Senate wondering what the NRC is doing...Requests information!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Interesting question:

What are the protocols that the NRC will expect nuclear power plants to follow during the CDC? For example, if 911 services are not available, the NRC has previously required plants to shut down. With today's news that > 50% of national 911 systems are at risk, what will the NRC do? The Senate apparently wants to know specifics from the NRC as well.

Note #4 below: what "minimal safety standards....will be acceptable under the proposed suspension of technical regulations."

Below is a copy of a letter sent to the NRC from Senators Dodd and Bennet. Comments any one??

November 1, 1999

Chairman Greta Joy Dicus US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Honorable Greta Joy Dicus:

We are encouraged by the numerous statements from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that all safety systems at Nuclear Power Plants are Y2K ready. The Committee continues to believe that the electrical grid will be stable and that disruptions from Y2K will be minimal. We are concerned, however, about the lack of public confidence in the nuclear industry's efforts and specific post December 31, 1999 operating regimes.

Recent testimony by GAO indicates that they share our concerns regarding the use of existing contingency plans in the Y2K risk environment. Moreover, although we believe that the on-site inspections by NRC confirmed that NPPs are complying with "acceptable industry Y2K- readiness standards", there are some lingering questions about whether sufficient independent validation has occurred.

Please provide the following information by November 15, 1999:

1. A list of nuclear power plants and how their mission-critical systems were validated as Y2K-ready, categorized according to the following: internal quality assurance, external review, and independent validation and verification. As possible, describe the equivalence and differences in such approaches;

2. Detailed information about voluntary pledges by industry representatives to maintain a 30-45 day supply of emergency diesel generator fuel, and other voluntary measures to reduce the risk of plant failure;

3. A description of the process by which NRC will make a final determination as to which NPP, if any, will be shut-down for safety concerns during the rollover period; and,

4. The minimal safety standards that will be acceptable under the proposed suspension of technical regulations.

Please contact John Stephenson or James Dailey at (202) 224-5224 if you have questions about the above requests. I look forward to your response and thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Senator Robert Bennett, Chairman Senator Christopher Dodd, Vice Chairman

-- Duke 1983 (Duke1983@AOL.com), November 10, 1999

Answers

I've been waiting for SOMEONE to do something about this! The NRC keeps changing the rules, and don't seem to be accountable to anyone. Are they a safety organization, or an industry association anyway.

I'm real interested to see if they respond to the senate in a timely fashion. Why wasn't this in the news, anyway????

-- Hell No (I@wont.glo), November 10, 1999.


It was evident from the resignation of Shirley Jackson, (head of the NRC), effective 6/30/99--when all NPP's were supposed to be either compliant or shut down--that the NPP's *should* have been safely shut down *then*. Surely Shirley (sorry) wanted no part of the decision to continue their operation, and tendered her resignation as a way of saying, "I want no part of this! I won't take responsibility for any meltdowns in January!" Someone above her had greater fear of the NPP shutdowns leading to a widespread grid failure at rollover than they did of potential 'localized' collateral damage. That is, the risk of losing a few thousand here or there. And, come to think of it, they may have made a ruthless but wise decision. Nukes give the US over 20% of its power. Shutting many of them down for non-compliance would virtually guarantee than *any* other grid problems would cause a complete collapse, and then you're not talking about a few thousand here or there, but tens of millions of lives lost. Would you yourself like to make the call? But don't kid yourself about Bennett and Dodd. They're only giving lip-service to their anti-nuke constituencies. "'Hey, we followed through! We demanded answers!"

-- stantheman (heidrich@presys.com), November 10, 1999.

Water shut off -- cooling troubles -- phones out -- 911 out -- electricity questionable --

SHUT THE DAMN NUKES DOWN

-- irratiated (allaha@earthlink.net), November 10, 1999.


