ML23156A071
| ML23156A071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/25/1999 |
| From: | NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PRM-050-065, 64FR03790 | |
| Download: ML23156A071 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 01/25/1999 TITLE: PRM-050-065 - 64FR03790 - NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE; RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING CASE
REFERENCE:
PRM-050-065 64FR03790 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
Federal Register Cite No.: PR/PRM No.: Federal Register Publication Date: Issue No. 64FR3790 PRM-50-65 01/25/99 15 Comment Period Expires: 02/24/99 Comment Period Extended: Final Rule Date: Contact Person(s): Mail Stop(s): Telephone Extension(s): a) David Meyer T-6D59 301-415-7162 bl Carol Gallagher T-6D59 301-415-5905. c) Matthew Chiramal O-9D4 301-415-2845 Comments Entered Comments Acknowledged in Database Distributed Index Printed Labels Printed (card; e-mail) (No./Date/lnitials) (Date/Initials) (Date/Initials) (Date/Initials)* (Date)
- 70 04/29/99 ATB #70 04/29/99 ATB 04/29/99 ATB 05/04/99 ATB 05/04/99 FRN - Petition for FRN - Petition for 08/25/99 ATB Rulemaking; Denial Rulemaking; Denial 08/25/99 ATB 08/25/99 ATB FOLDER OF
Federal Register Cite No.: PR/PRM No.: Federal Register Publication Date: Issue No. 64FR3790 PRM-50-65 01/25/99 15 Comment Period Expires: 02/24/99 Comment Period Extended: Final Rule Date: Contact Person(sl: Mail Stop(sl: Telephone Extension(sl: al David L. Meyer T-6D59 301-415-7162 bl Carol Gallagher T-6D59 301-415-5905 cl Matthew Chiramal O-9D4 301-41 5-2845 Comments Entered Comments Acknowledged in Database Distributed Index Printed Labels Printed (card; e-mail) (No ./Date/Initials) (Date/Initials) (Date/Initials) (Date/Initials) {Date) Ltr fm Michael Mariette Ltr fm Michael Mariette 01/26/99 ATB 01/26/99 ATB 01/26/99* ATB FRN - Petition for FRN - Petition for 01/26/99 ATB Rulemaking Rulemaking 01/26/99 ATB 01/26/99 ATB
- 1-6 01/26/99 ATB #1-6 01 /26/99 ATB 01/26/99 ATB 02/04/99 ATB 02/04/99
- 7 01/29/99 ATB #7 01/29/99 ATB 01/29/99 ATB 02/04/99 ATB 02/04/99
- 8-*1 0 02/02/99 ATB #8-10 01 /02/99 ATB. 02/02/99 ATB 02/04/99 ATB 02/04/99
- 11 02/03/99 ATB #11 02/03/99 ATB 02/02/99 ATB 02/04/99 ATB 02/04/99
- 12-1 3 02/08/99 ATB #12-13 02/08/99 ATB 02/08/99 ATB 02/11 /99 ATB 02/11/99
- 14 02/09/99 ATB #14 02/09/99 ATB 02/09/99 ATB 02/11/99 ATB 02/11 /99
- 15-18 02/10/99 ATB #15-18 02/10/99 ATB 02/10/99 ATB 02/11 /99 ATB 02/11 /99
- 19-22 02/11/99 ATB #19-22 02/11/99 ATB 02/11/99 ATB 02/11/99 ATB 02/11 /99
- 23-25 02/11 /99 ATB #23-25 02/11 /99 ATB 02/11/99 ATB 02/12/99 ATB 02/12/99
- 26-27 02/12/99 ATB #26-27 02/12/99 ATB 02/12/99 ATB 02/18/99 ATB 02/18/99
- 28-34 02/17 /99 ATB #28-34 02/1 7 /99 A TB 02/17/99 ATB 02/18/99 ATB 02/18/99
- 35 02/18/99 ATB #35 02/18/99 ATB 02/18/99 ATB 02/24/99 ATB 02/24/99
- 36-37 02/22/99 ATB #36-37 02/22/99 ATB 02/22/99 ATB 02/24/99* ATB 02/24/99
- 38-45 02/23/99 ATB #38-45 02/23/99 ATB 02/23/99 ATB 02/24/99
- ATB 02/24/99
- 46-47 02/24/99 ATB #46-47 02/24/99 ATB 02/24/99 ATB 02/25/99 ATB 02/25/99
- 48-57 02/25/99 ATB #48-57 02/25/99 ATB 02/25/99 ATB 03/03/99 ATB 03/03/99
- 58 03/02/99 ATB #58 03/02/99 ATB 03/02/99 ATB 03/04/99 ATB 03/04/99
- 59-60 03/03/99 ATB #59-60 03/03/99 ATB 03/03/99 ATB 03/04/99 ATB 03/04/99
- 61-66 03/04/99 ATB #61-66 03/04/99 ATB 03/04/99 ATB 03/12/99 ATB 03/12/99
- 67-68 03/09/99 ATB #67-6803/09/99 ATB 03/09/99 ATB 03/12/99 ATB 03/12/99
- 69 04/15/99 ATB #69 04/15/99 ATB 04/15/99 ATB 04/19/99 ATB 04/19/99 FOLDER_ _OF_ _
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 12/11/1998 12/10/1998 Letter from Michael Mariotte, Executive Director, NIRS, submitting PRM re shutdown of nuclear facilities not compliant with date-sensitive, computer-related issues re Y2K 01/19/1999 01/15/1999 Federal Register Notice - Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Marvin Lewis Self 01/26/1999 12/11/1998
- 2 Nancy Katharine Woods Self 01/26/1999 12/15/1998 3 Steve Haberman Seacoast Anti-Pollution 01/26/1999 12/28/1998 Field Director League I
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number .4 Joy Nelson Self 01/26/1999 01/02/1999 5 Joan King Self 01/26/1999 01/04/1999 6 John M. Laforge Nukewatch - The 01/26/1999 01/13/1999 Co-Director Progressive Foundation 7 Ruth Niswander Self 01/29/1999 12/12/1998 8 Luc Olrich Self 02/02/1999 01/23/1999 2
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number Guy H. Davant Self 02/02/1999 01/26/1999
.9 I
10 Mary J. Feldman Self 02/02/1999 01/28/1999 11 Garland Favorito Self 02/03/1999 01/27/1999
- 12 Jeff Toste Self 02/08/1999 02/02/1999 13 Kay Plummer Self 02/08/1999 02/03/1999 3
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 4 Kyle Rabin Self 02/08/1999 02/04/1999 15 Millee Livingston Self 02/09/1999 02/03/1999 16 Mineux Self 02/10/1999 02/07/1999 17 Christina K. Higgins Self 02/10/1999 02/07/1999 18 Jeffrey Pease South Carolina Electric & 02/10/1999 02/08/1999 Gas Company 4
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 9 Merrill Hodnefield, et al. Self 02/10/1999 02/02/1999 20 Gus Gulson Self 02/10/1999 02/03/1999 21 Suzanne Knutzen Self 02/10/1999 02/06/1999
- 22 Alice Slater President Global Resource Action Center for the 02/10/1999 02/08/1999 Environment 23 Jeff Ottle Self 02/11/1999 02/06/1999 5
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 l FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter o*r Nuclear Information an'd Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 4 Joe Perryman Self 02/11/1999 02/08/1999 25 Nancy Allen Maine Green Piµty 02/11/1999 02/09/1999 Co-Chair, Maine Green Party 26 Mike Wright Self 02/11/1999 02/09/1999
- 27 Tina Daly Self 02/12/1999 02/02/1999 28 Michael Onewing Self 02/16/1999 01/23/1999 6
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number .9 Laura McDonald Self 02/16/1999 02/06/1999 30 David H. Martin Self 02/16/1999 02/10/1999 31 David H. Martin Conservation Council of 02/16/1999 02/10/1999 Board Member North Carolina
- 32 David H. Martin Board Member South River Association 02/16/1999 02/10/1999 33 Carol Jahnkow The Peace Resource 02/16/1999 02/10/1999 Executive Director Center of San Diego 7
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 4 Mary Elizabeth Lampert Massachusetts Citizens 02/16/1999 02/10/1999 for Safe Energy 35 Robin Mills Self 02/18/1999 02/04/1999 36 Sophia Hegner Self 02/19/1999 02/15/1999
- 37 Carol Moore Self 02/19/1999 02/18/1999 38 Duane Knoblauch Self 02/22/1999 02/15/1999 8
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number .9 Jerry Mitchell Self 02/22/1999 02/16/1999 40 Miriam Dyak Self 02/22/1999 02/18/1999 41 Peg Giffels Self 02/22/1999 02/18/1999 42 Richard Berger Self 02/22/1999 02/18/1999 43 Alice Slater Global Resource Action 02/23/1999 02/18/1999 President Center for the Environment 9
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number Self 02/23/1999 02/21/1999 45 Pat S. Griffith Self 02/23/199.9 02/19/1999 46 Mark J. Burzynski Tennessee Valley 02/23/1999 02/19/1999 Authority
- 47 Scott M. Cullen, Esq. STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation) 02/23/1999 02/19/1999 Foundation 48 Amy Callner Self 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 JO
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession .9 Number Submitted by Dooley Kiefer Representing Self Date 02/24/1999
- Date 02/24/1999 Description Number 50 Daniel F. Stenger, Esq. and Nuclear Utility 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 Robert K. Temple, Esq. Backfitting and Reform Group 51 Jay M. Gould Radiation and Public 02/25/1999 02/19/1999 Health Project
- 52 Anna Cicirelli Self 02/25/1999 02/21/1999 53 Loren Olson Self 02/25/1999 02/21/1999 II
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession .4 Number Submitted by Robert Werberig Representing Self Date 02/25/1999 Date 02/20/1999 Description Number 55 Kathy Willowoode Brown Self 02/25/1999 02/20/1999 56 Quinnell Gutwein Self 02/25/1999 02/20/1999 57 James W. Davis Nuclear Energy Institute 02/25/1999 02/24/1999 58 William E. Ide Arizona Public Service 03/01/1999 02/23/1999 Vice President, Nuclear Company Engineering 12
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number I ., Grotci,e, M..,, Self 03/02/1999 02/23/1999 60 C. Lance Terry TU Electric 03/02/1999 02/23/1999 Sr. Vice President and Principal Nuclear Officer 61 Scott D. Portzline Self 03/03/1999 02/23/1999 62 Alan C. Passwater AmerenUE 03/03/1999 02/24/1999 Manager - Corporate Nuclear Services 63 J. J. Holden Florida Power Corporation 03/03/1999 02/24/1999 Director - Site Nuclear Operations 13
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing
- Date Date Description Number 4 L. J. Maas Siemens Power 03/03/1999 02/23/1999 Manager - Regulatory Corporation Compliance 65 Michael R. Kansler Entergy Operations, Inc. 03/04/1999 02/22/1999 Vice President, Operations Support 66 Mark V. McKeown Northern States Power 03/04/1999 02/24/1999 Company 67 Ted C. Feigenbaum North Atlantic Energy 03/08/1999 02/24/1999 Executive Vice President and Service Corporation Chief Nuclear Officer 68 James H. McCarthy Virginia Power 03/09/1999 02/19/1999 Manager - Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support 14
Docket No.: PRM-050-065 10/05/2000 FR Cite: 64FR03790 In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number .9 Dru Saunders _- Self 04/14/1999 03/25/1999 70 Richard A. Del Bago Self 04/28/1999 01/23/1999 08/18/1999 08/17/1999 Federal Register Notice - Petition for rulemaking; Denial 15
DOCKET NUMBER S
. PRM 50 .. fo PE1mON RULE 7.~4fjfj1io)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 *99 /\UG 18 Pl 2 :10 [Docket No. PRM-50-65) Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Petition for Rulemaking Denial AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial. *
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-65) from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). The petitioner requested that 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 .
The petitioner requested that NRC take this action to ensure that Y2K issues will not cause the failure of nuclear safety systems and thereby pose a threat to public health and safety. NRC is denying the petition because the Commission has determined that the actions taken by licensees to implement a systematic and structured facility-specific Y2K readiness program and NRC's oversight of the licensees' implementation of these Y2K readiness programs provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments received, and NRC's letters to the petitioners are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC Public 1>µ/;. rr,, f /~3/99 _a:t fot/FRq590D
! Document Room, 2120'L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC; as well as on NRC's I I. rulemaking website at http://rul_eforum.llnl.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew*Chiramal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-2845, E-mail address <mxc@nrc.gov>, or Gary W. Purdy, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-7897, E-mail address <gwp1@nrc.gov>.
* * *_ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NRC received three related petitions for rulemaking (PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66, and PRM-50-67), each dated December 10, 1998; submitted by NI RS concerning various aspects of Y2K issues and nuclear safety. This petition (PRM-50-65) requested that NRC adopt regulations that
- would require facilities licensed by NRC under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 to be Y2K compliant. The second petition (PRM-50-66) requested that NRC adopt regulations that would require facilities licensed .by NRC under 10 CFR Part 50 to develop and implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address potential system failures. The third petition (PRM- _
50-67) requested that NRC adopt regulations that would require facilities licensed by NRC under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 to provide reliable sources of back-up power. Because of the nature of these petitions and the date-specific issues they address, the petitioner requested that the petitions be addressed on an expedited schedule. 2
On January 25, 1999, NRG published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking in the Federal Register (64 FR 3789). It was available on NRC's rulemaking website and in the NR_C Public Document Room. The notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking invited interested persons to submit comments by February 24, 1999. The Petition The petitioner requested that NRG adopt the following text as a rule:
- "Any and all facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 shall be closed by 12 pm Eastern Standard Time, December 1, 1999, unless and until each facility has: (a) fully and comprehensively examined all computer systems, embedded chips, and other electronic equipment that may be date-sensitive to ensure that all such systems that may be relevant to safety are Y2K compliant; (b) repaired, modified, and/or replaced all such systems that are not found to be Y2K compliant; (c) made available to the public all information related to the examination and repair, modification and/or replacement of all such systems; (d) determined, through full-scale testing, that all repairs, modifications, and/or replacements of all such systems are, in fact, Y2K compliant."
The petitioner noted that in NRG Generic Letter (GL) 98-01, "Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants," dated May 11, 1998, the NRG has recognized the p~tential for date-related problems that may affect a system or application (the Y2K problem). These potential problems include not representing the year properly, not recognizing leap years, 3
';.-- * .I.*.... :.. * ..J' ,,., I.
and improper date*calculations. These problems could result in the inability of computer systems to operate or to function properly. The petitioner stated that the Y2K problem could potentially int~rfere with the proper operation of computer systems, microprocessor-based hardware, and software or databases relied on at nuclear power plants. Further, the petitioner asserted that the Y2K problem could result in a plant trip and subsequent complications in tracking post-shutdown plant status and recovery as a result of a loss of emergency data collection. Additionally, the petitioner is also concerned that power grids providing offsite power to nuclear stations could be affected to the extent that localized and widespread grid failures could occur. The petitioner acknowledged that NRC has recognized the potential safety and environmental problems that could result if date-sensitive electronic systems fail to operate or provide false information. The petitioner_ asserted that NRC has required its licensees of reactor and major fuel cycle facilities to report by July 1, 1999, on their programs to ensure compliance with Y2K issues. In addition, the petitioner asserted that NRC has not made explicit how it will define compliance nor what it plans to do for licensees of facilities that cannot prove compliance. In the petitioner's suggested regulatory text, NIRS defined compliance with Y2K issues as
- evaluation of all potential problems that may be safety-related, repair of all such problems, and full-scale testing of all solutions. The petitioner's proposed regulation would also require full public disclosure of all evaluation, repair, and testing data so that the information may be examined by independent experts and the public. Finally, the petitioner's proposed regulation would make it clear that nuclear facilities will be closed until they can demonstrate full compliance with Y2K issues.
The petitioner concluded by stating that NRC is obligated to act decisively to prot_ect public health and safety and the environment. NIRS stated that anything short of the suggested
- 4
approach in the petition is insufficient to fulfill this obligation and that NRC should adopt the suggested regulation as soon as possible. Public Comments on the Petition
.In response to the petition, NRC received 70 comment letters, including 1 letter signed by 25 individuals from the State of Michigan, 3 letters from industry groups, 10 letters from utilities, 13 letters from private organizations, and 43 letters from private citizens .
- Fifty-four letters supported the petition, 40 of which were from private citizens, 13 were from private organizations, and 1 that was signed by 25 individuals. The comments supporting the petition addressed concerns related to avoiding the occurrence of a catastrophic nuclear accident, the reasonableness of the petitioner's request, and opined that any uncertainty is too great for the nuclear industry.
Sixteen letters opposed the petition, of which 3 were from private citizens, 3 were from associated industries, and 10 were from utilities. The comments opposing the petition stated that the nuclear power industry has taken a coordinated approach to Y2K readiness, nuclear power plant licensees are implementing a structured Y2K program, NRC Y2K initiatives* are underway, NRC staff is monitoring licensee activities, and current regulations and license conditions are adequate to address potential Y2K computer issues. In some of the letters supporting the petition, the authors included the following additional comments that provide information or request action that was not contained in the petition. These comments noted: 5
I *. " ., . 4 : ** *. , \
- 1. The date proposed in the petition, December 1, 1999, to shut down all non-Y2K compliant nuclear power plants should be moved up 1 to 6 months before the year 2000. The reasons given were to allow sufficient time to shut down and to provide additional safety.
- 2. Power grid failure would not allow controlled shutdown of the plant and plants could experience problems like the Russians. The Y2K problem could increase the chance of a core melt.
- 3. The problem of "embedded systems," microchips, microprocessors, and such systems-wi~hin-systems are difficult to identify and the effects of their multip_le failures are poorly understood, especially in the U.S. power grid.
- 4. The audits conducted by NRC staff are too few.
These comments are addressed specifically in the discussion of "Reasons for Denial." Reasons for Denial The NRC is denying the NIRS petition because the NRC has determined that: (1) the actions taken by licensees to implement a systematic and structured facility.:.specific Y2K readiness program; and (2) NRC's oversight of licensees' implementation of these Y2K readiness programs together constitute an effective process .for addressing Y2K issues such that there will continue to be reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety. NIRS has *not presented any information (and no public comments have been received) 6
that demonstrates that: (1) the licensees' activities are fundamentally incapable of effectively addressing Y2K issues in a timely fashion; (2) licensees are not adequately implementing the Y2_K readiness programs; (3) NRC's inspection, audit, and oversight activities are fundamentally incapable of providing adequate regulatory control with respect to licensee implementation of Y2K readiness programs; and (4) the NRC is not effectively implementing its inspection, audit, and oversight activities with respect to Y2K issues. Finally, NIRS has not provided any basis why the NRC's current regulatory approach, which retains the regulatory authority to order licensees to discontinue or modify their licensed activities if the NRC finds that reasonable
- assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety will not be provided because of Y2K issues, will be inadequate in view of the 6-month time period between July 1, 1999, when licensees are required to inform the NRC of the status of their Y2K remediation activities and the December 31, 1999, date, when Y2K-induced problems are mo~t likely to begin occurring.
