ML20216G467
| ML20216G467 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1999 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR45908, RULE-PRM-50-66 NUDOCS 9910010061 | |
| Download: ML20216G467 (5) | |
Text
. _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Federal Register / Vel. 64, Ns.162/ Monday, August 23,1999/ Proposed Rules for rata ==kiae (PRM 66) from the NuclearInformation and Resource Service (NIRS). The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations to aquire licaamaan of operating nuclear power plant facilities to conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise that involves coping with a h sitive, computer-related failure resulting from si Year 2000 (Y2K) issue. The petitioner requested that NRC take this action to ensure that lican- of nuclear facilities have developed and canimplement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address potential major system failures that may be caused by a Y2K computer problem.NRCis denying the petition because the Pnmminainn has determined that the actions taken by the licensees to implement systematic and structured Y2K readiness coaHaaaa'y plans for critical Y2K dates in concert with existing minimd emergency response plans and procedures, and NRC's oversight of the licensees' implementation of these Y2K readiness contingency lansprovidereasonable assurance of uste protection to publichealthan safety.
AcoResess: Copies of the ; - tition for rulemaking,the publicco unts received, and the NRC's letters to the petitioners are available for public Inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, NW.
(Iower Imvel), Washington, DC, as well as NRC's rulemakin J
/ruleforum.lln!. gov.g web site at http-POR PURTNER WsPOMIATION CONTACT:
Matthew Chiramal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-4001, telephone 301-415-2645, E-mail address mxcenrc. gov.
suppi.stasNrARY DdPORIAAn0N:
Background
NRC received three related tions for rulemaking (PRM-50-65, 50-66, and PRM-50-67), each dated Dscomber 10,1996, submitted by the NIRS concerning various apsofY2K lasues and nuclear safety. This petition NUCLEAR REOULATORY (PRM-50-66) requested that NRC adopt Coldid18800N regulations that would require facilities
- " " licensed by NRC under10 CFR Part 50 to develop and implement adequate IDochet No. PRbMI6 48) contingency and emergency plans to address potential system failures. The Nuclearinformation and Resource first petition (PRM-50-65) requested Serviom Petition for Raslemeldng Denial that NRC adopt regulations that would AGsNcV: Nuclear Regulatory *luire facilitles licensed by NRC under Commission. 10 CFR Parts 30. 40,50, and 70 to be Acn0N: Petition for rulemaking: denial. Y2K compliant. 'Ibe third petition (PRM-50-67) requested that NRC adopt i summa 4RY:The Nuclear Regulatory regulations that would require facilities I ramminalen (NRC) is denying a petition licensedby NRC under to CFR Parts 50 c a 99 OM1 990823
~
. Poh00han s
Do-u roe ,
p d,
Federal Register /Vol. 64 No.162/ Monday, August 23,1999/ Proposed Rules 45909 and 70 to provide reliable sources of The petitioner considers it prudent to communications entities, may also be backup power. require each licensee to conduct an vulnerable to the Y2K problem if they Because of the nature of these exercise and that each exercise address are not properly assessed, remedied, petitions and the date-specific issues a different asoect r/ the Y2K problem. and tested. Some letters cited numerous they address, the petitioner requested The petitioner aggested that some problems that have occurred in previous that the peutions be addressed on an exercises should test problems initiated emergency planning exercises, expedited schedule. by Y2K-related failures and that others irrespective of the Y2K problem. An On January 25,1999.NRC published should test problems exacerbated by example stated was the Pilgrim exercise o notice of receipt of this petition for Y2K-related failures. The petitioner of December 13,1995,in which the rulemaking in the Federal Register (64 believes that this approach would Boston Edison Company was unable to FR 37911. It was available on the NRC's Provide some familiarity with the communicate to the proper authorities, rulemak.ng website and NRC Public Possible range ofissues that could Other examples cited the occurrence of Document Room. The notice of receipt develop and create an overall industry lost electrical buses. Some letters tf petition for rulemaking invited capability to effectively address communicated the importance of testing interested persons to submit comments Potential Y2K problems, and retesting for every conceivable by February 24,1999. Under the petitioner's su8gested contingency.
The Peuta,on regulation, the licensees would develop Eighteen letters opposed the petition.
exercise scenarios that would be of which 3 were from private citizens.
