify and eliminate Y2K-related malfunctions. The policy is limited to testing-related violations disclosed to EPA by February 1, 2000, and it is subject to certain conditions.

Al Pesachowitz said that because many EPA programs are delegated to the states, convincing the states to accept the Federal policy is an issue. Some have expressed concern about the testing of equipment because opening equipment may void warranties. Additionally, some people are reluctant to share information because they fear the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act does not afford adequate protection.

Frank Miraglia noted that the NRC has mechanisms for granting enforcement discretion, which may be used to handle Y2K issues. Specifically, he cited a regulation that allows operators to deviate from their license if acting to protect public health and safety. The NRC recently released its Y2K contingency plan for review and comment. A copy of the plan was included in the meeting package.

The Chair observed that in the normal enforcement process, certain standards must be met to avoid fines and/or closure. In the event of Y2K disruptions, however, it may be important for functions to continue. Al Pesachowitz noted that EPA laws include enforcement discretion. The key is demonstrating due diligence with action to protect public health and safety. The Chair suggested that the EPA and NRC share the results of their public comment periods on the new regulations. He noted the importance of establishing a common approach to enforcement. Robert Colby, Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), emphasized developing a consistent schedule for enforcement..."

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

brooks,

read the last part of my post above[posted again below.] i don't care what platitudes issue forth from the government agencies that feel the need to issue 'soothing statement to the masses.'

does this assuage any apprehensions on the part of those concerned? au contraire, it heightens 'concern.'

they are basing all of their contingency and backup scenarios on a system, that in all probability, will fail. 'they' is not only the nrc but the entire federal government.

think about what is being said. "don't worry... if the landlines go down, and communication is impaired, we may still communicate via the satellites."

this communication is imperative in order to allow the 'licensees' to request permission to deviate from the normal regulations and restrictions that have been instituted for our protection, in other words, to obviate safety regulations.

in addition, as if that were not bad enough, the communication is also necessary in the event that a nuke gets in trouble and requires the assistance of the nrc.[see below]

text: As part of NRC's Y2K contingency planning, the agency will have staff available at its Operations Center December31 to respond to Y2K issues and requests for enforcement discretion.

when tmi lost control of the reactor the nrc responded 'because' the operators were exacerbating a situation that was already out of contol and degenerating rapidly.

now here we are in a "unique" situation due to y2k, with solar flares, deregulation, possible terrorist intrusions and who knows what else, and what is the government and the nrc in particular doing to protect us?

devising strategies and contingency plans around a communication system, that in all likelihood, will fail to perform.

previous post in this thread:

text: Prior communication with NRC and approval to exercise "enforcement discretion" to allow continued plant operation in certain circumstances are required. Without this approval utilities are expected to take actions in conformance with their license requirement and applicable regulations.

A communications loss between nuclear power plants and the NRC is ***unlikely*** given the communications contingency plans developed. However, if established communication channels are lost, utilities could use the satellite telephone that NRC resident inspectors will have at each plant site to contact the agency and obtain approval for enforcement discretion, if necessary.

loss of communication unlikely!!!

these people are most assuredly deluded and dangerously so.

who the hell are they kidding? the landlines are in trouble. think about it!! satellite telephones... anyone want to guess about the state of the gps?

i have been made privy to an article that attests to the nonreadiness of the gps system and the dependence of the telecommunications system on same... this includes the satellite phones.

i wonder if anyone ever told 'them' about the inability of satellite phones to operate in certain densely shielded areas... even in the best of times.

aren't nuclear power plants densely shielded?

the government is making contingency plans based on hope... hope that the gps will function properly, and the nrc is tying our lives and the safety of our communities into that same hope.

anyone that believes that the nuclear power plants should not be taken down for the rollover is living in the land of fantasy. anyone that accuses those who are concerned about this issue require some serious psychoanalysis.

we cannot just sit idly by while they play games with our lives. the shabby logistics and shaky base on which they lay their plans will kill us all before this fiasco is over.

text: All nuclear plants are expected to be Y2K ready prior to December 31. The interimenforcement policy is part of interim policy was announced in a June 14 NRC's contingency planning for Y2K. A request for comments on the press release. As part of NRC's Y2K contingency planning, the on the press release.

and this is 'the plan'

text: As part of NRC's Y2K contingency planning, the agency will have staff available at its Operations Center December 31 to respond to Y2K issues and requests for enforcement discretion.

hello... hello... is anybody there? hello...

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

Marianne, Maybe the best thing that could happen for the sake of the nukes would be for the gps system to take a hard fall in August during the rollover. Maybe that would jolt the NRC people into realizing that they're not as infallible as they think.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

marianne: This is about Y2K, right? Why exactly do you think that telecommunications will fail? To what article are you 'privy' regarding GPS.

If individual plants cannot communicate with the NRC and request permission to deviate from technical specifications, won't they have to shut down? Wouldn't that make you happy?

What exactly does the NRC do for the plant in an emergency situation? Do they push buttons? Give advice? Get in the way?

Densely shielded? I guess we would have to run a compliant cable to the antenna on the roof...

I hardly think this situation is unique because of terrorists (they've been around for years now), solar flares (what problems were there with nuke plants during the last big solar flare problem), dereg (still in its infancy), planetary alignment, Mayan indian calendar fluctuations, or magic crystal power. Y2K problems at nuclear plants will range from non-existant to manageable. That is my informed opinion.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 1999