Parts (a), (b), and (d) of the NIRS proposed rule are addressed below in Sections I, 11, 111, IV, and V for Part 50 operating nuclear power plants, Part 50 non-power reactors, Part 50 decommissioning nuclear power plants, major licensees under Parts 40 and 70, and Part 30 and
- _minor Parts 40 and 70 license~s. respectively. Part (c) of NIRS' proposed rule, concerning public access to Y2K information, is addressed for all types of licensees in Section VI.
I. Part 50 Operating Nuclear Power Plant Licensees A. Industry and NRC Activities Addressing Y2K
- To alert nuclear facility licensees to the Y2K problem, NRC issued Information Notice (IN) 96-70, "Year 2000 Effect on Computer System Software," on December 24, 1996. IN 96-70 7
described the potential problems that nuclear power plant computer systems and software may encounter as a result of the change to the new century and how the Y2K issue may affect NRC li~nsees. IN 96-70 encouraged licensees to examine their uses of computer systems and software well before the year 2000 and suggested that licensees consider appropriate actions for examining and evaluating their computer systems for Y2K vulnerabilities. In 1997, the nuclear industry began to assess the Y2K challenge and work with key Federal agencies to help nuclear power plant operators prepare for continued safe operations at the start of the year 2000. In July 1997, the Nuclear Utilities Software Management Group
- * ._ (NUSMG}, a nuclear industry working ~roup, conducted the first industry-wide workshop on Y2K readiness.
In October 1997, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI} and NUSMG issued a Y2K program plan guidance document, NEI/NUSMG 97-07, "Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness," to all U.S. nuclear power plant licensees. This document provides a step:-by-step method to identify, test, and repair potential Y2K computer problems and contains detailed procedures and checklists for resolving Y2K issues, based on the best utility practices. NEI/NUSMG 97-07 presented a strategy for developing and implementing a nuclear utility Y2K program. The strategy recognizes management, implementation, quality assurance (QA} measures, regulatory considerations, and documentation as the fundamental elements of a successful Y2K project. The document contains examples currently in use by licensees and also recommends that the Y2K program be administered using standard project management techniques. The recommended components for management planning are management awareness, sponsorship, project leadership, project objectives, the project management team, 8
the management plan, project reports, interfaces, resources, oversight, and QA. The suggested phases of implementation are awareness, initial assessment (which includes inventory, ca_tegorization, classification, prioritization, and analysis of initial assessment), detailed assessment (including vendor evaluation, utility-owned or utility-supported software evaluation, interface evaluation, and remedial planning), remediation, Y2K testing and validation, and notification. Y2K testing is used both as an investigative tool to examine systems and components to identify Y2K problems and as a validation tool to confirm that the corrective actions have
- - eliminated the Y2K problem. Y2K testing in support of evaluation efforts to determine whether a Y2K problem is present is performed during detailed assessments. Systems and components will then be repaired or replaced in a process known as "remediation." Y2K testing subsequent to remediation is performed to determine whether the remediation efforts have eliminated the Y2K problem and no unintended functions are introduced. Y2K testing may be performed at several levels:
Unit testing, which focuses on functional and compliance testing of a single application or software module;
- Integration testing, which tests the integration of related software modules and applications; and
- System testing, which tests the hardware and software components of a system.
9
For systems, components, and equipment classified as safety~related or critical to operations, the Y2K remediation activities include Y2K testing. On one end of the spectrum, there are the stand-alone, date-aware, microprocessor-based components that do not communicate digital information to any other devices. Properly performed bench testing of these devices, by the licensee or the vendor, coupled with software/firmware revision-level
~
verification of the field devices as required, is adequate to establish their Y2K status. Repeating this test in the field as part of a plant-wide integrated test will not add any additional benefits related to system Y2K readiness. On the other end of the spectrum, the most highly complex systems, such as distributed control systems, may require in-plant testing of the remediated
- :- system. This testing may include a large portion of the plant equipment. However, even in this case, the maximum bounds of the test would involve the individual system being tested and the other devices and systems with which it communicates digital/date-related information.
NEI/NUSMG 97-07 specifies the QA measures that will apply to the activities in NEI/NUSMG 97-07 that apply primarily to project management and implementation. Documentation of Y2K program activities and results includes documentation requirements,
- project management documentation, vendor documentation, inventory lists, checklists for initial and detailed assessments, and record retention. NEI/NUSMG 97-07 also contains examples of.
various plans and checklists as appendices that may be used or modified to meet the licensee's specific needs and/or requirements. After issuing NEI/NUSMG 97-07, NEI conducted workshops and other means of sharing the experiences on the use of the document. In November 1997, NEI and NUSMG conducted the first in a series of industry-wide workshops on Y2K issues for project managers in charge of ensuring Y2K readiness at all operating nuclear power plants. In December 1997, NEI created 10
- . _. . . .:. '. . ;.__ J ., ., -*
an on-line bulletin board to share technical information and experiences related to testing and repairing computers and equipment. In January 1998, the NRC issued a draft generic letter for_public comment which proposed: (1) that licensees of operating nuclear power plants be required to provide certain information regarding their programs that address the Y2K problem in computer systems at their facilities; and (2) to endorse the guidance in NEI/NUSMG 97-07 as one possible approach in
- implementing a plant-specific Y2K readiness program, if augmented in the area of risk management, contingency planning, and remediation of embedded systems [Federal Register (63 FR 4498)]. In the absence of adverse comment on the adequacy of the guidance in NEI/NUSMG 97-07, the NRC issued GL 98-01 on May 11, 1998 [Federal Register (63 FR 27607)]. In August 1998, NEI issued an industry document, NEI/NUSMG 98-07, "Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness Contingency Planning," that provided additional guidance for establishing a plant-specific contingency planning process. NEI/NUSMG 98-07 addressed management controls, preparation of individual contingency plans, and development of an integrated) contingency plan that allows the licensee to manage internal and external risks associated with
- Y2K-induced events. External events that should be considered for facility-specific contingency planning include electri~ grid/transmission/distribution system events, such as loss of off-site power, grid instability and voltage fluctuations, load fluctuations and loss of grid control systems; loss of emergency plan equipment and services; loss of essential services; and depletion of consumables. NRC considers the guidance in NEI/NUSMG 98-07, when properly implemented, as an acceptable approach for licensees to mitigate and manage Y2K-induced events that could occur on Y2K-critical dates. In GL 98-01, NRC required all operating nuclear power plant licensees to sub.mit written responses regarding their facility-specific Y2K readiness program in order to confirm that they are addressing the Y2K problem effectively. All licensees 11
*a
*** ~- a.' *w~f*
* **
- t ,i , * ,
have responded to GL 98-01, stating that they have adopted a plant-specific Y2K readiness program based on the guidance of NEI/NUSMG 97-07, and the scope of the program includes jdentifying and, where appropriate, remediating, embedded systems, and provides for risk management and the development of contingency plans. GL 98-01 1 also requests a written response, no later than July 1, 1999, confirming that these facilities are Y2K ready with regard to compliance with the terms and conditions of their license and NRC regulations. Licensees that are not Y2K ready by July 1, 1999, must provide a . status report and schedule for the remaining work to ensure timely Y2K readiness. By July 1, 1999, all licensees responded to GL 98-01, Supplement 1. The responses indicated that 68 plants are Y2K ready and 35 plants need to complete work on a few non-safety computer systems or devices after July 1, 1999 to be Y2K ready. As part of its oversight of licensee Y2K activities, NRC staff conducted sample audits of 12 plant-specific Y2K readiness programs. The objectives of the audits were to -
- Assess the effectiveness of licensees' programs for achieving Y2K readiness and in addressing compliance with the terms and conditions of their license and NRC regulations and continued safe operation.
1 On January 14, 1999, NRC issued GL 98-01, Supplement 1, "Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants," which provided licensees with a voluntary alternate response to that required by G_L 98-01. -The alternate response, also due by July 1, 1999, should provide information on the overall Y2K readiness of the plant, including those systems necessary for continued plant operation that are not covered by the terms and conditions of the license and NRC regulations. 12
- Evaluate program implementation activities to ensure that licensees are on schedule to achieve Y2K readiness in accordance with GL 98-01 guidelines.
- Assess licensees' contingency planning for addressing risks associated with events resulting from Y2K problems.
The NRC determined that this approach was an appropriate means of oversight of Jicensee Y2K readiness efforts because: (1) all licensees had committed to the nuclear power industry Y2K readiness guidance (NEI/NUSMG 97-07) in their first response to NRC GL 98-01;
- * . - and (2) the audit would verify that licensees were effectively implementing the guidelines. The audit sample of 12 licensees included large utilities such as Commonwealth Edison and Tennessee Valley Authority as well as small single-unit licensees such as North Atlantic Energy (Seabrook) and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation. The NRC staff selected a variety of types of plants of different ages and locations in this sample in order to obtain the necessary assurance that nuclear power industry Y2K readiness programs are being effectively implemented and that licensees are on schedule to meet the readiness target date of July 1,
- 1999, established in GL 98-01. Also, NRC staff had not identified any Y2K problems in safety-related actuation systems as part of its audit activities.
In late January 1999, the NRC staff completed the 12 audits. At the conclusion of the audits, the NRC staff had the following observations:
- Plant-specific Y2K projects based on NEI/NUSMG 97-07 began in mid to late 1997. Use of NEI/NUSMG 97-07 guidance results in an effective, structured program. The programs are generally on schedule for plants to be Y2K ready by 13
July 1, 1999. However, at some plants the licensees have scheduled some remediation, testing, and final certification for the fall 1;999 outage. *
- Management oversight is vital for program effectiveness.
- Sharing information through owners groups, utility alliances, the Electric Power Research Institute, and NEI is aiding the overall nuclear industry effort.
- Independent audits and peer reviews of programs are very useful.
- Safety system functions are usually not affected. There is limited computer use in safety-related systems and components.
- Failures identified in embedded devices have generally not affected the functions performed but have led to errors such as incorrect dates in printouts, logs, or displays .
- Central control of Y2K program activities, effective QA (including the use of existing plant procedures and controls), and independent peer reviews promote consistency across activities and improve the program.
On the basis of these audit observations, the NRC staff concluded that the audited licensees are effectively addressing Y2K issues and are undertaking the actions necessary to achieve Y2K readiness in accordance with the GL 98-01 target date, although some plants will have some remediation, testing, and final certification scheduled for the fall 1999 outage. The 14
NRC staff did not identify any issues that would prevent these licensees from achieving Y2K readiness. Licensee Y2K contingency planning efforts had not progress_ed far enough during the original 12 audits for a complete NRC staff review of the adequacy of implementation of the Y2K activities. Therefore, the NRC staff audited the contingency planning efforts of six licensees different from the 12 included in the initial sample Y2K readiness audits. These audits focused on the licensee's approach to addressing both internal and external Y2K risks to safe plant operations based on the guidance in NEI/NUSMG 98-07. These audits were completed in June
- - * - 1999.
In addition to NRC staff activities addressed above, NRC regional staff reviewed plant-specific Y2K program implementation activities at all operating nuclear power plants. The regional staff used guidance prepared by NRC Headquarters staff, which conducted the 12 sample audits. These reviews were completed by July 1999. One of the public comments received by NRC in response to the petition indicated that the audits conducted by NRC staff are
- too few..On the basis of the information above, the NRC staff has reviewed the Y2K programs at all operating nuclear power plants, thereby addressing this comment.
NRC staff will continue its oversight of Y2K issues at nuclear power plants through the remainder of 1999. On the basis of the reviews of the licensee responses to GL 98.-01; Supplement 1, findings of the additional audits and reviews, and any additional information, NRC will, by September 1999, determine the need for issuing orders to address Y2K readiness issues, including, if warranted, shutdown of a plant. At this time,. NRC believes that all licensees 15
will be able to operate their plants safely during the transition from 1999 to 2000 and does. not believe that significant plant-specific action directed by NRC Is likely to be needed. As discussed above, GL 98-01 set a date of July 1, 1999, for licensees to submit information on their efforts to complete their plant-specific Y2K program. The July 1, 1999, date was selected to ensure that there would be adequate time for the Commission to determine what additional regulatory action, if any, would be necessary to ensure that Y2K problems will not threaten adequate protection to public health and safety. Licensees of plants with a .- projected completion date by September 30, 1999, will be monitored to ensure that the schedules are maintained. Completion of plant-specific items identified by licensees in the generic letter responses will be documented in routine NRC inspection reports. The licensees of the plants that are scheduled to be Y2K ready after September 30 will receive additional scrutiny on a case-by-case basis to ensure that no Y2K deficiencies remain. If, by September 30, 1999, it appears that Y2K readiness activities will not be completed by December 31, 1999 transition such that ther~ is sufficient assurance that all license conditions and relevant NRC regulations 2 are met, the NRC will take appropriate regulatory action, ,including the issuance of orders requiring specific actions, if warranted . 2 These regulations are -
- 10 CFR 50.36, "Technical Specifications," paragraph (c)(3), "Surveillance requirements," and paragraph (c)(5), "Administrative controls."
- 10 CFR 50.47, "Emergency Plans," paragraph (b)(8).
- Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Criterion Ill, "Design Control," and Criterion XVII, "Quality Assurance Records."
- Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, Section VI, "Emergency Response Data System."
- Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, General Design Criterion (GDC) 13, "Instrumentation and Control"; GDC 19, "Control Room";* and GDC 23, "Protection System Failure Modes."
16
NIRS presents no information or argument why these above actions by the licensees and the inspection, auditing, and oversight activities of the NRC are insufficient to address Y2K problems, such that actions required in NIRS' proposed rule are necessary. B. The Need for Y2K "Compliance," as Opposed to "Readiness" NIRS' proposed rule would require that nuclear power plants be shut down by December 1, 1999, unless licensees demonstrate that Y2K compliance has been achieved. However, NIRS has not explained why "Y2K compliance," as opposed to "Y2K readiness," is necessary.
"Y2K compliant" is generally understood as referring to computer systems or applications that accurately process date/time data (including but not limited to calculating, comparing, and sequencing) from, into, and between the 20th and 21st centuries, the years 1999 and 2000, and .. leap-year calculations. "Y2K ready" is generally understood as referring to a computer system or application that has been determined to be suitable for continued use into the year 2000 even "though the computer system or application is not fully Y2K compliant. For "Y2K ready" systems, licensees may have to rely upon work arounds and other activities to ensure that the systems,
- components, and equipment function as intended. Prudence might lead to Y2K compliance as an objective for remedial activities in order to reduce licensee costs of implementing workarounds and other activities in the interim until full Y2K compliance is achieved. However, protection of public health and safety does not necessitate establishment of Y2K compliance as a regulatory requirement, and failure to achieve compliance should not require plant shutdown, so long as Y2K readiness is achieved. Accordingly, the NRC does not believe that a rule that requires Y2K compliance, or Y2K readiness, is appropriate or necessary for ensuring reasonable assurance of adequate protection at nuclear power plants after December 1, 1999.
17*
C. Limited Susceptibility of Nuclear Power Plant Systems to Y2K Problems NRC audits and reviews indicate that most nuclear power plant systems necessary for shutting down the reactor and maintaining it in a safe shutdown condition are not susceptible to Y2K problems. The majority of commercial nuclear power plants have protection systems that are analog rather than digital. Because Y2K concerns are associated with digital systems, analog reactor protection system functions are not affected by the Y2K issue. Errors such as incorrect dates in printouts, logs, or displays have been identified by licensees in safety-related devices, but the errors do not affect the functions performed by the devices or systems. Most
- - Y2K issues are in balance-of-plant and other systems that have no direct functions necessary for safe operation of the reactor.
With respect to safety systems using digital electronics that are necessary for performing safe-shutdown and maintaining the reactor in a safe shutdown condition, licensees are undertaking the NEI/NUSMG 97-07 and NEI/NUSMG 98-07 processes described above for addressing Y2K problems. With respect to balance-of-plant systems, licensees implementing their plant-specific Y2K program are classifying important balance-of-plant and other non-safety-related systems (such as those that support continued plant operations, provide information and aid to the plant operators like sequence-of-events monitoring for tracking post-shutdown status of plants, and whose failure could lead to a plant transient or trip) as "mission-critical" or "high." Systems and equipment classified as mission-critical or high, wh_en found to be Y2K susceptible during the assessment stage of the Y2K program, are also scheduled to be remediated similar to safety-related systems. 18
... *-*--***-** ------~.-.
In sum, the NRC believes that the actual scope of plant systems necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety, which are potentially susceptible to Y2K problems, is relatively limited and that the licensees' current activities are sufficient to ensure that Y2K problems will not adversely affect safety-related or balance-of-plant systems. D. Public Comments One public comment in support of the NIRS petition stated that embedded chips are
- . * - difficult to identify and the effects of their failures are poorly understood, especially in the U.S.
power grid. When the NRG staff was developing GL 98-01, it recognized that embedded systems pose a potential Y2K problem that must be recognized and addressed in any successful Y2K effort. Accordingly, GL 98-01 informed licensees that Y2K programs should be augmented to address remediation of embedded systems. Licensees have stated in their
- responses to the generic letter that embedded systems are being addressed in their Y2K programs, and these statements have been confirmed by NRC aud!ts to date. NRC
- understands that the electric utilities providing power to the grid have similar efforts underway that are being monitored by the North American Electric Reliability Council.
One public comment in support of the petition indicatt?d that the rule should require* nuclear power plants to shut down 6 months before the end of the 1999 to allow a safe period of
- time to shut down the plant. The NRC does not agree that it takes 6 months to safely shut down a plant. Under normal conditions, it takes several hours to safely shut down a nuclear power plant by reducing reactor power gradually. However, in an emergency, the reactor can be shut down safely within seconds, either automatically or manually. The reactor will be shut down 19
automatically by the reactor protection system upon the sensing of an unusual condition. Moreover, the operator always has the capability to manually shut down the reactor using the reactor protection system. Accordingly, the NRC do~s not agree thadt is necessary to shut down nuclear power plants 6 months before the end of 1999 in order to ensure a safe shutdown of the plants. A commenter in favor of the petition stated that the Y2K problem could increase the chance of a meltdown. However, the commenter did not provide any basis for t_his assertion. The NRC disagrees with the commenter. Safety functions performed by the reactor protection
- * . - system for shutting down the reactor and by the engineered safety features actuation for mitigating accidents, cooling down the reactor, and providing emergency power to safety
,.~ ..
systems upon a loss of offsite power are not affected by the Y2K problem. Although there is some concern that the reliability of the offsite power sources may be lower during the Y2K transition, if a loss of offsite power were to occur because of Y2K, the plant would trip automatically because all nuclear plants are designed for such an event. The _emergency onsite power supply system would provide power to the safety system equipment automatically. This
- sequence of events is not affected by the Y2K problem because all these safety systems do not rely upon computer-operated systems or components that are date-sensitive. For these reasons, the NRC disagrees that a Y2K problem could increase the probability of a core melt accident at a nuclear power plant.