The petitioner requested that NRC approved by NRC in an expedited 3 were from nuclear associated adopt the following text as a rule: 8 fashion, and NRC would publish and industries, one was from the State of All licensees subject to to CFR Part 50 and distribute mgulatory guides that would Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, Appendix E will conduct a full-scale uthne potential emergency response and 11 were from utilities. The letters emergency plsaning exercise (as normally scenarios and desenbe the scenarios opposing the petition stated that the required under 10 CFR 50.47) during 1999. that were tested and the successful additional emergency planning exercise This exercise shallinclude a component that responses to the problem posed. suggested by the petition is not needed includes failure of one or more computer or The petitioner stated that these to ensure public health and safety.
other digital systems (this is popularly actions would provide reasonable These letters indicated that NRC known as the "Y2K bug") on January 1, 2000, assurance that nuclear power plant analysis and industry testing have or other relevant date. L.icensees that do not licensees have developed and can confirmed that safety systems will conduct. or that fall, this exercise shall close implement adequate contingency and function to shut down a reactor if
" by emergency plans to address major mb , 99,un t th, required, that licensees and NRC are licensees have conducted a successful system failures that may be caused by developing contingency plans for key exercise, me Y2K problem. Y2K rollover dates, and that these F. C shall publish and ptovide to each Public Comments on the Petition c,ontingency plans will evaluate specific licensee, within 30 days of the date of this nsk factors and, where appropriate, rule, a Regulatory Guide that outlines in response to this petition, NRC provide mitigation strategies to allow potential emergency exercise scenarios. NRC received 64 comment letters, including continued safe operation. These letters shall publish and provide to each licensee, 1 letter signed by 25 citizens from the stated that this effort provides a rational by December 1,1999, a Regulatory Guide that State of Michigan,3 from nuclear review and systematic approach to describes the various scenarios that have associated industries,11 from utilities, issues that could affect the continued been undertaken and the successful (and 13 from private organizations,1 from safe operation of a plant within the unsuccessful) responses to the problems the State ofIllinois Department of conditions ofits license, which the Poud Nuclear Safety, and 35 from private commenters believe is a more effective The petitioner stated that although the citizens. approach for ensuring that plants probability of the occurrence of Y2K. Forty-six letters supported the continue to operate and meet related events that would require petition, of which 13 were from privata commitments.
emergency response and the organizations,32 were from private implementation of contingency plans is citizens, and one which was signed by Reasons for Denial
' unknown,it would fall within the range 25 citizens of the State of Michigan. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47, cf safety matters for which NRC requires Thirty-nine of these 46 letters " Emergency Plans"110 CFR 50.54, emergency planning exercises, communicated a brief statement in " Conditions of L.icenses," paragraphs Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that support of the petition. Seven of the 46 (9),(s), and (t); and Appendix E to 10 addressing Y2K-related problems will letters, of which 3 were from private CFR Part 50, nuclear facilities are require the use of potentially unfamiliar individuals and 4 were from private required to provide emergency response contingency plans, relying on ingenuity organizations, discussed reasons for capabilities that take into account a t3 circumvent failure of essential supporting the petition. variety of circumstances and challenges, communications systems or failure of In some letters, support of the petition to exercise their plans periodically to offsite emergency responders to perform was based on belief that actual develop and maintain key skills of their tasks effectively and coping with emergency response exercises will involved personal, and to identify issues not normally tested during Prwide invaluable information in deficien11es in the emergency plan and emergency exercises. addressing Y2K issues because of the personnel and take appropriate actions complexity of Y2K issues and the lack to correct identified deficiencies. In 81n itioner stated, of experience of licensees of nuclear accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q),
! "Wea liminarybelieve thatdiscuulon, other major the het cycle facilities in responding to such an event, nuclear power reactor licensees are
} facilities should be subject to a similar rule." Others letters stated that all required to follow and maintain in effect
[ However, the petitioner pmvided no supporting emergency plans rely heavily on offsite
" emergency plans that meet the planning
- NIaIN ai s a r le th i e.NltC sources of hel such as olice, fire, and standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the 5 considered only t( specifically requested rule other essentiafs,ervices, but that these requirements of Appendix E to Pazt 50.
lansuase services, as well as critical In part, licensees are required to train
~ ..