Some research material

Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions July 30, 1999

The exercise of enforcement discretion may support a licensee decision to keep the plant in operation, if the licensee has determined that safety will not be unacceptably affected, in order to help maintain electrical grid stability and reliability

August 23, 1999 Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Petition for Rulemaking

NRC amend its regulations to require the shutdown of nuclear facilities that are not compliant with date-sensitive, computer-related issues regarding the Year 2000 (Y2K) issue

August 23, 1999 The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations

The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require that nuclear facilities ensure the availability of backup power sources to power safety systems of reactors and other nuclear facilities in the event of a date-sensitive, computer

August 23, 1999 The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations

The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations to require licensees of operating nuclear power plant facilities to conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise that involves coping with a date-sensitive, computer- related failure

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 10, 1999.


Brian-- Thanks for background that supports my point. The NRC has sold us out on safety regulations. The NIRS petitioned and was denied. But anti-nukes are voters with lobbyists, and Bennett and Dodd go through the motions of listening and demanding answers. I don't know whether we'll have meltdowns here in the US; my guess is that the risk has multiplied but is not unreasonably high (though the stakes are). However, Russia and the Ukraine, even with the generators we are sending them, are IMHO virtually certain to have meltdowns of catastrophic dimensions. Has anyone else reached this conclusion? And is anyone sanguine about France and Japan, both of whom are peppered with NPP's?

-- stantheman (heidrich@presys.com), November 11, 1999.


No one who has done real Y2K engineering would read the NRC audit reports and not shiver. I don't know how anyone can predict failure or nonfailure of NPPs without detailed engineering. What is frightening is the lack of evidence that this detailed engineering is going on. France gets ~90% of its power from NPPs. Luckily for them, "Y2K is an anglophone problem."

-- ng (cantprovidee4mail@none.com), November 11, 1999.

Brian - The NIRS petitions were deliberately and specifically written not to improve safety, but to act on behalf of anti-nuclear activists using your fears to shut the plants down.

Their supposed "fixes" are technically not valid, not warranted, and - even IF they could have been implemented technically - would have decreased plant safety by hurriedly improvising critical safety circuits with "jammed in" temporary systems.

This whole issue is NIRS advertising that has been "pushed" by the media's fears and misunderstanding about nuclear power here in the US and Canada; capitalizing on your otehrwise legitimate concerns about y2k issues.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 11, 1999.


The issue, as I see it, is that the NRC has given relief from standard protocols, but has left the implementation of that relief to the plants themselves.

What the Senate wants to know is what are the standards going to be once relaxed. It's a reasonable question.

Am I missing something here?

-- Duke 1983 (Duke1983@AOL.com), November 11, 1999.


Robert

Actually I have little to do with the Nukes and only posted this as an information source, not a fear driven thing. The responses from the NRC speak for themselves. Really glad still that there are no nukes at my corner of the world though.

Thanks for your input on the Nukes matter last winter, I still have the bookmarks of your explainations of the saftey factors invovled. Very educational.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 11, 1999.


Well, it has hit the mainstream press...finally...But will there be a reaction? Probably not....I'll post comments from someone at the NIRS after this.

Senate Panel Seeks Y2K Nuke Plant Contingency Plans 05:07 a.m. Nov 14, 1999 Eastern By Patrick Connole

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A special Senate committee overseeing Year 2000 preparedness released a letter on Friday which asks nuclear regulators to provide better information on reactor safety and contingency plans before the new year.

The letter, provided to Reuters by staff of Utah Republican Sen. Robert Bennett, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, says the panel was encouraged by statements from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on plant safety, but still had unanswered questions.

``The committee continues to believe that the electrical grid will be stable and that disruptions from Y2K will be minimal, We are concerned, however, about the lack of public confidence in the nuclear industry's efforts and specific post Dec. 31, 1999, operating regimes,'' said the letter, from Bennett to NRC Chairman Greta Joy Dicus.

Y2K refers to the potential problem associated with computers reading the year 2000 as 1900, caused by systems built to read only the last two digits of a given year.

Governments and industry worldwide have worked to correct date sensitive computers to avoid possible malfunctions and system shutdowns when the new year kicks in on Jan. 1, 2000.