One public comment in support of the petition indicated that the audits conducted by NRC staff are too few. The NRC has responded to this comment in section I.A. 20
E. Summary The NRC believes that_licensees' Y2K activities and programs,*considered together with NRC oversight activities, provide a reasonable approach for ensuring that Y2K problems will not pose an unreasonable threat to public health and safety. NIRS has not explained why this regulatory approach will not provide reasonable a~surance of adequate protection from any potential Y2K-initiated problems at operating nuclear power plants, such that the rule proposed by NIRS is necessary. II. Part 50 Non-Power Reactor Ucensees NRC used several methods to inform all non-power reactor (NPR) licensees of the need to ensure that their facilities are ready for the year 2000. In 1996, NRC staff contacted all NPR licensees informing them of a potential for problems in systems either controlling or supporting the reactor because of Y2K issues. In December 1996, NRC issued IN 96-70 to alert nuclear facility licensees to the Y2K problem. IN 96-70 described the potential problems that nuclear
- power plant computer systems and software may encounter as a result of the change to the new century and how the Y2K issue may affect NRC licensees. IN 96-70 encouraged all licensees to examine their uses of computer systems and software well before the year 2000. IN 96-70 also
. suggested that licensees consider appropriate actions for examining and evaluating their computer systems for Y2K vulnerabilities.
NRC also coordinated with the Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors (TRTR) to distribute information about the Y2K problem through TRTR newsletters. These newsletters were distributed to all members of the organization to focus attention On the Y2K 21
problem and related ongoing activities. The staff at all 37 licensees with operating reactors receive copies of the TRTR newsletter. The TRTR newsletters articles included "Concerns af:?put the Millennium," February 1997; "Year 2000 Concerns," Februa_ry 1998; "NRC Response on Year 2000," May 1998; "More on the Y2K Issue," August 1998; and "Another Y2000 Notice," November 1998. NRC staff has confirmed through several telephone conversations and discussions during inspections that all licensees of operating reactors are aware of the Y2K concerns and have ongoing actions to be Y2K ready by the end of the year or sooner. Since 1998, while conducting inspections of NPR facilities, the NRC staff is also verifying
- . -*- that licensees are* addressing the Y2K prob1em with regard to reactor safety. NRC staff has inspected about 50 percent of the operating reactors and intends to complete the inspections of all operating NPRs by October 1999. These inspections will verify that the licensees have programs to deal with Y2K and that all digital safety equipment at these facilities are co_nsidered in the program. Moreover, most institutions that operate the NPRs have their own Y2K programs that include the NPRs.
The safety systems at most operating reactors are analog systems that are not affected by the Y2K problem. Several operating reactors have digital safety equipment that provides . instrument indication to the facility operator that is part of the licensee's Y2K program. Also,
.seven of these reactors have digital-reactor protection system functions also considered in the licensee's Y2K program. These systems operate in parallel with the analog reactor protection systems, which are not affected by Y2K. Also, the digital systems initiate reactor scrams in case of a malfunction in the digital equipment. The analog systems generally provide the required reactor safety functions. The analog systems are independent of the digital equipment and have built-in redundancy to ensure that the reactor scrams. The power levels of these reactors are 22
low (up to a maximum of 2 MWt) and many of them operate at low temperatures in relatively large pools of water. The only safety function that is generally required is for the reactor to scram. Thus, the Y2K concern poses very low risk. NIRS does not explain why the licensees' Y2K program activities and NRC's oversight of the licensees' implementation of the programs are inadequate such that the rule proposed by NIRS is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Ill. Part 50 Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plant Licensees The suggested rule language in the petition would require that all facilities *not compliant with Y2K issues be shut down by December 1, 1999. Nuclear power plants that are . permanently shutdown with fuel removed from the reactor core would, therefore, not be subject to the rule as proposed by NIRS. However, since the purpose of the proposed rule appears to be directed to ensuring that Y2K problems at all nuclear power plants - both operating and decommissioning -will not pose a threat to public health and safety, the following discussion on the activities for addressing the Y2K problem at decommissioning nuclear power plants is
- provided.
There are two potential radiological health and safety concerns with respect to Y2K problems at decommissioning plants: (1) spent fuel storage, including site security; and (2) the actual conduct of dismantlement and decommissioning activities. Of greater concern is the spent fuel storage. The concerns in this area. relate to providing sufficient cooling to the spent fuel and providing sufficient security against diversion and sabotage of the spent fuel. There are 21 deco.mmissioning nuclear power plants that have been shut down more than a year, 6 of which have had spent fuel removed from the site. Accordingly, there are only 15 23
decommissioning nuclear power plants where spent fuel storage is of concern. Although licensees for all of these facilities are implementing Y2K programs, it is unlikely that Y2K pr9blems would pose a significant problem to providing sufficient spent fuel cooling. First, electrical and makeup water systems for spent fuel pools are not computer-controlled. Moreover, even if there was an interruption in electrical power, there is a long time period for the
- licensee to respond to the problem before integrity of the spent fuel rods. becomes an issue because sufficient time is available to take compensatory action before boiling starts. The spent fuel pool is conservatively estimated (based on the Zion units) to begin boiling 68 hours after loss of the spent fuel pool cooling system. Boiling does not become a concern until the fuel rods begin to be uncovered by boil-off of cooling water. Since fuel rods are normally covered by 23 feet of water (for purposes of shielding), and it would take approximately two weeks or more to begin uncovering the spent fuel rods (assuming that no make-up water is added to the pool), the NRC believes that there is sufficient time to recover electrical power and/or provide makeup water to prevent the fuel rods from uncovering.
The other threat to spentfuel is diversion and sabotage. Licensees of decommissioning
- reactors are taking steps to ensure that Y2K problems will not disable necessary security and safeguards systems and controls. Licensees with computer-based site security systems that have been identified as potentially Y2K vulnerable have tested the system for Y2K, upgraded the system to be Y2K compliant, or will make the system Y2K compliant before the end of-1999.
With respect to the safety of conducting dismantlement and decommissioning activities, the NRC does not believe that these activities are subject to Y2K problems that would pose a threat to public health and safety because the conduct of these activities in the field do not rely upon computer-controlled devices to ensure protection against radiological dangers. 24
In sum, licensees of decommissioning nuclear power plants are implementing Y2K activities that address equipment and systems important to safety, such that there is reasonable a~surance of adequate protection to public health and safety. IV. Major Parts 40 and 70 Licensees To alert major Parts 40 and 70 licensees of the potential Y2K problem, NRC issued Information Notice (IN) 96-70, "Year 2000 Effect on Computer System Software," dated December 24, 1996. IN 96-70 described the potential Y2K problems, encouraged licensees to
- * ._ examine their uses of computer systems and software well before the year 2000, and suggested
,. that licensees consider appropriate actions to examine and evaluate their computer systems for Y2K vulnerabilities.
In order to gather Y2K information regarding materials and major fuel cycle facilities, NRC formed a Y2K Team within the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) in 1997. From September 1997 through December 1997, this NMSS Y2K Team visited a cross-section of materials licensees and fuel cycle facilities and conducted Y2K interviews. Each licensee or facility visited by the team indicated that they were aware of the Y2K issue and were in various stages of implementing their Y2K readiness program. On June 22, 1998, the NRC staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 98-03, "NMSS Licensees' and Certificate Holders' Year 2000 Readiness Programs." This GL requested major Parts 40 & 70 licensees to submit by September 20, 1998, written responses regarding their facility-specific Y2K readiness program in order to confirm that they were addressing the Y2K problem effectively. All licensees responded to GL 98-03 by stating that they have adopted a facility-25
specific Y2K readiness program and that the scope of the program included identifying and, where appropriate, remediating, hardware, software, and embedded systems, and provided for risk management and the development of contingency plans. GL 98-03 also requested a written response, no later than December 31, 1998, which confirmed that these facilities were Y2K ready or provided a status report of work remaining to be done to become Y2K ready, including completion schedules. All licensees provided a second response to GL 98-03, which identified work remaining to be done, including completion schedules. Furthermore, following the second response, NRC requested a third written
- * . - response, no later than July 1, 1999, which would confirm that these facilities are Y2K ready or would provide an updated status report.
bn August 12, 1998, IN 98-30, "Effect of the Year 2000 Computer Problem on NRC Licensees and .Certificate Holders," provided licensees additional information on the Y2K issue. IN 98-30 provided definitions of "Y2K ready" and "Y2K compliant," encouraged licensees to contact vendors and test their systems for Y2K problems, and described elements of a Y2K readiness program. Between September 1997 and October 1998, the major Parts 40 & 70 licensees were also asked Y2K questions during other inspections. Based on these Y2K inspections, the licensees were aware of the Y2K problem and were adequately addressing Y2K issues. There have been no identified risk-significant Y2K. concerns for major Parts 40 & 70 licensees. NI RS' proposed rule would require that licensees be shutdown by December 1, 1999, unless licensees demonstrate that "Y2K compliance" has*been achieved. However, NIRS has 26
not explained why "Y2K compliance" as opposed to "Y2K readiness" is necessary. NIRS asserted that NRC has not made explicit how it will define "Y2K compliance." However, NRC explicitly defined the terms "Y2K ready" and "Y2K compliant" in GL 98~03. "Y2K ready" was defmed as a computer system or application that has been determined to be suitable for continued use into the year 2000, even though the computer system or application is not Y2K compliant "Y2K compliant" was defined as a computer system or application that accurately processes date/time data (including, but not limited to, calculating, comparing, and sequencing) from, into, and between the years 1999 and 2000, and beyond, including leap-year calculations. Thus, by definition, systems that are "Y2K ready" are able to perform their functions properly. There is no discernable safety reason why achieving Y2K readiness rather than Y2K compliance should result in facility shutdown. Accordingly, there is no basis for requiring facility shutdown if a licensee cannot demonstrate Y2K compliance. NIRS presents no information or argument why those actions by the licensees and NRC described above are insufficient to address Y2K problems and to demonstrate that reasonable assurance of adequate protection will not be provided after December 1, 1999, so that facility
- shutdown is necessary.
V. Part 30 and Minor Parts 40 and 70 Licensees To alert Part 30 and minor Parts 40 and 70 licensees, the NRC issued INs 96-70 and 98-30, which have been discussed in Section IV, "Major Parts 40 and 70 Licensees." In addition to the efforts by the NMSS Y2K Team to gather information regarding materials licensees and major fuel facilities from September. through December 1997, discuss~d 27
J under Section IV, NMSS staff also conducted telephone interviews with device manufacturers and distributors. Further, NRC determined that few of approximately 5,800 materials licensees use processes *or have safety systems that are computer-controlled, thus minimizing potential Y2K impacts. The interviews and site visits confirmed that licensees were identifying and addressing potential Y2K problems. From the interviews conducted by the NMSS Y2K Team, NRC learned that early versions of some treatment planning systems (computer systems for calculating dose to medical patients being treated with radiation or radioactive material) have Y2K problems and that upgrades for treatment planning systems were available. However, treatment planning systems are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and not by NRC because the systems do not contain licensed material. NRC has shared information on non-Y2K- compliant treatment planning systems with the FDA. For materials licensees, the NMSS Y2K Team did not identify any Y2K issues for NRG-regulated material. As a result of the interviews and site visits, NRC's focus has been to determine if any commercially available devices (medical and indust~ial) have potential Y2K vulnerabilities and to ensure that licensees evaluate self-developed systems, commercial off-the shelf software and h~rdware, and safety systems. In addition to Y2K interviews, materials inspectors have been instructed to confirm receipt of NRC's information notices, determine whether the licensees have identified any potential problems associated with the Y2K issue, and note any corrective actions taken by the licensees. Through the routine inspection process, NRC has made assessments of the Y2K status of its materials licensees and continues to do so. To date, only the treatment planning systems described above, dose calibrators, and a tote position display for an irradiator have been identified through the inspection process as having Y2K problems. NRC materials 28
inspectors have indicated that licensees are aware of availabie upgrades for treatment planning systems and dose calibrators. The irradiator tote position display is not a safety system. Further, _the irradiator tote position display ~ystem that had the Y2K problem was a one-of-a-kind modification made by the licensee (the licensee was authorized by NRC to make the modification). The irradiator licensee is updating the tote position display system to eliminate the Y2K problem. No generic Y2K issues for NRC-regulated material used by materials licensees have been identified. NIRS asserted that NRC has not made explicit what it plans to do about those facilities that cannot prove compliance. As discussed in Section IV, "Major Parts 40 and 70 Licensees" above, NIRS has not explained why "Y2K compliance" as opposed to "Y2K readiness" is necessary. Furthermore, Y2K readiness is not required for protection of public health and safety for Part 30 and minor Parts 40 and 70 licensees due to the amount and type of licensed material used by them. The risks to the public*from these facilities are low. In addition; NRC has determined that few of the approximately 5,800 materials licensees use processes or have safety systems that are computer-controlled, thus minimizing potential Y2K impacts. Accordingly, there is no basis for requiring facility shutdown if a licensee cannot demonstrate "Y2K compliance." NIRS presents no information or argument why those actions by the licensees and NRC described above are insufficient to address Y2K problems and to demonstrate that reasonable assurance of adequate protection will not be provided after December 1, 1999, so that facility shutdown is necessary. 29
VI. Public Information NIRS requested in item (c) of its petition that NRC adopt regulations that would require that licensees make available to the public by December 1, 1999, all information related to the examination and repair, modification, and/or replacement of all computer systems, embedded chips, and other electronic equipment that may be date-sensitive. NIRS indicated that this rule provision is necessary in order to allow "independent experts" and the public to examine this information .
- The NRC has already made ,available to the public substantial information on Y2K and
,. the status of licensees' activities to address potential Y2K problems and will continue to make this information public. The audit reports of the NRC staff reviews of the 12 nuclear power plant-specific Y2K readiness project activities and documentation are publicly available both in the Public Document Rooms and the NRC Year 2000 Web site. The Y2K readiness information submitted in July 1999 by nuclear power plant licensees under GL 98-01, Supplement 1, is available to the public, as with any other correspondence that is received from licensees. The reports documenting the NRC staff audits of the six nuclear power plant-specific contingency planning activities and the results of the facility-specific Y2K program reviews of all operating nuclear power plants are also available to the public. The NRC inspection reports with Y2K information from Parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees and the licensees' responses to GL 98-03 have been placed in the PDR. Summaries of (1) inspection reports with Y2K information, *(2) GL 98-03 responses, and (3) interviews with a cross-section of materials and fuel cycle lic_ensees on Y2K issues are available on the NRC Year 2000 Web site.
30
In view of the information that has been made available and will be made available to the public, NIRS has not provided any basis for requiring licensees, by rule, to provide public access tp Y2K information beyond that which the NRC has determined must'be submitted to the NRC in furtherance of the NRC's regulatory oversight. Conclusion The rule proposed by NIRS is not needed because the Commission has determined that the activities taken by licensees to implement a systematic and structured facility-specific Y2K readiness program, together with the NRC's oversight of the licensees' implementation of these Y2K readiness programs, provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety. For these reasons, the Commission denies the petition.
-rJ-.
Dated* at Rockville, Maryland, this J2 day of ~ , 1999..
- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
~ )./3.1/4 Andrew L. Bates Acting Secretary of the Commission.
31
DOCKET NUMBER PEltTK)N IRUlf PRM 50-IP 5" ({pl./ FR37'fo) OOC!,CTED January 23, 1999 USHRC AT1N: Chief: Docketing and Service Branch
*99 APR 28 P2 :43 United States Nuclear_ Regulatory Cornmiss~on Washington D.C. 20555 This letter supports the three Nuclear Information Resource Service*(NIRS) petitions for
- rulemaking regarding Y2K emergency planning, shutdown of non-compliant facilities, and
- assurance ofreliable back-up sources of power submitted to the NRC on December 10th , 1998.
As you know, nuclear energy is a super-lethal force delicately <;:Qntained by nuclear power plants. It is pure grace, supporting the efforts of nuclear power plant operators, that keeps the energy produced in those plants controlled to the extent that it is. There are constant.threats to that control by power outages, :faulty equipment, human error, and earthquakes to name a few. Y2K poses an additional threat. The likelihood of a Y2K-nuclear disaster does not matter. As always, there is a chance of meltdown. Y2K increases the chance, and calls for heightened responsibility by the NRC, and ultimately, the nuclear power plant operators. What is distracting certain people in the nuclear and nuclear regulatory industries from taking necessary responsibility for Y2K preparedness and ongoing nuclear safety for that matter? Meltdown is a far greater threat to humanity and all life on Earth then any lost profits, political incorrectness, or national or global economic recession. Nuclear meltdown can render the Earth - uninhabitable or a living hell for thousands of years. It is obvious which is more threatening. It is also obvious that the NRC has the responsibility to do everything in its power to prevent
. meltdown. The three NIRS petitions for rulemaking ask the NRC to do only the minimum to ensure nuclear safety. f ask the NRC to at least enact the three NIRS petitions immediately. If the minimum is all the NRC will do, so be it. Ultimately, Y2K or not, nuclear power production has iet I
I l no ethical, or humane.role. It is too dangero:us and needs t,o be discontinued. Please act on your own conscience. I I Sincerely,
*l::J.j_ A_ Ile__p~
~-
l I
) )
l I
/ /:?-.73s M--
l\R~V = 4 19gQ
-~00~~ @17 ~ t1<>Xxtt*w*m*<<h:m'1<~
lJ.i:i. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!SSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJU~TION~ ffl'AFF OFFICE OFlllE~~ OFTHE~ Documlffl\l ~ Postmark Date 4 /~I.// CJ t::J. Copies Rooehfoo __ , ~~'- " = ~ ~ - Sp"~~ Add'i Coploo R a ~ ~ - = = - ~*~
DOCl{ETED USHHC 25 March 1999
*99 APR 14 p J :zs Dru Saunders P.O. Box 6040 B' ham. , WA
'. \
, ,! *1 f_~-l Editor :-) ";~6J~F NewYork Times DOCKET NrniuBIER PETITION ~UllE fl~1MJ 5 o-tpS-l & "1=,?*3*1e,o)
Dear People of the World,
Get Real ! Pulling the comforter over your head will not make the impending, though still very preventable, Y-2-K induced Nuclear Disasters go away! Dr. Helen Caldicott, along with many other experts and evaluators of nuclear situations, have given a clear and highest priority Warning to Humanity; We must All insist and work to see that those at the highest level of authority in our world society see to ari immediate shutdown of the over 400 Nuclear Power Plants and also make sure all Nuclear weapons are de-
~ctivated/neutralized!