l 45910 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No.162/ Monday, August 23,1999/ Proposed Rules '
and test their organization and internal and extemal sources. The Y2K the remaining work to ensure timely associated equipment to ensure that contingency plans are generally built Y2K readiness.
under all conditions and contingencies, upon existing contingency activities NRC considers the guidance in NEI/
such as power outa8es and computer (such as emergency preparedness, NUSMG 98-07, when properly and communication failures, disaster recovery, storm damage implemented, as an acceptable approach appropriate emegency response is restoration, grid restoration, and station for licensees to mitigate and manage available and effective in an emergency. blackout) and plant emergency Y2K-induced events that could occur on To accomplish these requirements, procedures, coupled with the Y2K-critical dates.
licensees conduct numerous exercises consideration that potential Y2K-related As part ofits oversight oflicensee and drills throughout the year. Inherent failures could affect many systems and Y2K program activities, NRC staff l in the nature of emergency response is components. Among the external events audited be contingency planning effort the realization that in an emergency, that are considered for contingency of six lices w facilities. These audits equipment may fall, loss of powbr may planning are- were completed during June 1999.
occur, personnel may not be available, e the loss of emergency plan These audits focused on the licensee's and weather conditions raay cause the equipment and services: pagers, radios, approach to addressing both internal emergency or escalate it. It is typical sirens and meteorology information, and and external Y2K risks to safe plant that,in the development of scenarios for
- the loss of essential services: operation, based on the guidance in exercises and drills, as well as in telephone, microwave, water, satellites, NEI/NUSMG 98-07. The audits at these employee training programs, networks, security, police, and fire- facilities examined in detail back-up l communication links, plant computers, fighting capability. measures the utilities have in place to I and display and monitoring equipment The need for simulated exercises, deal with possible Y2K problems, either are "out of service" or " fall" at development of special procedures, and on site or off site, including problems inappropriate times. The NRC staff Y2K contingency plan specific training with the loss of emergency plan commonly oversees exercises that is considered in the Y2K contingency equipment and services (pagers, radios, include these types of problems and the Pl anning process. Contingency plan sirens, and meteorology), the loss of licensee's staff benefits from having to verification is included in NEI/NUSMG essential services (telephone, work around this training obstacle when 98-07 guidehnes to provide confidence microwave, water, satellites, networks, a particular approach has been blocked. that the plans can be executed as security, police), and the failure of the The NRC staff has observed licensees intended. The contingency planning offsite emergency responders to perform resorting to manual and backup systems efforts, as outlined in NEI/NUSMG 98- their task effectively.
to respond effectively and overcome 07, provide additional training, staffing, Additionally, NRC regional staff these obstacles, and material procurement for reviewed Y2K activities at all operating In terms of the effects of the Y2K occurrences that could happen at any nuclear power plants to verify the status problem, the NRC staff believes that the time but that have a higher probability oflicensee efforts to ensure that all Y2K problem is not unique-it is a of occurring during the critical Y2K- plants will be able to function safely on software error, Although the cause of related dates. Licensees and NRC are January 1,2000, and beyond. The computer and equipment failure may be currently developing contingency plans reviews: (1) verify that all NRC licensees different under Y2K, the result and the for critical Y2K rollover dates. These have implemented Y2K program expected response are the same as contingency plans evaluate specific risk activities; (2) evaluate the progress they situations encountered during many factors and, where appropriate, provide have made to ensure that they are on previous emergency exercises and drills, mitigation strategies to cope with plant- schedule to achieve Y2K readiness; and Therefore, there is no need to require specific effects of the most probable and (3) assess their contingency plans for licensees to conduct additional serious failures that might be initiated addressing Y2K related issues. The exercises to test specifically for or exacerbated by the Y2K problem. regional staffis using guidance prepared potential Y2K failures. On May 11,1998, NRC issued Generic by the NRC Headquarters staff that is In addition to existing emergency Letter (GL) 98-01, " Year 2000 Readiness based on NRC GL 98-01, NEI/NUSMG response plans, licensees of operating of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power 97- 07, and NEl/NUSMG 98-07. These nuclear power plants and Plants."In GL 98-01, NRC requested reviews were completed by July 1999.
decommissioning power plants where that all operating nuclear power plant The offsite components of emergency spent fuelis stored at the plant site are licensees submit written responses preparedness and response, which are preparing and implementing Y2K regarding their facility-specific Y2K the responsibility of States, counties, contingency plans as part of the plant- readiness programs in order to obtain and municipalities, are already utilfr.ed specific Y2K program. Operating confinnation that licensees are by those governmental entities to nuclear power plant specific Y2K addressing the Y2K problem effectively. address a wide range of events (e.g., grid contingency plans are based on the All licensees have responded to GL 98- failures, tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute / 01, stating that they have adopted plant- snowstorms, industrial accidents).