The committee letter, which is dated Nov. 1, asked that the NRC answer the following questions by Monday:

+ Provide a list of nuclear power plants and how their mission- critical systems were validated as Y2K-ready.

+ Provide detailed information about voluntary pledges by industry representatives to maintain a 30-45 day supply of emergency diesel generator fuel, and other measures to reduce the risk of plant failure.

+ Give a description of the process by which NRC will make a final determination as to which plants, if any, will be shut down over safety concerns during the year 2000 rollover.

+ List the minimal safety standards that will be acceptable under the proposed suspension of technical regulations.

Earlier this week, the NRC and the nuclear industry announced that all 103 operating U.S. nuclear power plants were fully ready for the Y2K rollover, and pose no safety threat from possible computer glitches.

In July, NRC said all commercial reactors were cleared for safety- related Y2K problems.

A spokesman for the industry trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, said nuclear plants were ready for Y2K.

``The plants have been fully remediated (for any safety related problems) for many months,'' the NEI spokesman said.

Anti-nuclear advocates have scoffed at the 100 percent safe pronouncements, noting a General Accounting Office report in October which doubted the independence of Y2K verification programs for nuclear power plants.

``With only seven weeks until the Y2K rollover the nuclear industry has yet to satisfy the Senate's, the GAO's and the public's fundamental concerns regarding potential devastating mishaps which could even lead to multiple meltdowns after New Year's,'' according to the World Atomic Safe Holiday organization in Bolinas, Calif.

Bennett's letter, co-signed by the vice-chairman of the special panel, Connecticut Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd, said the committee simply wants ``lingering questions'' answered.

Copyright 1999 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication and redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

-- Duke 1983 (Duke1983@AOL.com), November 16, 1999.



Forwarded from Mary Olson of the NIRS:

Don -- Sorry that this got lost in the shuffle. Yes, the letter is authentic. Yes, I am planning to do a press release, though probably won't get to see the NRC reply until the Senate does their own release. The Committee letter was leaked with an intended embargo, but was taken to the press in California by activists. There was a Reuter's story I will forward.

As to the comments written below: I would never ascribe motives to a complex action like resignation. Jackson's retirement was not sudden and certainly contained no hint of manifesto. She served as long or longer than most NRC Chairs.

As for the grid, here are some things to bear in mind when conjecturing (which this individual is doing)

1) nuclear accounts for 19% of US electricity 2) Feds predict only 52% of capacity needed for Jan 1 weekend 3) uranium enrichment is single largest electrical USER -- 1% of total, so take it off line and you get quite a savings! 3) Just because some areas of the country could not take their nukes off line and retain a viable grid (Chicago region and SC) does not justify leaving all other reactors on line...we can reduce total risk by reducing the number of reactors on line 4) taking a reactor off-line does not make the thermal issue (melt down) go away 5) if the transmission of electricity is not possible OR if there are wide fluctuations in the flow, the reactors will AUTOMATICALLY "trip" off- line and stay that way until the grid is restored 6) reactors are not "black-start" -- there has to be power in the grid already for them to come on-line. 7) It is unlikely that taking the reactors off-line for the roll-over itself, even if it resulted in some short-term regional power outages would be the source of a "Y2K failure of the grid" which would imply a Y2K caused disruption of electrical generation or transmission. 8) It is unlikely that power outages caused by a temporary stand-by status for the reactors would result in the scope of damage caused by a major reactor accident such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl (which is possible in the US). Chernobyl was the largest industrial accident in history -- at 10 years the toll was the dissolution of the Soviet Union, 3 Billion in damage and 30,000 dead -- with the latency periods still working on an estimated total deaths due to radiation to be a little over a million (over time). That was one reactor. 9) Closing the reactors in July would have bought about another 10 hours on the count down to reactor core melt...not much compared to the millions of dollars that would have been lost...and the fact that replacement power for the grid is not there...which is why everyone reading this should invest in solar and wind NOW!

-- Duke 1983 (Duke1983@AOL.com), November 16, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