If these tasks are not accomplished soon, the nuclear experts are predicting a very high proba-bility of an accidental limited Nuclear Warhead exchange, and also, almost certainly many Nuclear Power plant Meltdowns! This is not acceptable .
- The younger occupants/co-passengers of this Spaceship Planet Earth are relying on the hopefully wiser and older passengers to Take Action and DO SOME-THING! Write, call, speak to leaders at all levels until we solve this epidimal survival situation. To do nothing is nothing less than condemning all future life to live in a very harsh, deadly, and contaminated radioactive environment!
Do you think pollution is making lifeforms. sick now? If the people of this planet don't immediate~*- ly begin to deal with this ultimate challenge, the living will envy the dead in a post nuclear disaster world. Please act now. Demand coverage from the media on this issue now! Also demand that our public safety officials make it known to us as to the status of Y-2-K compliance with respect to our military and civilian nuclear operations.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ O N RULEMAKINGS &AWY~ ~ OFFICEOFfflE~~ OF THE co~o Documem~~ Postmark Date --,,,,.., ~ { A- ,I. 1
,,,,,., 'I/1,i/1 ~}
Copies Received / Add'I Coples Reproduced 5 Special Distribution ~
~J)s c,
( 2) This letter is bei~g written in an effort to increase general awarenes's, thus hopefully spuring on resolute action! It's not a question of IF we can do this, IT MUST BE DONE. Finally, we can collectively decide by the force of our will to TURN OFF/NEUTRALIZE ALL COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING PLANTS NOW. We must also DISARM ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS! What are we waiting for?!? For Real, Dru Saunders
.,':r."2.K. an,1 Luv1ronmc:nta11::im 1{ ~fS;, Are you Ready? Y2K and Environmentalism By Jim_Lord September 8, 1998 Because of its embedded processor _aspect, the Year 2000 Computer Crisis poses what is likely the greatest environmental threat in his~ory. Embedded processors . control countless industrial processes that produce or use pollutants, poisons, or toxic substanc_es. The facilities in which these processes are common in~lude,
- Manufacturing plants
- Chemical plants*
- Pharmaceutical plants
- Mines
- Oil and gas wells, pipelines and tankers
- Oil, gas and ore refineries
- Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants
- Nuclear waste treatment facilities
_ * *. Nucl~ar weapon facilities
- Sewage treatment plants
- Water treatment facilities
- And many others ....
.The April 1998 issue of World Oil Magazine says, * ;
"It is estimated that the average oil and gas firm,* starting today, *can expect to remediate less than 30% of the overall potential failure points in the production environment. This reality shifts the focus of the solution a*..vay from trying to fix the problem,_to planning strategies that would minimize potential damage and mitigate potential safety hazards."
This statement implies that:
- The oil and gas in9ustry won't finish in time. '-* ..
- There will be environmental damage and personal safety hazards:~--
The cold, clammy realization that we're not going to fix the embedded processor problem is sinking in. No matter how well we do in the United States, much of the world has littla chance of fixing the embedded processor component of Y2K. The environmental implications are nothing short of staggering. A critical question
. - where'.s. . . .. . the environmental movement. The answer is -
. *-. " . ~ . .. .
http://www.y2ktim~bomb.comrfip/Lord/lor<l9836.htm l 999-02-27
nowhere to be round. At this point, they don't have a Y2K clue but tnat won*t 1ast long. Awareness of the Year 2000 Crisis is growing dramatically. Before long, the environmentalists will realize what's happening and when they do, They're going to go stark, raving nuts. They're going to want to shut down everything and here's the great irony - they're probably right. We probably can't take the chance of massive, simultaneous, global failures in environmentally sensitive systems. At a minimum, we need to start testing these facilities by turning the computers ahe*ad to the Year 2000 in a .,__ carefully"controlled and isolated fashion. .;;:-;,::::iJ.,
~hen the e~vironmentalis_ts finally g~t up to speed on_ Y2~, they will play an immensely important role m the public discourse. Theirs will be one of the loudl?SL~t:J; 4li~i! ~
voices on the scene. With their potent, international political clout and their. superb;!r~ '. . \ global organization, their Luddite tendencies will rise to the surface. .
- _:..:~":,;;t{if~-- I
. . :.j f~~:::fil_('ii ,: '
The drama of this confrontation will be compelling and political leaders all o~~~:~~-~~ : world will be trapped in a fascinating corner. Save the world by shutting it down*~,~tr~A . and ruining the global economy. Meanwhile, all those tens 9t biUions of clock chips)...:r keep ticking, ticking, ticking. * , *_;* , .. --<C:{i~t
- :- *. ~ ........
(Just a passing thought - consider poor Al Gore. Both*t~d~:of his stick, technology and the environment are about to turn malodorous. It'll be_ fascinating to watch him as well.) * *. _ * - My Tip of the Week is to watch the environmental movement like a hawk. When _- they become fully engaged in this issue, they will put immense pressure on the . *. ">. politicians* and could very well determine the nature of the broad political resp6i-1s~: *; \: ** to Y2K. . . f . . i/ ~/;f*i,//:}:;f\-
. Good Luck! .. : ****:**X:*j'._:°)., *
~,:.:/1 :i ~:>-*'-:. ,<.
Browse the Y2K.Tip_qf_the Week Ar~b.iY~$ for previous editions of this coltimh;*and '.: see many more practical Y2K Tips such as these in my book, A Survival .~uide ,. forJhe Year 2000 Probl~m.. a_sample of which can be previewed at ---, *_.* * *
~w.w. SurviveY2K.com.
- Read Jim Lord's_ Biq ..
See Jim l,.ord's Speaking E:ngc;!ger:nents Tip ot the Week [!D.d.-=;,c] [Archive] (Search VVY2K] [Site.Map] [Y2K Book Center] [P..;:,'.lrt.ElL~mail] [Features] [Colv_rri.rJS.] (Contingency P!ar.ning] (Economy] [lndu:;try] [International] (Investing] [Litigatlor.i] [~.P,dj9] [Technology] [Washjr,gtQJl]
* ['.Vestergaard Yea00.00.1:i.ome]
@ Westergaard Online Systems, 1998 www.y2ktimebomb.com http://www.y2ktimebomb.com(l'ip/Lonl/lord9836.htm 1999-02-27 2
NLIGLEAR POWER AND Y2K re:ictor in New Hampshire. rele:ised November 6. In mid-1998, a nuclear utility in Sweden decided to see 1998. found. in this single power plant. 1.30-4 se:mrate wh~t would happen if it switched the clocks in its software items and embedded chips that were affected r~ctor's computers to re:id January 1, 1999. The by the Y2K bug. Twe!ye of these were described as response surprised_ utility officials, who had e:-..-pected lia\ing .. safety implic:itions." including the cntical business as u.sna1.. The reactor's computers couldn't Reactor Vessel Level Indication System; another 13 re~ognize the date (1/1/99) and thus turned the reactor could cause the re:ictor to trip (itself a potential safetv off. If the utility had waited to run this test New Year's issue); 160 a.ffe-:ted systems reqw:red by regulations:* Eve would have been rather cold in Sweden. The Y2K and 800 were "significant to business-in other computer bug c:iused the problem. war~, keeping the supply of electricity from the plant The Y2K computer bug has the potential to running. Only about 40% of the items were described affect the safety and operation of commercial nuclear as having .. minimal,. or "no imp~ct" on plant power reactors, other major nuclear .facilities, and the operations. . entire electrical power grid This is true in the U.S. and The NRC plans to conduct audits of onlv 12
- abroad While utilities are working to*com:ct their Y2K vulnerabilities, it is not clear that all such problems will be fixed in time. Citizens C:lil play an important role in ensuring that any Y2K-related disruptions are minimized by encouraging their utilities. state and local governments, and federal regulators and officials to re:ictor sites (out of more than 70) and. by Dece~ber 1.
1998, had completed and published only three of these. All showed some potential compromise of safety-related systems.
- In addition, the unpredictable nature of computer and embedded chip responses to an unre:idable date means that so~e failures of systems devote the resources necessary to address the issue and to make appropriate C!Jntingency and emergency plans not directly related to .saf~ty could ~dversely affect to cope with une.-cpected _circumstances. . . . safety systems or operator*tesponses to unrelated .
emergencies (e.g.,' by providing incorrect data). * ..
** : .* *-~ " ... .i.' :* :S:..* .. , :. ~.. . . .. .
EA<2Kc;ROUN7).' The Y2K computer bug stems from the early days of REAC!TO~ N££f) El.EmRtCfTY. computers, _when memory was v_ery expensive. The Y2K bu'g threate~s'td clisrupt the , Software designers saved on memory costs by writing electrical grid, and could c:iuse local or regional * ' date-sensitive functions with a two-digit year (i.e. 98 blackouts. Some have predicted a national. elecrrical instead of 1998). Thus, when the program re:iches the blackout. Consider that there are more than 1.000
- ye:ir 2000, it may read-it as 1900, with unpredictable different utilities, public and private, and nod-utility ramifications. 1-fany of these early programmers generators of electricitv in the U.S. and Canada. In assumed their programs would be obsolete by 2000. June 1998, a U.S. Se~te Committee issued a survev of*
Unfortunately, the practice continued for many yea.rs. the ten largest U.S. utilities. The Committee concluded and affects not only the early mainframe computers, that "'there is significam cause for concenr"' about but also personal computers and other electronic utilities efforts to remedy the Y2K problem, th:it devices that use preprogrammed ..embedded chips." '"assurances oftimelyY2K compliance [are] little more In addition, depending on h(?W programs were than a hope, .. and that. because the utilities ~*eyed written. other dates may set off problems. including are the Iarge?I in the nation. "we :ire pessimistic about January I, 1999, September 9, 1999, February 29, the implications for the rest of the utility sector." 2000, and others. Failure of some small utilities could c:iuse
- inst:ibility in the electrical grid. le:iding to localized blackouts: failure of one or more larger utilities could
'12K ANT). NUCLEAR SAFEJY le:id to regional blackouts. While this would be The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the inconvenient at best for most people, it is potentially nuc!e:ir power industry, through its trade associ:ition disastrous for nucle:ir re:ictors. ~ucle:.ir Energy Instintte (i'-icr). claim th:.ir the Y:K bug A little-known re:ility of nuclear power is that .
dccs nor affect the safety of :itorni: rc:icrors. :nomic re:ictors need a steady source of electricity to -<* This attitude. while re:1ssur.ng. may be O\"erh* cool t;1<!ir -:ores and irr:iciiaced fl.le! pocis C\\'.:n whl!n *,,-: *
- optim1suc. For example. an NRC audit of the Seabrook rh-:y ..1rc snut ciown. \Vil.hour ti11s cooling ;ibilily. ;;:y.::n
_..., l
dosed re:.icrcrs would melt down: fuel pools would boil themselves more than a few months to fullv test all d 0
- and rele:ise their highly-rJdioactive inventories. sysrems and repair any new problems found.
Ti1c ;'iuclear Regulatory Comrrussion considers this
**sracion blackout" sc::nar:io to be :.imong the largest contributors to risk of operJting re:ictors. WHAT YOU CAN lJO To compensate. nuclear plants are required to Citizens can cak; sever.tl proactive sreps to help .J.Ssurc have back-up power sources. These are nonnally giant that Y2K-related disruptions \"\ill be minimized and generators that run on diesel oil and each re:ictor is that effective emergency and contingency plans are required to have two of them (although some multi- implemented.
re:lCtor sites shru'e genermors). But these diesel In December 1998. the Nuclear Information generators can be unreliable. At best, the NRC says and Resource Servic:: (NIRS) submitted three t11cy are 95% reliable. That me:i.ns th:lt if all 200 or so emergency petitions for rulemaking to the NRC."These generators were required at on~ time., IO may fail call for: Moreover. there is reason to believe, given the I) the shutdovm of all reactors that are not operating history of these generators, that the 95% demonstrably Y2K compliant through full level is little more than wishful thinking. testing, by December 1, 1999 tmtil they are compliant; * *
- 2) installation of additional sources of back-WE'VE GOT £11£RGENCY Pt.ANS, OR up power to replace or supplement the existing diesel generators. These may
'DO Wt? include solar, wind, natuial gas, hydro or Nuclear utilities have been slow to design and other dedicated power systems; implement contingency plans to cope with unforeseen 3) a requirement that every nuclear utility Y2K-related problems. The Senate Committee found, test a full-scale emergency plan during in June I 998, that "'none of the utilities surveyed had 1999 with a scenario that includes a Y2K-completed contingency plans ... " * . ~, *
- related component .
For the most part, contingency plans will be ConceII1'ci people should wnce*to.the NRC (U.S. NRC,. folded i,nto existing emergency response plans at Washinnon. DC 20555, Attn: Docketing and Service nuclear utilities. But these emergenc:y.. plans. which
- Bnmch)-in support of these petitions. <:;opies of the .
- include emergency evacuation c:ipabilities, are tested petitions are available from NIRS.
- only once every two years, meaning that under current People can also contact your state and local regulations, at least half the utilities will never even . officials and urge them 'to institute separate emergency test their Y2K-related plans. and contingency plans for your ~te, paying special All nuclear emergency plans rely heavily on anention to the possibility of electrical blackouts and off-site sources of assistance, including police, fue and telecommunications failures.
other essential services. But these services. as well as Finally, people should contact their federal critical communications abilities, also may be legislators and demand continued congressional vulnerable to the Y2K bug if not properly assessed, hearings on the nuclear indUstry and Y2K, and ask remedied and tested. their Congressmembers to support the NIRS petitions. The Y2K issue is, by its very narure, rapidly changing. New information com:inually is being TH£ fND.U)TRY RESPONSE. TO Y2K developed. For the latest information, check the NIRS The utility industry, including the nuclear -gtilities and* website Q1tto://wv1r*w. nirs.org) or contact NIRS. the NRC, has been working to resolve Y2K issues. For the most part. they say they will be "Y2K ready" }.,fichaei },,fariorre, December 1998 (which does not necessarily mean compliant) by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service tum of the millennium.. 1-1-24 16m Si:reet NW. #404, Washington DC 20036 But many utilities began working on the 202.328.0002; fa'I:: 202.-1-62.2183 problem late, and some have not even completed their nirsnet"a*nirs.org; http://www.nirs.org initial assessments of the scope of their problems. Once the assessments are completed. utilities must repair the problems. if possible. or purchase and install new s\*srems. TI1en svsrcms must be tested. itself a timc-c~nsuming oroc~ss that mav m*cal still more bugs and 111ccmpuub(!iucs. Few uuli~cs have allowed t.f
WORLD*WATCH How MANY CHERNOBYLS? The Nuclear Power Industry Could Produce Three More Chernobyl-Sized Accidents by the Year 2000 BY CHRISTOPHER FLAVIN hrough April 25, 1986, the Chernobyl 4 1960s known as probabilistic risk assessment. nuclear reactor was one of the world's most Using this method, analysts study accident
*T reliable. It had the best operating record of any scenarios and failure probabilities of critical power reactor-in the Soviet Union, producing components, estimate safety margins, and de-at 83 percent of capacity in 1985. But on April velop overall estimates of risk.
26th it exploded, hurling the contents of its Government-sponsored studies in the Un-radioactive core across Europe. ited States and West Germany have estimated That such a seemingly reliable reactor should that severe nuclear core-damaging accidents be the site of the world's worst nuclear power should occur once every 10,000 "reactor accident raises fundamental questions about years." (A reactor year is a unit used in discuss-the safety of nuclear power everywhere. Like ing experience in operating nuclear reactors. Three Mile Island before it, Chernobyl remind- The world's current total of 366 operating ed us that capturing the energy of the atom is, nuclear power reactors chalked up 366 reactor by its nature, a risky proposition. But how years in 1986, for example, regardless of how risky is it? How many Chernobyls might nucle- many days they were actually on line.) ar power have in score for us? Even if the one-in-10,000 figure is correct, Long before Chernobyl, nuclear experts had assuming that 500 nuclear plants are in opera-agreed about the possibility of accidents killing tion by the late 1990s, there would be one people and irradiating large areas. Indeed, core-damaging accident every 20 years._ How-despite major design differences between the ever, a post-Three Mile Island study by the Oak Chernobyl plant and those used in the West, Ridge National Laboratory in 1982 raised the the risk of a serious accident is one charac- risk to once in 4,000 reactor years, or once teristic that all large nuclear reactors share. every eight years. The real argument is over the frequency of Experience so far indicates that these es-serious accidents. Defenders of the industry timates are based on uncertain assumptions claim catastrophic accidents are extremely rare that often do not reflect actual plant con-events. At the* United States Atomic Energy ditions. For example, circuit breakers connect-Commission, precursor to the Nuclear Regula- ed to crucial safety systerns at the Salem nuclear tory Commission-{NRC), Dixie Lee Ray often plant in New Jersey were estimates!_ to have a argued that nuclear power was safer than eat- one in 33,000 chance of faiiirig. Yet, two cir-ing because more people had choked to death cuit breakers malfunctioned in one week. Only than had died from *nuclear power. prompt action by an alert operator prevented a Since the accident at Chernobyl, however, it serious accident. seems inevitable that many people will die Redundant safetv svstems have also been from nuclear power, and for the most part, the simultaneously dest~oy~d, supposedly a highly risk they have taken is an involuntary one. improbable event, leaving no margin for safety. The 1975 Browns Ferrv fire in Alabama de-The Calculus of Catastrophe stroyed several redund;nt electrical systems, To calculate the odds of nuclear disaster, en- shutting down the control room and threaten-gineers developed a modeling tool in the early ing catastrophe. January
- February 1988 14 e
"'~--'----------'---:---~~-...;...:.:.**..:.*.;;.;**;:_:;* : .:-~- ;;:.;-;;====~~*::;_*.::.**--==-*~-*=-=-::.:*:.::::=.::.:-::.---=::~~=---___-__-___-_-----..,...,-
WORLD*WATCH The limitations of probabilistic risk assess- Complacency and arrogance clearly helped ment as an accurate forecasting tool were SO\\" the seeds of disaster in the Ukraine. The detailed in a 1986 report by the Paris-based Chernobyl pbnt exploded when operators Nuclear Energy Agency, which concluded that overrode multiple safety systems during a rest. they are useful in e\'aluating the reliability of These actions, along with statements by Soviet particular plant components bur of uncertain officials, demonstrate that the Sm*iers had an Cumulative Years
\'alidity when assessing overall safety. almost blind faith in technology. of Nuclear Reactor Operation So far nuclear* power has been more acci- Ironically, the excellent performance of the Worldwide, derir-prone than* predicted by the experts. Chernobyl plant may have bolstered this over- 1960-85, with Three Mile Island occurred after 1,500 reactor confidence, encouraging the operators' blatant Projections to years, and Chernobyl aft~r another 1,900 (see violations of satety procedures. 2000 Figure 1). Core-dan1aging accidents are occur- Figure 1.
ring at over twice the rate predicted by the Oak Ridge study, casting doubt on the accuracy of these major probabilistic assessments.