Nuclear Utilities Software Management specific programs that are intended to These events often involve widespread Group NEl/NUSMG 98-07.8 " Nuclear make the plants Y2K ready by July 1, loss of normal capabilities and services Utility Year 2000 Readiness 1999. These programs are patterned on (e.g., loss of electricity and telephone Contingency Planning," dated August industry guidelines (NEl/NUSMG 97- service, blocking of roads) coupled with 1998, which provides a process and a 07," Nuclear Utilities Year 2000 the need for a multi-capability response.
method for preparing and implementing Readiness") that have been found NRC is also working closely with the a facility-specific integrated contingency acceptable by NRC. GL 98-01 also Federal Emergency Management Agency plan that considers specific risks from requests a written response, no later (FEMA) on its plans to conduct Y2K than July 1,1999, confirming that these workshops for the State and local 2NEUNUSMG 96 47 was preceded by NEU facilities are Y2K ready, including radiological emergency preparedness ne ss!.-Nc$tNY7,wYicfre.ent.d. contingency planning. Licensees who community. NRC and nuclear facilities strategy for developing and implementing a nuclear are not Y2K ready by July 1,1999, must licensees will participate in these utility Y2K program. provide a status report and schedule for workshops. NRC is an active member of
1
' 1
- b Federal Register /V:1. 64, No.162/ Monday, August 23,1999/ Proposed Rules 45911 1
the smorgency Services Sector Working For 't he Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission.
Group for Y2K,whichis headed by Andrew I. Bates, raua.in additien,to facilitate a,uo,see,se ,ygascoso,u,sion.
Apesument State efforts to addises the Y2Kissue, alink to State Government IFR Doc. 99-2175t Filed 8-20-99: 8:45 am]
a ,,,, w Year 2000 Web sites has been provided by the NItc. NRC will make every effort to share with the States any Y2K issue that may also a5ect Agr====n* States or Agrooment State IN-Nuts has not explained why the sonroach currently being pursued by
. ifg ua the nuclearIndustry, and NitC does not de mahl=
assurance of emergency N8Ponse during the transition from 1999 to 2000.
In the caos of resenach and training /
test reactors, Hamam of these facilities also have e=e=hlinhad programs to evaluate and correct Y2K deSciencies.
Many research reactors willbe shut down onJanuary 1,2000,as the institutions operating them (e.g.,
universities and laboratories) will be closed for the holiday. Further, these reactors often have passive safety features and low powerlevels, which ensure mini ==I potential o5 site consequaaaas In addition, NitC staf concluded that any assearch reactor in operation on January 1, 2000, could be renduy shut down manually using s ThProcedures and endsting systems,even tf their
-"M systems should experience a Y2K probism.
cm Plant-spectSc industry planning for
- Y2K - - 2 M = whichis built upon existing emergency response plans and procedures requhed by the current anergency ~ , r ngulauens.
- provides a reasonable assurance that adequate protection measures will be
- takenin the event of radiological sensassacy during Y2K critical dates.
a new prescriptive rule as -
in the petition in an area in theindustry action is alrondy .
exceeding the actions that address the
' petitioner's generalissues would be counterproductive to the ongoing Y2K r==di- efforts of the lir==-
Therefore, the additianal full-ecale emergency phmaing enorcise sequested by the NIltS is not to ensure emergency response ties to provide m=hla assurance of -
adequate to public health and to the oc.airrena of Y2K
- For these reasons,the Connaission denies the petition,
.- Dated at Reckvills. Maryland, this 17th day of August,1900.
l l
l 4, '\
Printed on recycled paper I
Federal Recycling Program
. . . . . . . . _ _ __