~fJJ Of course, not all core-damaging accidents r in major releases of radioacti\*e material;
- hree Mile Island the secondary contain-ment vessel held virtual!\' all the core material inside. On the other hand, much of the Cher-nobyl core was deposited on forests and farm-*
land thousands of kilometers awav. With more nuclear power plants coming on line, especially in Europe, the chances and likely frequency of a serious accident are in-creasing as well. Assuming a continuation of the accident rate of one core-damaging acci-dent e\*ery 1,900 reactor years, there would be three additional accidents by the year 2000. Ar that point, with 500 reactors in opera-tion, core-damaging accidents would occur 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
'four years. Scientists in Sweden and West 1any have used this data to estimate a 70 The accidents at Chernobvl and Three Mile percent probability that another such accident Island can be traced to hu~an mistakes and, will occur in the next 5.4 vears. more specifically, to the "man-machine in-These figures are nor a' prediction of what terface" at the center of complex technology.
will happen in the furnre, bur rather an indica- The President's Commission on the tion that the worldwide nuclear accident rare Accident at Three Mile Island stated in its has already become unacceptable. The nuclear 1979 report: "Equipment can and should be industry cannot, and perhaps should nor, sur- imprm*ed to add further safety to nuclear vi\*e the public opposition that would be the power plants ... Bur as the evidence accumulat- ..... una\*oidable consequence of a continuation of ed, it became clear that the fundamental this dismal history. problems are people-related problems and not equipment problems." Blind Faith in Technology The conclusions of the official Soviet report
\-Vhen Pennsylvania's Governor Richard on the Chernolwl disaster were similar: "The Thornburgh toured nuclear facilities in the prime cause of the accident was an extremely Soviet Union in 1979, he was informed that improbable combination of violations of in-nuclear sater:,' was "a soh"CL-\ problem" and that structions in operating rules committed by the it would soon be possible to safely operate a staff of the unir. ... The accident assumed reactor in Red Square. Three Mile Island, he c:1rasrrophic proportions . . . because all the was told, had linle relevance to the Soviet negari ve aspects of the reactor design ... were nuclear program. brought our by the operators."
15 CHERNOBYL
'-:,*).
/(~;if;:
*;J;fJ~~s~I
!;~j 7 25274 73924
I. 'i We can't fix critical problems or plan work-arounds without such informa-tion. Accordingly, all of us need to press businesses and governments for much more openness about the state of their. Y2K compliance efforts. We need to know about the risks associated with the failure of embedded chips in hospital medical devices and systems, and breakdowns of the supply chain for life-preserving pharmaceuticals. We need to know the Y2K status of key infrastructure components in our localities, such as transportation and
- firefighting systems. We need to develop contingency plans for possible failures in power grids, in communications systems, in water and food supply networks, and in solid waste disposal.
We must make contingency plans to address some of the "worst-case" scenarios if we hope to be able to mitigate them. Community organizing efforts led by churches, synagogues, schools, and other local institutions, for instance, could consider setting up emergency relief centers, complete with supplies of food, water, and blankets, as well as backup generators and fuel. Such relief centers might help members of the public feel protected against freezing or starving in the event of a major infrastructure breakdown. If people are aware that such relief centers and plans exist, they will have the confidence to remain calm and can help prevent or minimize the risk of civil disorder that could follow from hoarding and other individual/exclusive behaviors, rather than community/ inclusive responses to infrastructure breakdowns. We must be citizens of the world and participate in setting global priori-ties-identifying and attending to those Y2K-related risks that threaten us with global disruption and massive damage to public health and the natural world. At the top of the list should be nuclear power plants and other ultra-hazardous processes such as toxic chemicals and weapons systems. Obviously, no . individual or group can solve the Y2K challenge alone. Each . of us must take responsibility, individually and collectively. The Y~ crisis requires collaboration among neighborhoods, communities, cities, states, and governments across the traditional boundaries of competition and national borders. In working together to meet this formidable challenge we can affirm our interconnectedness and common humanity. Charles R. Halpern is president and chief executive officer of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, a national grantmaking organization that supports the arts, environment, Jewish Life and democratic values. During the past six months, he has convened a number offoundation meetings on Y2K. He is a pioneer of the public interest law movement and served as founding dean of the City University 9f New York Law School at Queens College.
, , , * " " ' ' ,,.., ,1 /)11iC{lf r_(*nte r
-ili(HJ f) u111i11i, ,11 Hu11 ft,1*,1nl
<;/en ;11r,1' DOCKETED .1/le11 \ 11 ;r._ i11 i// --'.
US RS 1
*99 MP.R -9 AlO:23 February 19, 1999 OFrl RI ADJ 1 L I
VIRGINIA POWER GL99-008 DOCKET NUMBER Secretary PETITION RULE PR 5 o~ t,S U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( (pt/FR37C/O) Washington, D.C. 20055-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE; RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Virginia Power appreciates the opportunity to comment on three Year 2000 (Y2K) related petitions for rulemaking published in the Federal Register on January 25, 1999. The petitions were filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service to request that the NRC amend its regulations to:
- 1) require the shutdown of nuclear facilities that are not Y2K compliant (PRM-50-65),
- 2) require every nuclear utility conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise that involves coping with Y2K induced failures (PRM-50-66), and
- 3) require that nuclear facilities ensure the availability of electricity to power atomic reactor and other safety systems in the event of a Y2K induced failure.
Virginia Power supports the industry comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) which recommend that these petitions be denied. The following discussion explains our position: Current regulations address the issues raised by the petitions. Current regulations provide adequate means for licensees and the NRC to evaluate Y2K issues affecting plant systems or components important to safety. Current regulations also provide adequate means for reporting and correcting Y2K issues that threaten plant safety consistent with the facility operating license, Technical Specifications, and regulatory requirements. NRC Generic Letter 98-01 clearly establishes that the planning, development, and implementation of appropriate contingency plans or compensatory actions is important in addressing Y2K concerns. Petition Number 1; PRM-50-65. The NRC has adequate authority within existing regulations to order the shutdown of any facility that has not taken the necessary and appropriate action to assess and remediate Y2K concerns that would threaten public health and safety. The industry proactively developed the NEI/NUSMG 97-07 Y2K MAR 12 1999
~edby
LI.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl88K)N AULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS SrAFf OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFTHECO~ION Document Statistics Postmark Date ~ ~ 9
/r;;. /q Copies Recalved * /
Add'I Coples Reproduced _ __.!-.. :> _ _ Special Distribution ~~
~ --PV ~ '1< - ~**
- Dt-45=__,;~:..=.~
Virginia Power GL99-008 February 19, 1999 Page 2 Readiness and NEI/NUSMG 98-07 Y2K Readiness Contingency Planning guidelines to address Y2K concerns. These industry guidelines are consistent with the recommendations of NRC Generic Letter 98-01. Virginia Power has established a Y2K program based on these guidelines that includes identification, assessment, and remediation of Y2K issues affecting systems important to safety. Petition Number 2; PRM-50-66. The NEI/NUSMG 98-07 Y2K Readiness Contingency Planning guidelines provide a process and methods for assessing and mitigating the risks associated with potential Y2K induced failures. The need for simulated excercises, development of special procedures, and Y2K specific training is considered in the contingency planning process. Contingency plan verification is included in the guidelines to provide confidence that the plans can be executed as intended. Petition Number 3. The North American Electric Reliability Council's findings documented in a report to the U. S. Department of Energy dated January 11, 1999 indicate that the transition through critical Y2K rollover dates should have minimal impact on electric systems operations in North America. These findings do not support the need for additional regulations that would require licensees have a 60-day supply of fuel for emergency generators. In addition, existing plant Technical Specifications establish limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for offsite and onsite A.C. electrical power sources. The Technical Specifications are intended to ensure that sufficient power will be available to supply safety-related equipment required for safe shutdown and
- mitigation and control of accident conditions within the facility.
NRG efforts to date to address the potential impact of Y2K concerns on nuclear power plants constitute responsible actions to protect the public health and safety. The nuclear industry is adequately addressing Y2K concerns in accordance with NRG expectations established in Generic Letter 98-01. Virginia Electric and Power Company recognizes its responsibility to continue to provide safe, reliable electric power to the public. Additional regulations are not needed to fulfill this responsibility regarding Y2K issues. If you need further information, please contact Marc Gaudette at (804) 273-2232, or Gwen Newman at (804) 273-4255. Respectfully,
* ~ r o . e . f.1/. l1cC,,,./tn+; ~ ; s ~- ~cCarthy, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation P.O. Box 300 North Seabrook, NH 03874 Atlantic (603) 474-9521 The Northeast Utilities System February 24, 1999 NYN-99028 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch DOCKET NUMBER Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration PETITION RULE PAM 5o -(p5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( &>'l~R 31qo) Washington, DC 20555-0001 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company & North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation
- Millstone and Seabrook Nuclear Power Stations Comments On Petitions Related to Year 2000 Computer Readiness PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66, PRM-50-67 (64 Fed. Reg. 3790 - January 25, 1999)
The purpose of this letter is to provide the NRC with the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) and North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) responses to the request for comments on three petitions for rulemaking from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. These petitions are related, discussing date-sensitive, computer-related issues related to year 2000, commonly referred to as Y2K issue. (64 Fed. Reg. 3790 - January 25, 1999) NNECO and North Atlantic recommend that the Commission deny the three Y2K related petitions from Nuclear Information and Resource Services. Current regulations are adequate to address potential issues that may arise from potential Y2K computer issues. NNECO and North Atlantic endorse the comments being provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) for the nuclear industry. NNECO and North Atlantic have closely coordinated our efforts to assure year 2000 readiness, and have endorsed NEI/NUSMG 97-07, "Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness" issued on October 20, 1997. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Terry L. Harpster, Director of Licensing Services at (603) 773-7765 Very truly yours, NORTH AT T I ~ SERVICE CORP. Ted C. Feigenbau Executive Vice P s dent and Chief Nuclear Of r MAR f 2 1999
lJ.S. UC EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFTHE SSt0N ostmark D opies dd' .
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYN-99028 I Page 2 cc: H.J. Miller, Region I Administrator J. T. Harrison, NRC Project Manager, Project Directorate 1-2 R. K. Lorson, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Seabrook L.L. Wheeler, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 S. Dembek, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 J. W. Andersen, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 D. P. Beaulieu, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit No. 2 A. C. Ceme, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit No. 3 D. L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch
Northern States Power Company @ 414 Nicollet Mall DOCKETED Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 US JR C Telephone (612) 330-5500
'99 HAR -4 P3 :12 Of fl DOCKET NUMBER RUL _.1 PETITION RULE PRM So-,5 February 24, 1999 ADJUD'r l,FF rt,</FR 31 'Jo)
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff
SUBJECT:
Comments On Petitions Related To Year 2000 Computer Readiness Northern States Power Co. (NSP) has reviewed the three, Year 2000, Petitions and endorses the comments submitted by Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The three petitions are related, discussing:
- PRM-50-65: All nuclear facilities should be shutdown on 12/1/99 unless and until each is evaluated for Y2K compliance, remediation is complete, related information is made public, and full-scale testing is completed.
- PRM-50-66: Perform a full-scale emergency planning exercise involving coping with a Y2K related failure.
- PRM-50-67: Ensure the availability of "electricity to power atomic reactor and other nuclear facility safety systems" in the event of a Y2K incident.
We recommend that the Commission deny the three Year 2000 related petitions from Nuclear Information and Resource Services as discussed in the NEI response. Sincerely, Mark V. McKeown Sr. Nuclear Consultant Northern States Power Co. c: Roger Anderson Jim Davis (NEI)
~owledg MAR ~ 2__19.9~
.,f"'lOflAl'.,-00,CIOOOve,_ __
CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LJ:MANl'IUS &ADJUDICATIONS STAfF OFFICE OF THE seeRETARY OF THE COMMI . N Document Sl!ltllliCS
Entergy Operations, Inc. -=-Entergy OOC KE TEO PO Box 31995 Jackson . MS 39286- 1995 US RS Te l 601 368 5760 Michael R. Kansler V,ce President "99 MAR -4 P3 :12 Operations Sup pmt Ot,,
~-,
["'\\... ADJI J February 22, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER Mr. John C. Hoyle, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PETITION RULE PAM 50-t,5 Washington, DC 20555 t,c/FR31'll>) Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
Subject:
Petition for Rulemaking Related to Year 2000 Computer Readiness
Reference:
Federal Register Vol. 64, Pages 3789 - 3793, dated January 25, 1999 CNRO-99/00008
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
In the referenced Federal Register notices, the NRG requested comments on petitions for public rulemaking (PRM-50-65, -66, and -67) filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) pertaining to Year 2000 (Y2K). Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on these petitions. In addition to the general comments presented below, Entergy strongly supports and endorses the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG). Entergy strongly opposes the NIRS petitions for rulemaking. The issues raised in the proposed rulemaking petitions are adequately addressed in current regulations. Each nuclear licensee is obligated to meet these regulations, as specified in the facility operating license, regardless of identified pending situations and conditions such as the Y2K issue. The Y2K issue is of great concern to the nuclear utility industry. Through various agencies, including NEI and the National Energy Resource Council (NERC), utilities are diligently working to ensure their plants are Y2K ready by December 1999. The nuclear industry is providing periodic status reports to NEI and NERC, which are available to the public. These reports not only provide a viable forum for exchange of information among the utilities, but also allow the public to discern the efforts being put forth by these entities. As you are aware, the NRG is also gathering valuable information through the various plant audits and through information provided via Generic Letter 98-01, "Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants."
\fAli I Z 'I M laulowtedged by cara _ _ __...._
NOH!ISININ003H1:K> M:1\#JltSaiaS 3HJ.:I() D:1:10
- YVJI 8NOll\Ulll'OVi st>NDIWB'lffiJ NOIS9MftOO AHOl~i:f\f3100N *s*n
Petition for Rulemaking Related to Year 2000 Computer Readiness CNRO-99/00008 February 22, 1999 Page 2 of 2 In a public meeting held in October 1997, participants comprised of the NRC staff, industry experts, and other interested parties reviewed current regulatory requirements. The participants concluded these requirements are adequate to address the Y2K concern and no additional regulations are required. The NIRS petitions raise no new issues that would change this conclusion. Because of current efforts by both the nuclear industry and the NRC, Entergy believes the NIRS petitions for rulemaking are unnecessary and would, if enacted, place unnecessary burdens on the nuclear industry without any appreciable increase in public health and safety. Therefore, Entergy urges the NRC to oppose these unnecessary and overly burdensome proposed rules. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. Sincerely, cc: Mr. C. M. Dugger (W-GSB-300) Mr. W. A. Eaton (G-ESC3-VPO) Mr. R. K. Edington (R-GSB-40) Mr. C. R. Hutchinson (N-GSB) Mr. J. R. McGaha (M-ECH-65) Mr. G. F. Dick, NRR Project Manager, GGNS Mr. R. J. Fretz, NRR Project Manager, RBS Mr. N. D. Hilton, NRR Project Manager, ANO-1 Mr. M. C. Nolan, NRR Project Manager, ANO-2 Mr. Chandu P. Patel, NRR Project Manager, W3 MR KANSLER M-ECH-66 Entergy Operations, Inc. 1340 Echelon Parkway P.O. Box31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995
SIEMENS DOCKETED U~. !RC February 23, 1999 *99 MAR -3 P3 :z7 LJM:99:019 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or.. HI, Washington, DC 20555 ADJl L - I . Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 50*/,5_ 1 50-1, 1 (~'I FR31'16) (r,t/PH37'n) Gentlemen:
Subject:
Comments on Petitions for Rulemaking; Docket Nos. PRM-50-65 and PRM-50-67 Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) is a nuclear fuel fabricator located in Richland, Washington and is licensed by the NRC under 10 CFR Part 70 (License No. SNM-1227). We are providing these comments in response to the subject petitions for rulemaking submitted on December 10, 1998 by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, as applicable to Part 70 licensees. SPC recommends that the NRC reject each of the subject petitions for rulemaking submitted by Nuclear Information and Resource Service. While recognizing the importance of properly addressing Y2K issues at Part 70-licensed nuclear fuel fabrication plants, we do not believe that additional regulations are necessary to assure this is accomplished. Instead these issues can be, and are being, effectively addressed under existing regulations, existing Part 70 license conditions, and specific NRC Y2K initiatives already underway. With respect to PRM-50-65 and its proposed requirements relative to computer systems examination, remediation, and followup testing, Part 70 uranium fuel fabrication plants are already responding to the requirements of NRC Generic Letter 98-03: NMSS Licensees' and Certificate Holders' Year 2000 Readiness Programs (June 22, 1998). That letter required licensees to provide, for the NRC's evaluation, a description of their Y2K Readiness Programs, including scope, assessment processes, corrective action plans, and testing/validation schedules. A confirmation of Y2K Readiness or alternatively, a status report of work remaining to be done, was required on or before December 31, 1998. For facilities that did not confirm Y2K Readiness on or before December 31, 1998, a similar status report is required by July 1, 1999. Both status reports require the identification of contingency plans for systems that may affect safety and safeguards. Requirements imposed under Generic Letter 98-03, under current Part 70 regulations, are sufficient to move fuel fabricators to Y2K Readiness in a manner that is open to, and auditable by, the NRC. With respect to PRM-50-67 and its backup electrical power requirements, Part 70 fuel fabricators are once again already effectively regulated under current regulations. Requirements Siemens Power Corporation MAR ~ Jtiti)jjj) 2101 Horn Rapids Road Tel: (509) 375-8100
~knowledged by card _ _,_,_* 111
,_- MIL Richland, WA 99352 Fax: (509) 375-8402
Cl.EAR*REGULATORY COMMISSIO ULS1IAKIN~&ADJUDICATIONS*STAFF EOF1"1E SECRETARY OFlHECOMMfSS IJOCllment St8tislfcs
<~J~'fjq9 7
U.S. NRC LJM:99:019 February 23, 1999 Page 2 to have onsite emergency electrical power generators are imposed as license conditions. Furthermore, these generators are required to be maintained in a state of readiness, validated by periodic testing. Fuel supplies are maintained at a level adequate to facilitate appropriate response/recovery actions. It should be stated that in the highly unlikely event of a total loss of electrical power (grid plus backup), conditions at SPC's plant would not threaten public health and safety. Potential adverse impacts would be limited to work areas and equipment within the plant; no catastrophic or significant loss of control or containment of special nuclear material would occur. And lastly, the provision of a tertiary (i.e. secondary backup) source of electrical power to the plant independent of the broader electrical grid, as would be required under PRM-50-67, is an unreasonable requirement that would force shutdown of SPC' s plant on December 1, 1999, in the absence of any significant cred ible safety risk. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on these petitions for rulemaking. For the reasons stated above, we urge the NRC to deny both petitions. If you have questions regarding SPC's position, please contact me on 509-375-8537. L. J. Maas, Manager Regulatory Compliance
/pg SIEMENS Siemens Power Corporation - Nuclear Division PO Box 130, 2101 Horn Rapids Road, Richland, WA 99352-0130
~ Florida II** *~ Power
- CORPORATION DOC ,ETEO U C
--* it!*
Crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 Operating Ucense No. DPR-72
'99 N 3 P3 :27 Of-F-LJ JL February 24, 1999 DOCKET UMBER 3F0299-16 PETITIO RULE A So-'° 5
(,C/FR'37'1o) Mr. John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Comments on Petitions Related to Year 2000 Computer Readiness
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
Florida Power Corporation (FPC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the three petitions related to Year 2000 computer readiness as published in the 64 Federal Register 3790, dated January 25 , 1999. FPC endorses the comments on the three petitions for rulemaking provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) , by letter dated February 24, 1999, on the industry ' s behalf. Sincerely, lfl/4U-J. J. Holden Director Site Nuclear Operations JJH/ff xc: Regional Administrator, Region II Senior Resident Inspector NRR Project Manager
-'Mi 12 1998
*** ,,.,..w;i:
CRYSTAL RIVER ENERGY COMPLEX: 15760 W. Power Line Street
- Crystal River, Florida 34428-6708 * (352) 795-6486 A Florida Progress Company
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO
~U~~S&ADJIJOICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFM SECRETARY Of THECONIMIS~N
Union Electric One Ameren Plaza 1901 Chouteau Avenue DOCKETED PO Box 66149 St. Louis, MO 63166-6149 USN C 314.621.3222 "99 MAR -3 P3 :27 February 24, 1999 OFt-, nL -r ADJL,, ' Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER Washington, DC 20555-0001 PETITION Rll.E PAM S()*ti,s Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff ( <,f/FR37qo) ~~ Gentleman: ULNRC-3969 ~meren
- UE COMMENTS ON PETITIONS RELATED TO YEAR 2000 COMPUTER READINESS AmerenUE hereby submits comments in response to the NRC' s request for public comments on three petitions for rulemaking from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. These petitions are related, discussing computer issues related to year 2000 date rollover, commonly referred to as Y2K issue. (Federal Register vol. 64, Number 15; January 25, 1999)
AmerenUE has actively participated in the review and generation of comments on the three petitions for rulemaking relating to the Y2K issues, coordinated by Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Therefore, we fully endorse the comments submitted on February 24, 1999 by Mr. James W . Davis ofNEI on
- behalf of the nuclear energy industry.
contact us. If you have any questions on our endorsement of these comments, please Very truly yours~-
~c'~
Alan C. Passwater Manager, Corporate Nuclear Services BFH/jdg MAR 1 2 1999
~edged by card ,._ ...* 11111111111111*~
a subsidiary of Ameran Corporation
DOCII_.Slalalca
.:; I~ lf/2 'I
cc: M. H. Fletcher Professional Nuclear Consulting, Inc. 19041 Raines Drive Derwood, MD 20855-2432 Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Senior Resident Inspector Callaway Resident Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8201 NRC Road
- Steedman, MO 65077 Mr. Mel Gray (2)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint, North, Mail Stop 13E16 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102
DOCKETED US 'RC February 23, 1999 Three Mile Island Alert
*99 MAR - 3 p 3 :1Q Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Of ,-i HL ADJu~
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking CKET NUMBER R 50~lo5
Dear Sir,
/,,.y CR 31ft))
I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue. Everyone is in agreement that the NRC has concerns about grid stability because of the potential for station blackout. The transition into a deregulated market and especially the year 2000 increase the focus and public awareness of station blackout readiness. The NRC can control, and should control, an improved readiness of the diesel generators to supply power for an extended period of time. A sixty day supply of diesel fuel is reasonable. This could be achieved by leasing a tanker truck(s) to provide the additional storage capacity. It (they) could be parked somewhere onsite or near the facility. There might exist in the first few months of 2000 an interruption of fuel oil for which the NRC must be prepared. Because the failure rate of diesel generators is high enough to warrant serious concern, nuclear plants would act prudently to acquire one additional backup generator. At Three Mile Island, the Director for the Division of Reactor Projects in Region One told GPU that their diesel generators were "as ugly as he had ever seen" because of "all of the oil leaks" which made them a fire hazard. Also at TMI, one resident inspector questioned whether testing procedures employed by GPU may not be sufficient to evaluate the diesel generators. Six months after he told me this, he had still not resolved his concerns. He has left the facility without further addressing the issue. Following the 1993 intrusion at TMI, in my testimony to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, I questioned whether a guard had protected the diesel generators. (The answer was no.) I explained the dangers and the rate of failure . GPU testified that diesel IMlR . 2 1999 knowl ed by card ..---"*--~
LATORY CQMIIMSSl0N 1 HUU~~;&ADJUDICA1081Wf OFTHE~IMISl!MON
generators are much more reliable than in years past. But, no one was aware that during that hearing, TMI' s diesel generators were inoperable for a period of one month. I could provide many other accounts regarding the unreliability of diesel generators due to fires, vibrations, stuck valves failed switches, etc. just here in the state of Pennsylvania. Since the NRC has several reports and speeches about station blackout concerns, doing nothing to provide an additional margin of safety would be neglectful. The public is aware. The 1979 accident at TMI could be characterized as a "criminal negligence" accident. Nobody wants to have another one. I urge the NRC to support these proposed rules, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known. Scott D. Portzline Three Mile Island Alert 315 Peffer Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Security Committee Chairman
March 2, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM, DAS ~
~ _ n
~,*-v A p/J J,, ,_,;
A A,,
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-67, "ASSURANCE OF RELIABLE BACK-UP SOURCES OF POWER FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES" Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petition for rulemaking. This comment was received via the rulemaking website on March 1, 1999. The submitter's name is Scott Portzline, TMI Alert, 315 Peffer Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102 . Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
DOCK r-o us r Log # TXX-99058 JUELECTRIC y:; MA -2 F #_-p'J2 February 23, 1999 C. Lance Thrry Senior Vice President
& Principal Nuclear Office r DOCKET U Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN. : Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff
SUBJECT:
Gentlemen: COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING RELATED TO YEAR 2000 COMPUTER (64 FR 3789, 3792 and 3793- January 25, 1999) As requested in the referenced federal register notice, TU Electric submits comments to the proposed three related petitions [3789 , 3792, 3793] for rulemaking, each dated December 10, 1998, submitted by the Nuclear Information Resource Service concerning various aspects of Y2K issues and nuclear safety. This petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations to require that nuclear facilities be shut down if they are not compliant with Y2K issues. The two related petitions would require nuclear power plant and major fuel cycle facilities to develop and implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address potential system failures (PRM-50-66) and to provide reliable back-up sources of power for nuclear facilities (PRM-50-67). We recommend that the Commission deny this petition related to year 2000 computer issues. Current regulations are adequate to address potential issues that may arise from potential Y2K computer issues. NRC Generic Letter 98-01 summarizes some of the applicable regulatory requirements. NRC staff oversight of the industry's year 2000 remediation is providing the technical information needed by the Commission to make informed decisions and ensure public health and safety. (A) TU Electric endorses comments developed by NEI and NUBARG addressing the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (64 Fed . Reg 3789-1/25/99). Concurrently, to date, CPSES has responded to GL-98-01 and has evaluated Supplement 1 to the GL. In July of 1999, CPSES will respond to the second half of GL-98-01 via the requirements as noted in Supplement 1. The second response will confirm Y2K readiness of the facility with regard to those systems within the scope of the license and NRC regulations, and those systems required for continued operation of the facility after January 1, 2000. For COMANCHE PEAK S l l::.AM ELECTRIC STATION P .O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043-1002
~ eagedoycwu _ __
MAff -1
U. .. CLEAR REGULATORY COMMl88K)N RULEMAKINGS &ADJUOfCA1DfUrAF OFFICE Of THE saaemAY C'FTHE ' Document Statistic&
'19
TXX-99058 Page 2 of 4 those systems which are not Y2K ready as of July 1, 1999, the TU Electric will provide a status and completion schedule for achieving readiness by the year 2000. CPSES has already completed the initial assessment of what systems/components fall within the Y2K scope as identified in the GL. CPSES has had two separate outside organizational evaluations/audits performed. One performed by a consultant group and the other by a joint utility evaluation group. Concurrently, two different in-house evaluations have occurred as well. CPSES contingency plans are developed to reduce the risks associated with Y2K induced events to assure safe and continued operations of CPSES during Y2K transition points and beyond. Contingency plans are three fold to identify processes associated with internal risks, external risks and the development of an integrated contingency plan which will marry with the Corporate Y2K plan to assure utility viability during the Y2K transition dates and beyond. All Y2K contingency plans for CPSES are routed through a Continency Plan Steering Committee composed of system and planning experts to review the plans for consistency, thoroughness, assess justifications and evaluate the body of plans to assess the integration of all identified plans into the final integrated plan. Contingency Plans are based on NEI/NUSMG 98-07 and facility specific documents related to Y2K activities. (B) TU Electric endorses comments developed by NEI and NUBARG addressing the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (64 Fed. Reg 3792 and 3793- 1/25/99) (PRM-50-67) and further submits the following comments . Offsite Power TUE has generated a corporate wide Y2K plan which encompass reviews of equipment, plans and procedures necessary to assure continuing power and utility operation. The plan assures and confirms that offsite power will be available to CPSES not only on 1/1/2000 but beyond. CPSES has six different sources of offsite power that is available. Of the six, two are dedicated as the preferred or alternate incoming power sources for CPSES. Loss of offsite power or undervoltage and/or degraded grid voltage problems are handled by redundant systems at CPSES. Preferred, alternate and standby power sources are available to assure reliable continuing operation of CPSES, or, in the event of a condition which leads to a reactor trip, sufficient power and load management is available. All systems were analyzed, built and tested to meet General Design Criteria and Design Basis Accident scenarios for nuclear power plants.
TXX-99058 Page 3 of 4 Abnormal Conditions and Contingencies CPSES has taken the position that plans and procedures which have been reviewed and approved by the NRC for conditions which may occur that would be considered an 'abnormal',
'alarm', or 'emergency' condition, will be used to assess, control and mitigate any condition which may occur. If contingencies are noted specific to potential Y2K related problems, remediation actions have been generated to eliminate the problem or contingencies have been or are being developed to minimize any potential adverse condition. The contingencies are being incorporated into existing facility plans and procedures to assure (a) there is ample time to train appropriate personnel on procedural/plan changes , (b) consistency in methodology in identification and mitigation within current procedures to reduce personnel transition and human factors engineering problems, and ( c) reduce the overall number of new procedures necessary to control the facility, specifically during a potential abnormal condition.
Standby Electrical Power The following Y2K engineering assessments have been performed associated with the EDG's at CPSES. Each of theses assessments have reviewed the EOG and its auxiliaries to include the;
- Generator load sensor magnetic pickup selector switch
- digital speed controller modular electronic control
- dew point transmitter tachometer
- static voltage regulator, and setpoint programmer The Chemistry Organization has also performed assessments on their instruments and
- equipment used to assure diesel fuel quality used at CPSES.
The nuclear industry has committed to a systematic program to find and remediate potential Y2K issues. Any safety related systems for which needed remediation has not been completed will be reported to the Commission by July 1, 1999. Quality assurance procedures and documentation of testing and remediation has been consistent with regulatory requirements. Additional regulations are not required to ensure safe plant operation. Licensees and the NRC are conducting contingency planning for key Y2K rollover dates. These contingency plans evaluate specific risk factors and where appropriate providing mitigation strategies. This effort provides a rational review and systematic approach to issues that could impact the continued safe operation of a plant within the conditions of its license. This is a more effective approach to ensuring plants can continue to operate and meet commitments.
TXX-99058 Page 4 of 4 Summary The Commission has acted responsibly to address potential computer issues related to the year 2000 date rollover. The staff began its technical review early and has taken advantage of many opportunities to oversee and evaluate the industry's effort. We do not believe that additional regulations are needed to maintain the current high standards for public health and safety. If you have any questions please contact Mr. Neil S. Harris at (254 )-897-5449 . Sincerely,
<3,-S, ~
C. L. Terry By:~$-~~ Roger ~alker Regulatory Affairs Manager NSH/nsh
- c. Mr. E. W. Merschoff, Region IV Resident Inspectors, CPSES (2)
Mr. T. Polich, NRR Mr. J. I. Tapia, Region IV
PETITION RULE P 5tJ- 65 ( 1Pt/FR379t;) DOC rTEO C I C
*- - M I
,., L. pJ *
~~ -~. . . " " ~ b -b,
, ..... ~ .
- J ~
a.
# ~-~::* ,=,. ___ ,t:i.tu- .
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS~t0 FlUlEMAIClf8S &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OffU <J='RE SECRETARY OFTHEOOMMISSIO
~SllstiBliCS Postmark Dale >' (f t 1 1 eopiet.Racaad I I __
Add'ICopeeRapodloa(j < - Spegal~ ~ 7- ~ -
Commlt111t1nt. Innovation. Energy. DOCKETE D USNRC WilliamE.lde Mail Station 7605 Palo Verde Nuclear Vice President *gg MAR T..il 6~3,41716 P.O. Box 52034 Generating Station Nuclear Engineering FAX 602/393-6077 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 102-04248-WEI/SAB/RKB OFr' R-J February~23, 1999 AOu L-1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudication's Staff DOCKET NUMBER Washington, DC 20555-0001 PETITION RULE PAM 5o* &,5 [ c,<fFR 31'!0)
Dear Sirs:
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 Comments on Petitions Related to Year 2000 Computer Readiness Arizona Public Service Company (APS) submits the following comments in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's request for comments on three petitions for rulemaking from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. These petitions discuss date-sensitive, computer-related issues related to year 2000, commonly referred to as Y2K issues (64 Fed. Reg. 3789-3793 - January 25, 1999). General Comments APS fully endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on behalf of the nuclear industry. APS recommends that the Commission not approve the petitioner's three requests for rulemaking, docketed as PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66 and PRM-50-67, related to the Y2K issue. APS believes that the petitioner's proposed amendments would provide duplicate regulation regarding the NRC's authority to address safety related issues with licensees, would result in unnecessarily prescriptive regulation that is not sufficiently focused on safety, and would divert valuable industry and licensee resources from existing Y2K readiness efforts to specific areas that provide no additional safety benefit.
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CQMMjSSJON AULEMAKINGS& --il'llmoNSll:'I' STAFF OFFICE OF ....... 'Afrf Of THE OOMMIS8tON Docllln St&U I s Postmelk Dala J;J./;15 / <19
- ~~ ___& ___
Special Dlsllltl~--::2~ ~~ -
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Petitions Related to Year 2000 Computer Readiness Page 2 PRM-50-65 Shutdown of Nuclear Facilities Contrary to the petitioner's proposed rulemaking, there is no need to achieve 100% Y2K compliance of all devices or systems to ensure a nuclear generating station is ready for the Y2K related critical dates. While Y2K issues affecting critical systems must be remedied to maintain continued operation, the petitioner's proposed rulemaking does not differentiate between levels of significance or the systems affected. Additionally, requiring full-scale or plant-wide integrated testing of all repairs fails to add notable benefit to existing Y2K programs. On one end of the spectrum, there are the standalone date-aware, microprocessor-based devices that do not communicate digital information to any other devices. Properly performed bench testing of these devices, by the licensee or vendor, coupled with software/firmware revision level verification of the field device as required, is adequate to establish its Y2K status. Repeating this test in the field as part of a plant-wide integrated test will not add any additional benefits related to system Y2K readiness. On the other end of the spectrum, the most highly complex systems, such as distributed control systems may require in-plant testing of the remediated system. This testing might cover a large portion of the plant equipment. However, even in this case, the maximum bounds of the test would involve the individual system being tested and the other devices and systems with which it communicates digital/date-related information. Mandating plant-wide testing does not provide any additional benefit. Finally, the Commission already possesses adequate authority via regulations and license conditions to ensure licensees operate their facilities safely. Through the mandatory response to Generic Letter 98-01, the NRC will receive sufficient information from each nuclear utility upon which to base their decision as to the safety of each facility. Establishing new prescriptive regulations, as proposed by the petitioner, is not necessary to ensure safe plant operation. PRM-50-66 Emergency Planning It appears the petitioner has failed to take into consideration the nuclear and electric industries Y2K contingency planning efforts as outlined in NEI/NUSMG 98-07, "Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness Contingency Planning" and the North-American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) "Year 2000 Contingency Planning Guide." The petitioner is requesting rulemaking to require all licensees to conduct one formal Emergency Plan drill with at least one Y2K failure. Most nuclear generating stations are already planning to participate in two nation wide Y2K drills through North American Electric
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Petitions Related to Year 2000 Computer Readiness Page 3 Reliability Council assuming multiple Y2K failures, as well as preparing, and implementing numerous contingency plans for a much wider variety of issues than the petitioner requests. The petitioner also appears unfamiliar with how Emergency Plans and their associated preparedness drills relate to Y2K contingency plans. In general, facility emergency plans are not changed in response to potential Y2K issues. The purpose of having contingency plans is to prepare to mitigate the effects of the most probable and serious malfunctions that might be initiated or exacerbated by Y2K failures. These contingency plans provide additional training, staffing and material procurement for occurrences that could happen at any time, but that have a higher probability of occurring during the key Y2K dates. Current emergency preparedness regulations combined with increased industry planning associated with Y2K issues are sufficient to ensure safe operation and accident mitigation of nuclear plants. Adding regulations in an area where the industry is already far exceeding the petitioner's general requests would divert valuable licensee resources away from important Y2K issues. PRM-50-67 Backup Power The petitioner fails to provide a justifiable basis for the proposed rulemaking in this petition and also fails to provide credible alternatives to existing industry practices related to the loss of offsite power and station blackout. The petitioner's proposed backup power sources, such as solar, wind and hydroelectric, appear to be offered without a thorough understanding of the quantity of power required or of electric generation and transmission as a whole. Solar and wind are not credible backup power sources due to their dependability upon unpredictable weather conditions and are limited by the amount of power they can generate. Hydroelectric is also not a credible backup power source due to the geographic distances between hydroelectric generating stations and nuclear generating stations. Hydroelectric power would have to be transmitted to nuclear facilities using the electrical grid network. Loss of offsite power and station blackout are issues that the nuclear industry has addressed. Sufficient redundant backup power sources are present at nuclear plants. Emergency Plans and procedures exist for responding to such events. Adequate regulations and license conditions already exist to ensure safe operation. The addition of prescriptive regulations as proposed by the petitioner, without sufficient technical justification or apparent safety benefit, is not warranted.
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Petitions Related to Year 2000 Computer Readiness Page 4 Summary APS believes that the proposed rulemaking petitions will not serve to enhance public health and safety or the industry efforts in Y2K readiness. The petitioner's proposed regulations will only add unnecessary redundancy to existing NRC regul~tory authority, establish overly prescriptive regulations that have little safety benefit, and divert valuable industry and licensee resources from those areas already identified as requiring attention. APS does not believe the petitioner's proposed regulations are required to maintain the current high standards for public health and safety. Please contact Mr. Scott Bauer at (602) 393-5978 if you have any questions. This letter does not make any commitments to the NRC. Sincerely, WEI/SAB/RKB/mah cc: E. W. Merschoff M. B. Fields J. H. Moorman
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE nn*.15
*99 f EB 2.5 t\
James W. Davis DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT NUCLEAR GENERATION DIVISION DOCKET NUMBER February 24, 1999 PE11TION RULE PRM 5i,-t:,5 Secretary (&t/FR37qD) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff
SUBJECT:
Comments On Petitions Related To Year 2000 Computer Readiness PROJECT NUMBER: 689 On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 1 submits the following comments in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's request for comments on three petitions for rulemaking from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. These petitions are related, discussing date-sensitive, computer issues related to year 2000, commonly referred to as Y2K (64 Fed. Reg. 3790 - January 25, 1999). General Comments We recommend that the Commission deny the three Y2K related petitions from Nuclear Information and Resource Services. Current regulations are adequate to address issues that may arise from potential Y2K computer issues. Regulatory requirements were reviewed in an October 1997 public meeting between the NRC staff, industry experts, and other interested parties. This review concluded that no additional regulations were required. The petitions do not raise new issues that would change this conclusion. NRC Generic Letter 98-01 summarizes some of the applicable regulatory requirements. NRC staff oversight of the industry's coordinated year 2000 readiness program is providing the technical information 1 NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEI's Members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy issue. ~IAlt J 1119
~leCged by emu-----,. .
"--.l JIT E 4 ')()
LI.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FIULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION DocwnentS1atlslics
..:;/.p1/ 99 f/J)
- es
- ~_. }. _____
Postmark 003 SpeciaJ Dlstrbllloo ~
~D~~ ;
Secretary February 24, 1999 Page 2 needed by the Commission to make informed decisions and ensure public health and safety. The NRC staff started early in its Y2K oversight effort. In December 1996 the NRC staff issued an information notice to ensure the nuclear industry recognized the potential for problems in computer systems and software. In a September 1997 report to the Commission, the staffs technical analysis determined that safety-related initiation and actuation systems (e.g., reactor trip system, engineered safety feature actuation system) were not subject to the Year 2000 concern. Industry testing has confirmed this assessment. The NRC staff also concluded that non-safety-related, but important, computer-based systems, primarily databases and data collection necessary for plant operations that are date driven, may need modification for Year 2000 readiness. Industry testing has shown that there are cases where remediation is required, but no situation has been identified that would prevent proper operation of safety systems to shut down the plant if required. The nuclear energy industry has taken a closely coordinated approach to year 2000 readiness, making regulatory oversight easier. In public meetings, industry technical representatives briefed the NRC staff in detail on draft industry guidelines. Staff suggestions and comments were incorporated in the final document, NEI/NUSMG 97-07, "Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness" issued on October 20, 1997. All nuclear generating facilities committed to follow this standard industry program. The NRC staff has closely monitored the implementation and evaluated the effectiveness of nuclear power plant licensee Y2K readiness programs. As part of the oversight process, the NRC staff has monitored industry training sessions, workshops and seminars. In January 1999 the NRC staff completed 12 audits of licensee year 2000 readiness programs, evaluating implementation of the standard industry program and conducting detailed technical reviews. Oversight activity has provided the staff with a clear understanding of the industry program. By July 1, 1999, each licensee, except those who have permanently ceased operations, will report to the Commission the status of their Y2K readiness program. This report will identify any safety-related remediation that has not been completed and the facility schedule for achieving readiness. This report, combined with long-term NRC staff oversight, will provide the Commission with the technical information needed to conduct a rational evaluation ofY2K issues. Current regulations provide adequate authority if Commission action were needed to protect public health and safety.
Secretary February 24, 1999 Page 3 PRM-50-65 Shutdown of nuclear facilities Current regulations are adequate to allow both the licensee and Commission to make operability determinations for plant equipment and systems. If a Y2K issue affects the operability of a system, actions required by the license and regulations will be taken by plant operators. As indicated earlier the industry has committed to a systematic program to find and remediate potential Y2K issues. Any safety-related systems for which needed remediation has not been completed will be reported to the Commission by July 1, 1999. Quality assurance procedures and documentation of testing and remediation has been consistent with regulatory requirements .
- Additional regulations are not required to ensure safe plant operation.
PRM-50-66 Emergency planning The additional emergency planning exercise suggested by the petition is not needed to ensure public health and safety. NRC analysis and industry testing have confirmed that safety systems will function to shut down a reactor if required. The facts do not support the petitioner's speculation that Y2K-induced events could cause severe challenges to critical safety systems leading to potential core meltdown. Licensees and the NRC are developing contingency plans for key Y2K rollover dates. These contingency plans evaluate specific risk factors and where appropriate provide mitigation strategies to allow continued safe operation. This effort provides a rational review and systematic approach to issues that could impact the continued safe operation of a plant within the conditions of its license. This is a more effective approach to ensuring plants can continue to operate and meet commitments. PRM-50-67 Backup power Current regulations requiring backup power are sufficient to ensure public health and safety. Facilities operating within the requirements of their license have adequate alternate power sources. In its most recent report issued January 11, 1999, the North American Electric Reliability Council states that, "Transmission outages are expected to be minimal and outages that may occur are anticipated to be mitigated by reduced energy transfers established as part of the contingency planning process." Widespread, long-term loss of the grid due to Y2K induced events is not a credible scenario.
Secretary February 24, 1999 Page 4 The adequacy of backup power systems has been demonstrated during weather induced interruptions of the power grid. Summary The Commission has acted responsibly to addressing potential computer issues related to the year 2000 date rollover. The staff began its technical review early and has taken advantage of many opportunities to review and evaluate the industry's effort. The industry analysis shows that current regulations are adequate to maintain high standards for public health and safety. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these three petitions for rulemaking. If you have any questions please contact me at 202-739-8105. Sincerely,
R-'2 Nu..c\eav 11,w~ ~ '/Z't( . ~.e.\Uu..\~ ii kt~fO
-fo\ AU.O.a.~ DOCKET NUMBER US RC PETITION RULE PAM 5"t>-t,5 I)eav-, f\) R.. C. Flf379~) *g:; FEB 25 Al 1 :15 i~ VVJri ~ ~~
,,;.,;t~-~
v,r
~-N tLw.e~r HL,
-FU1 l1/4ll.o. ""-a..,;..; ~ 1/2 N~ t l l l --.r:::i-t+Jn..u~ ~ **
~5<:rw\~ ~ ( r \ , , '" ' fl_ 1 O""- l~ l O' l '=' 155; /\.!l.,yuotj
~M f>cnµ-1'\ ~ ~Zk 1s~s. ~ YZ-k... 1;5.-lil..s ~
o-{ "'fR-,J:_ ib ~ , e 5~~ z...5 Ji: ,N2.\at, s Cc:nte..el\M
-to ~-,,,,... f' OW<-\
- I kt N J: IZ S ~ s -Po-u. ~ _
M ~ j ~ a j l'J,\t)Jas/- ~a,,,+/- Sfets ~ 2<.d *~>> i i=fu_ S .l S5 f.tQ.. , j Wcg2- W NR.C--to ~~ 11/4as£ ~ , ~to~-
~s"'- I~ INt -tkQ f.Q~~ ~~ ~s x,t7VL ~ pa ~ ~
j ~ io Cd>>'t~ O"n\WJsQ- ~> ~~ 7ulL_rtt.Wk~I
- p lea,12. n.o-t{~ VIV2 crn,c.e7~ ~~ U )s ~ -
7\tau.k_ '/cru.\
~l(~
Qv.L~t,\.e.t\ Gjwe.\"'-. 1""6 74 E . ~oo So~\.\ Y/\z.v\AC6'5\,)\\\e. ,~Jl~Z<.
-t794b MAR 3 1999
U. . UCLEAR REGULATORY COMHISSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJlllO\TDa ll'Aff OFFICE OFlffEIIIJEWW OF T H E ~ Docllnn . . . S Postmark Date P /aO/ 99 1 Copies Aecllwed ' - Add'I s
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 50 . ./J,5" ( (,~FR37'io/ OOC1 E.1£.D US* RC Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *oq f E\3 25 ~11 *., S Washington, DC 20555 ~~ Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking 0 ;: 1
- RLL.
ADJIJI '.
DearNRC:
I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue. I urge the NRC to support these proposed rules, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known. Sincerely, I I
/6()f WlR -3 1199 by card Me I s -<<RI litlrat WWW
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CQMMjSSION FIULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFM SEUE'ARY OF THE COMMISSION DocunartSlatllllcs I Postmalk Date ~po/ CJ 'J CopiesRecllwed _ _ _--'-_ _ _ i ' Add'I Coples Rapoduced _ ____ _
~ z,s ~
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 5o- ~5 c.lPl/Fl<37eJo) OOC kE l ~O Attn: Docketing and Service Branch US t-JRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
*99 FEB 25 A1 1 :15 Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking
DearNRC:
I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue .
- I urge the NRC to support these proposed rules, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known.
Sincerely,
~by
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM6SStON FIULEMAKINGS &ADJIDCATD4SlfAFF OFFICE OFMSB&TARV OF THE COMMISSION DocllnnW:a Postmark Dete ,pfatJ/9tJ Cop1esR8CM8d I Add'I Coples Reproduc8d _ _.__ _ _ s ecial Dlsbbdion ~ p~~
-r.l>~ "'R 17:>S
DOCKET NUMBER PE11TION RULE PAM 5a .. ~ DOC .ETEO Attn: Docketing and Service Branch (&1e/FR379o) US, RC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 *99 FEB 25 A11 :15 Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking OFr 1 RL. AOJUL;
DearNRC:
I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue .
- I urge the NRC to support these proposed rules, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known.
. .,3 .*
.o.cknowledged by card -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMM1v , FlUlEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS ST OFFICE OFT-HE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docllnent Statistics I P /9 Po111111k Dela .:2 O 9 CoplasRacaad > / Add'I Cqa Reproooced _ .- - - ~~ ~
!#fa~ ~ - .
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 50* r,,5 l ~1/FR319o) OOCKFTEO Attn: Docketing and Service Branch us nc U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 *99 FEB 25 A1 1 :16 Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking OFt - RL 1 ADJU I
DearNRC:
I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue.
- I urge the NRC to support these proposed rules, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known.
Sincerely,
~~
- Io L J ~ Sf-.
f- () . 13 6 >< 2%1 f3vi--frh.. L)/1 c-wnd___1 IN 4-7 1 Ll
- 3 ?99B
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION DocllnnStallllk:s Pos1Alalk Data c:21/p ~ j 9 9 CqJiQs Rae11ved - I Add'ICqaRlapocl,cad _ _ _ _ ~ ~
~
r Radicitio11
*1** :,1, .. z,----*- . *** *=**
and Public Health Project 302 West 86U1 Sb.eel Suite 118 New Y01lc NY 10024 Tel212 496-6787 . f ax 212 362-0348 Dilector. Jay M. Gould DOC ETD DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM o-t,5 lJ 'R ...
- 0
-0
..0
~
~'(ff.?31'10\
February 19, 1999 / *99 FEB 25 AB :36 rv v-1
;i Secretary or, w 0 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications St t U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission ADJ! L VI Washington, DC 20555
- r: VI Re: Nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
The Radiation and Public Health Project is a non-profit corporation with Thousands of supporters concerned about the toxic effects of nuclear radiation . RPHP supports the th~ee petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear I nformation and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to our organization, especially as it relates to nuclear power. It is our position that the NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue . The NIRS petitions, if adopted, would establish new rules for the atomic power industry and the NRC. These rules would:
- 1) (Docket# PRM 50-65) require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any nuclear reactor that are not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time as they are compliant. There is a widespread belief that the NRC has ordered the shutdown by July 1, 1999 of nuclear reactors that are not Y2K compliant. This is untrue. The NRC so far only has ordered the nuclear utilities to report by July 1 as to whether they are "Y2K ready" and if not , when they will be ready. The NRC has NEVER threatened to close any nuclear reactor for non-readiness . Rather, the NRC has said it will evaluate reactors that do not report readiness by July 1, "on a case-by-case basis."
Therefore , STAR maintains that the present regulatory plan is inadequate . The NRC must require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any nuclear reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time as they are compliant. The purpose of this proposed rule is to ensure that there are standard criteria that the utilities must meet to demonstrate Y2K compliance (a stricter standard than "readiness"), and that the NRC will apply these criteria uniformly across the industry . The NIRS definition would require tes ti ng of all systems and we believe that the first test of these systems must not come on 01/01/00, but must be pe.r formed no later than June 1, 1999 in order to provide ample time to shut down any non-compliant reactors with assurance that the cooling pools for the reactor rods will continue to be supplied with a non-interrupted source of electrical power . Nuclear reactors should not be allowed to operate on December 31, 1999 if compliance is not demonstrated, as the potential interactions among non-compliant and compliant systems presents an unknown, but foreseeable 1M *3 1999
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMt~~lv,\J RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFTiiE SECRETARY OF THE ~ION DoaumentW:s ro-.Dlle o14s/2tr7 ~ 1 c(~ ~ ~ CqiNRIHhld Aa1' Oatill Rraplodiaaad _ ..,.$____ ~ ~.
- PP! rRt ~ ( I '
risk to the public. Moreover, we echo the sentiment of Congressmembers Horn, Manzullo and Kucinich, who in a December 17, 1998 letter to Shirley Jackson called upon the NRC to conduct audits at all 109 NRC-licensed power reactors and facilities.
- 2) (Docket# PRM 50-66) require each nuclear site to hold a full-scale emergency response exercise, no later than June 1, 1999, that includes a Y2K-related component.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to build an industry-wide storehouse of knowledge that can be called upon if Y2K problems do evidence themselves. Until July 1996, all nuclear sites were required to hold annual emergency response exercises; now they must hold them biannually. This proposed rule would simply, for one year only, return the industry to an annual exercise and require a Y2K component. The NRC and the nuclear utilities are all preparing Y2K contingency plans, and are to be commended for this. However, there is a vast difference between an untested contingency plan and an actual exercise, in which nuclear utility personnel must respond to events as if they actually
- were happening. This type of training is invaluable, particularly for the type and range of problems Y2K issues could present.
- 3) (Docket# PRM 50-67) require each reactor to have both of its emergency diesel generators declared operable, as of December 1, 1999; have a 60-day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class lE (or safety-related and thus requiring back-up power); and require utilities to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by December 1, 1999.
This proposed rule addresses what may be the most important Y2K issue-the possibility of local, regional, or widespread blackouts. Nuclear reactors require offsite electrical power to cool the reactor core and fuel pool. The scenario of losing electrical power is called by the NRC "station blackout," and according to the agency's own safety studies, this scenario represents about 50% of the risk of operating atomic reactors. In short, if an
- operating reactor loses power for any significant amount of time (several hours to a couple of days}, the reactor will melt down.
To compensate for this, reactors are required to have emergency diesel generators, each capable of powering the entire plant. The NRC claims these generators are 95% reliable--an uncomfortably low reliability factor for an industry that requires just about 100% perfection in operations. But NIRS' own research suggests that generator reliability is considerably lower. Moreover, one of the two emergency generators is often out-of-service for routine maintenance. This proposed rule would require both emergency diesel generators to be operable, and to have enough fuel onsite to compensate for potential fuel delivery problems caused by unrelated Y2K disruptions. Astonishingly, irradiated fuel pools, which also require cooling, are not even considered safety-related by the NRC, and thus are not subject to backup power requirements. This proposed rule would remedy that situation. Furthermore, because of the high failure rate of emergency diesel generators, this proposed rule would require utilities to install an additional source of dedicated back-up power (which could be added to the
electrical grid once the Y2K issue is fully addressed). The petition does not specify the source of back-up power, although STAR' preference is that it be locally-appropriate renewable energy sources. Finally, we believe that the proposed date in the petitions (December 1, 1999) is adequate, though not ideal, and it is our position that the date should be no later than June 1, 1999. Sincerely,
.~~~
Director, Radiation and Public Health Project 302 West 86 St. New York NY 10024
WINSTON & STRAWN: TED U::iJ ;,ir IA 1400 L STREET, N.W.
- 2fti t, 6 , RUE DU CIRQUE 35 WEST WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601-9703 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3502 *99 FEB p 4 :4j 75008 PARIS, FRANCE 43, RUE DU RHONE 200 PARK AVENUE (202) 371-5700 1204 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND NEW YORK. NY 10166-4193 FACSIMILE (202) 371-5950 or: I ff_*
DANIEL F. STENGER AD--'l, (202) 371-5742 dstenger@winston.com February 24, 1999 LJOCKET UMBER PETITION RULE PR 5 o- ltJ5 ( &t/FR 3fqo) Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re: Comments on Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (64 Fed. Reg. 3789 - January 25, 1999)
Dear Ms. Cook:
On behalf of the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG)/ we are submitting these comments to address the Nuclear Information and Resource Service's (NIRS or Petitioner) suggested amendment to the Commission's rules governing Year 2000 (Y2K) computer-related issues (64 Fed. Reg. 3789-90 (January 25, 1999)). NUBARG opposes the Petitioner's suggested amendment for the reasons set forth below. In short, NUBARG makes the following comments in opposition to the Petition and the claims asserted therein: ( 1) there already exists an adequate regulatory basis for the NRC to take action on Y2K computer issues that could affect the public health and safety; (2) in addition to the impracticality of the Petitioner's request, there is no safety basis for requiring either a higher state of Y2K preparedness, i.e., Y2K compliance, instead of Y2K readiness, or shutdown of facilities not Y2K compliant; (3) there is no reason for requiring public disclosure of information licensees voluntarily supplied to the NRC that is protected from public disclosure under exemptions to the 1J NUBARG is a consortium of sixteen utilities which was formed in the early 1980s and actively participated in the development of the NRC's backfitting rule (10 C.F.R. § 50.109) in 1985. NUBARG has subsequently monitored the NRC's implementation of the backfitting rule. 4.dulowledged by card MAR - 3 1999
U.S. NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMfSSION FWlEMAKINGS &AOJUOICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF'fHE SECRETARY THE COMMJ~IO Document Statistics ~Date ~ '.;J4J t;e; ~I Cq,fesRGcelved ' ActftCqa ~produced _ __ _ ~ ~ =?~ ~
WINSTON & STRA"WN Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook February 24, 1999 Page 2 Freedom of Information Act or the Year 2000 Information Readiness Disclosure Act, and there is no reason to compel production of additional information; and (4) there is no basis for compelling closure of facilities if they are not Y2K compliant by December 1, 1999. For the reasons set forth below, NUBARG requests that the NRC deny the NIRS Petition for Rulemaking in full. NUBARG's Comments
- 1. There Is an Adequate Regulatory Basis to Take Action on Y2K Computer Issues In its Petition, NIRS asserts that additional regulation is needed relative to Y2K preparedness because "the NRC has not made explicit how it will define compliance nor what it plans to do for facilities that cannot prove compliance." 64 Fed. Reg. at 3790. NIRS apparently believes that, absent regulatory change, the NRC lacks a basis for taking action should a safety-significant problem occur relative to date-sensitive, computer-related Y2K issues. The NRC has made clear, however, that it has a sufficient regulatory basis, both for seeking assurance about Y2K readiness under 10 C.F.R. § 50.54(f) and for demanding that licensees take appropriate actions to keep their facilities safe and to report Y2K problems that affect safe operations.
Specifically, the NRC cited the following regulations in Generic Letter No. 98-01:
- Reporting requirements under 10 C.F.R. Part 21 and 10 C.F.R.§§ 50.72 and 50.73 which provide for notification to the NRC of deficiencies and non-conformances, and failures, such as some of those which could result from a Y2K problem in safety-related systems;
- 10 C.F.R. § 50.36, "Technical Specifications," paragraph (c)(3), "Surveillance Requirements," and paragraph (c)(S), "Administrative controls," which provide requirements pertaining to testing, calibration, or inspection to ensure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, as well as requirements relating to management, procedures, recordkeeping, and review and audit necessary to ensure operation of the facility in a safe manner;
- 10 C.F.R. 50.47, "Emergency Plans," paragraph (b)(8), which relates to the provision and maintenance of adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency responses;
WINSTON & STRAWN Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook February 24, 1999 Page 3
- Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Criterion III, "Design Control," which requires that design control measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews, by the use of alternate or simplified calculational methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program;
- Appendix B, Criterion XVII, "Quality Assurance Records," which requires that sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality. The records are to include operating logs and the results of reviews;
- Appendix E to IO C.F.R. Part 50, Section VI, "Emergency Response Data System," which relates to the provision and maintenance of licensee links to the ERDS;
- Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, General Design Criterion (GDC) 13, "Instrumentation and Control," which addresses the provision of appropriate instrumentation and controls to monitor and control systems and variables during normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and accident conditions, as appropriate, to ensure adequate safety;
- GDC 19, "Control Room," which requires the provision of a control room from which actions can be taken to operate the nuclear plant safely; and
- GDC 23, "Protection System Failure Modes," which requires that the protection system shall be designed to fail into a safe state or into a state demonstrated to be acceptable on some other defined basis.
NRC Generic Letter No. 98-01: Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants (May 11, 1998) ("GL 98-0 I"). The NRC Staff has also revised the Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, Chapter 7, "Instrumentation and Control," in recognition of the Y2K concern with guidance for the Staffs review of computer-based instrumentation and control systems. Thus the NRC already has the regulatory tools to monitor relevant licensee activities and to demand that licensees take appropriate actions relative to Y2K readiness to protect the public health and safety. The NRC also has a comprehensive enforcement policy that it can use to demand licensee conformance with its rules and to punish non-compliance or failure to take corrective actions. See NUREG-1600, Revision 1. Contrary to NIRS' s claim that the NRC has not been "explicit [as to] how it will define compliance," the NRC has made clear the level of compliance it expects in GL 98-01. The Generic Letter required licensees to provide written responses as follows:
WINSTON & STRAWN Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook February 24, 1999 Page 4 (1) Within 90 days of the date of the generic letter, licensees were to indicate whether or not they have pursued and are continuing to pursue a Y2K program similar to that outlined in an industry guidance document (NEI/NUSMG 97-07). If a licensee's program significantly differs from the NEI/NUSMG guidance, it must describe the programs that have already been completed, or are planned to ensure Y2K readiness of the computer systems at their facility(ies). (2) Upon completing their Y2K program or, in any event, no later than July 1, 1999, licensees are to submit a written response confirming that the facility is Y2K ready, or will be Y2K ready, by the year 2000 with regard to compliance with the terms and conditions of the facility license(s) and NRC regulations. If a licensee's program is incomplete as of that date, the response must contain a status report, including completion schedules, of work remaining to be done to confirm that the facility will be Y2K ready by the year 2000. The NRC has audited licensee response to this generic letter and conformance to the programs they filed with the NRC. Thus, not only has the NRC defined compliance, the NRC has confirmed that licensees are doing what they said they would do and that the actions licensees are taking adequately address Y2K concerns. Therefore, no additional NRC regulation is needed to define compliance for Year 2000 readiness or to take action against facilities that are not in compliance with existing regulations.
- 2. There Is No Safety Basis for Implementing the Petitioner's Suggested Amendment The Petitioner has asked the NRC to amend its regulations to: (1) require all licensee computer systems to be "repaired, modified, and/or replaced ... such ... that [they] are ... Y2K compliant;" and (2) require licensees to "close" their facilities unless "all computer systems" are both "repaired, modified, and/or replaced" and "fully and comprehensively examined" "by 12 pm Eastern Standard Time, December 1, 1999." 64 Fed. Reg. at 3790. There is no safety basis for requiring either a higher state of Y2K preparedness, i.e., Y2K compliance instead of Y2K readiness, than that communicated in GL 98-01, or for requiring the shutdown of facilities not Y2K compliant.
The NRC made careful study of the level of Y2K preparedness necessary to protect the public health and safety. The NRC made clear its expectations in GL 98-01 by mak[ing] a distinction in terminology between "Y2K ready" and "Y2K compliant."
"Y2K compliant" is defined as computer systems or applications that accurately process date/time data (including but not limited to calculating, comparing, and
WINSTON & STRAWN Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook February 24, 1999 Page 5 sequencing) from, into, and between the 20th and 21st centuries, the years 1999 and 2000, and leap-year calculations. "Y2K ready" is defined as a computer system or application that has been determined to be suitable for continued use into the year 2000 even though the computer system or application is not fully Y2K compliant. (These definitions have been adopted by the NRC for purposes of this generic letter.) The NRC determined that licensees should make plans to achieve Y2K readiness, not Y2K compliance. Nothing raised in the NIRS Petition demonstrates that a higher threshold of Y2K preparedness is required. NIRS merely asserts in its Petition, without support, reference or basis, that unless all licensees are Y2K compliant "potential problems ... from inaccurate operations logs to full reactor core meltdowns" could occur. This is a baseless, inflammatory, and irresponsible assertion. To the contrary, the NRC Staff has determined from the audits conducted that: The NRC has no indication that significant Y2K problems exist with safety-related systems in nuclear power plants for those systems that directly affect the ability to safely operate and shut down the plants. All plants can be shut down safely, if necessary, after January 1, 2000. Most nuclear plant safety systems are operated and controlled by analog equipment which is not date-dependent and is not susceptible to the Y2K problem. http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/Y2KNRR.html. Thus, there is no need for rulemaking to mandate Y2K compliance for systems that operate and control safety-related equipment. Furthermore, the Petitioner appears to be asking for licensees to be compelled to make all computer systems, even those used in non-safety-related applications, fully Y2K compliant through NRC regulation. To the extent the petition addresses computer systems that do not have an impact on the safe operation of the plant, such a rulemaking would be outside the limits of NRC regulatory authority. The NRC has completed 12 audits at licensee facilities to gauge the state of licensee Y2K preparedness, in a manner consistent with the NRC's regulatory authority. The NRC Staff has summarized their findings from the first few audits of commercial nuclear plants in this way:
- There is limited use of computers in systems essential to plant safety and continued operation.
- Industry's guidance has yielded effective Y2K readiness programs.
- Management oversight and commitment is important to the success of Y2K readiness.
- Very little contingency planning has started but is expected in line with industry guidance.
- Sharing information among plants has helped plants deal with the Y2K problem.
WINSTON & STRAWN Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook February 24, 1999 Page 6
- Licensees need to coordinate Y2K readiness programs between the plant and corporate offices.
Ibid. Finally, the NRC's most recent report on the "Status of Y2K Programs at Nuclear Power Plants," issued January 19, 1999, had the following observation: Nuclear power plants are generally on schedule to be Y2K ready by July 1, 1999. Licensees are completing detailed assessments of Y2K susceptibility and are remediating/replacing mission critical systems as necessary. Some licensees have scheduled testing of some mission critical remediated systems for refueling outages in the Fall 1999, but all audited licensees have confirmed that their plants will be ready to operate on January 1, 2000. No Y2K problem in a safety-related actuation system has been identified. (Emphasis added.) Thus, there is no safety basis for requiring Y2K compliance as proposed by NIRS, or for requiring the rule changes proposed in the Petition.
- 3. There Is No Reason for Requiring Public Disclosure oflnformation Protected by FOIA, by the Y2K Act, or Voluntarily Supplied by Licensees The Petitioner requests that the Commission's regulations be amended to require that, by December 1, 1999, licensees make "available to the public all information related to the examination and repair, modification and/or replacement of all such systems [i.e., all computer systems, embedded chips, and other electronic equipment that may be date-sensitive]." The NIRS makes this demand "so that [the information] may be examined by independent experts and the public." 64 Fed. Reg. at 3790.
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., federal government agencies are generally required to make available to the public information that they have obtained. The NRC implements the FOIA in 10 C.F.R. Part 9, which also lists a series of statutorily granted exemptions to release of information in response to a FOIA request. The Petitioner would compel public release of information that may be legitimately withheld from disclosure under an exemption to FOIA because it is proprietary (i.e., contains trade secrets or confidential information), or related to plant security. The "Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act" ("Y2K Act") (Public Law No. 105-271) was enacted on October 19, 1998. Section 4(f) of the Y2K Act provides the following additional protection from disclosure of Y2K readiness information voluntarily supplied to the government:
WINSTON & STRAWN Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook February 24, 1999 Page 7 (3) PROTECTIONS- Except with the express consent or permission of the provider of information described in paragraph ( 1), any year 2000 statements or other such information provided by a party in response to a special year 2000 data gathering request made under this subsection-- (A) shall be exempt from disclosure under subsection (b)(4) of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, commonly known as the "Freedom oflnformation Act;" (B) shall not be disclosed to any third party; and (C) may not be used by any Federal entity, agency, or authority or by any third party, directly or indirectly, in any civil action arising under any Federal or State law. The NRC has found through its audits that licensees have been forthcoming with information related to their Y2K readiness. To the extent Y2K readiness information has been submitted under GL 98-01, it should be available to the public through the FOIA process, unless the information falls within one of the exemptions to FOIA. NIRS has not provided any basis for compelling disclosure of any information other than that which has been and will be provided in response to GL 98-01. Licensees should not be compelled to produce and disclose information to be examined by independent experts and the public, especially when such a requirement is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Y2K Act.
- 4. There Is No Basis for Compelling Closure of Facilities Not Y2K Compliant by December 1, 1999 The Petitioner has requested that the NRC direct that any facility licensed under 10 C.F.R. Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 be closed by 12 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, December 1, 1999, unless and until each facility has" ... comprehensively examined all computer systems, embedded chips, and other electronic equipment that may be date-sensitive to ensure that all such systems that may be relevant to safety are Y2K compliant" and has "repaired, modified, and/or replaced all such systems that are not found to be Y2K compliant," and has "determined, through full-scale testing, that all repairs, modifications, and/or replacements of all such systems are, in fact, Y2K compliant."
The Petitioner provides no basis for imposing an explicit shutdown requirement (i.e., December 1, 1999) on licensees without regard to the circumstances of each case or the degree of Y2K challenges at the specific facility. The demand for facility closure on a date certain without a safety basis clearly does not merit NRC rulemaking. The NRC has already asked licensees to certify that no later than July 1, 1999, their facilities are Y2K ready, or will be Y2K ready, by the year 2000 with regard to compliance with the terms and conditions of the facility licenses and NRC regulations. GL 98-01 (Required Response No. 2). The NRC has an opportunity to monitor licensee conformance to its expectations and to require additional information from licensees who face unexpected challenges in attaining Y2K readiness. Thus, there is no basis for imposing a sweeping shutdown requirement on licensees.
WINSTON & STRAWN Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook February 24, 1999 Page 8 Conclusion NUBARG appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Petition. The NRC has taken a carefully studied approach to oversight of licensee Y2K readiness. The NIRS Petition does not provide any basis, safety or otherwise, for altering the NRC's course. This Petition also does not provide a basis for imposing the significant backfits underlying the Petitioner's proposal. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, NUBARG requests that the NRC deny the NIRS Petition regarding Y2K compliance in full. f';r~ truly yo~~rs ~ Y)I I lDarnel
~F.~
, /)(
Stenger _/' ~a-,
-l Robert K. Temple Counsel to the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group
02 / 24 / 99 WED 17:18 FAX 607 273 3294 ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AM 14]001 DOCKET NUMBER PETITlO RULE PAM 5 o- 1p5
&t/FR31'1o)
'99 FEB 24 ,~- 1101 OF[. I RU 24 February 1~ 9LJL Docket PRM 50-65 To: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff From: Dooley Kiefer, 629 Highland _Rd., r _thaca, NY 14850
Subject:
Comments on NIRS petition(s) for rulemaking To help allay public concerns about the myriad Y2K-problem scenarios, I believe the NRC must adopt an explicit stand on what it requires of licensees and what it will do about Y2K compliance problems at nuclear facilities.
- I fully support adoption by the NRC of an amendment requiring nuclear facilities to be shut down before the end of 1999 unless and until each facility has (1) identified and fully examined all safety-related computer systems, embedded chips, and other electronic equipment that may be date sensitive; (2) repaired, modified, and/or replaced all such found to be not Y2K compliant; and (3) fully tested all such repairs, modifications, and replacements to ensure they are, indeed, Y2K compliant. The seriousness of a malfunction at a nuclear facility is non-trivial!
- I support public disclosure of the details of these efforts to ensure compliance .
- I would accept a shut-down date in December 1999 later than the first -- e.g., Dec. 15 or Dec. 20.
We must rely on the NRC to assure safety, and anything less than what NIRS is proposing will not do so. It is likely that at the coming turn of the century there will
-- for a period of days at least -- be less electric demand than usual, since various activities will be voluntarily curtailed.
There will not be a need to keep every reactor on line at any cost. As an adjunct to this petition, NIRS filed two others (PRM 66 and 67 (7)), on which I comment briefly:
- NIRS suggests all licensees participate in creating and testing Y2K-related emergency planning scenarios as a way to tease out and test implementation of adequate contingency and system-failure plans. This makes sense and is a useful adjunct to the shut-down deadline rule.
*Finally, spent-fuel pools should be required to have sufficient back-up generation to keep them cool!
AP
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSIO RULCIVU'YUl1R~&ADJUOICATIONS STAFF OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION
FEB-24-99 15,10 FROM,UIC MEDICAL EDUCATION ID,3124132048 PAGE 1/1 ooc;.,::iED U,. hC 1 AmyCallner 1354 N. Greenview 2R
*99 FEB 24 P4 :46 Chicago, IL 60622 Annette Vietti-Cook OF+,
Secretary of the Commision A&ur~ DOCKET NUMBER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PETITION RULE PRM so-ts, §" fax:301-415-1101 ( fpc/FR3 7'10) February 24, 1999
Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:
I am writing in support of the following Y2K-related petitions: submitted by the Nuclear Information Resource Service: Docket number PRM 50-65 Tiris petition calls for a shutdown of non-Y2K compliant licensed facilities. Docket number PRM 50-66 This petition calls for all licensed facilities to conduct an exercise simulating a Y2K-related problem. Docket number PRM 50-67 This petition calls for an additional source of power to licensees above and beyond the existing diesel generators in the event of a Y2K computer-related problem resulting in station blackout. These three petitions express valid concerns and present reasonable solutions to potential catastrophe in the event of grid failure. I urge the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adopt the recommendations presented in them.
~owl eel y card MAR J t9gg -"
-Mri REGULATORY COM ISblON
...EMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR OF THE COMMISS Document Sldatlcs markDa~ ____.:i _,__,_"'-'-_,_.'-'-'=- L-L
*99 FEB 23 P,4 :14 STANDIN C F O R TR U '.J"H ABO UT RADIATION or l
AfJ February 19, 1999 DOCKfT NUMBER PEllTIONRULE PRII 50-l:S Secretary* , . (t, QFR379o) Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
\
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Re: Nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rule"1aking
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation) is a non-profit corporation with over 2000 members on Long ~sl~nd, NY that are concern~d about the toxic effects of nuclear radiation. STAR supports the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding
,. nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great-concern to our .
organization , especially as* it relates to nuclear power. It is our position that the NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue. The NIRS petitions, if adopted , would establish new rules for the atomic power industry and the NRC. These rules would:
- 1) (Docket# PRM 50-65) require the*shutdown, by December 1, '1999, of any
~uclear reactor that are not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time as they are compliant. There is a widespread belief that the NRC has orderec:J the shutdown by July 1, 1999 of nuclear reactors that are not Y2K compliant. This is untrue. The NRC so far only has ordered the nuclear utilities to report by July 1 as to w~ether they are "Y2K ready" and if not, when they will be ready. The NRC has NEV~R threatened to close any nuclear reactor for non-readiness. Rather, the NRC has said it will evaluate reactors that do not report readine~ by July 1, "on a case-by-case basis."
- tacnowladged ~ C8ld FEB .25 1 ~ -
66 NEWTOWN L ANE SUITE 3 J;.O._Box 4206 EAST HAMPTON, N Y 11931 PHONE: 516-324-0655 FAX: 516-324-2203 www.noradiation.org
r U.S. NUCLEAR REGUlATORY COMMIS_ 1uN RULEMAKINGS &AOJUDICAllONS STAFF 7
- OFFICE OFM.SBJETARV OF THE COMMISSION p
Copies RaclliW&d _ 0_ _'
- Add'ICopaaRapodllaed
- ;-~ 5
\
' I Therefore, STAR maintains that the present regulatory plan is inadequate. "T:he NRC must require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any nucl~ar reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time as they are compliant.
\
The purpose of this proposed rule is to ensure that there are standard criteria that the utilities must meet to demonstrate_ Y2K compliance (a stricter standard than "readiness") , and that the NRC will apply these
- criteria uniformly across the industry. The NIRS definition would require .
testing of all systems and we believe that the first test of these systems must not come on 01/01/00, but must be performed no later than June _1, 1999 in order to provide ample time to shut down any non-cQmpliant reactors with assurance that / the cooling pools for the reactor rods will continue to be supplied with a non-interrupted source of electrical power. Nuclear reactors should not be allowed to operate on December 31 , 1999
- if compliance is not demonstrated, as the potential interactions among non-compliant a,nd compliant systems presents an unknown, but foreseeable risk to the public. Moreover, we echo the sentiment of Congressmembers Horn, Manzullo and Kucinich, who in a December 17, 1998' letter to Shirley Jackson called upon the NRC to conduct audits at all 109 NRC-licensed power reactors and facilities.
- 2) (Docket # PRM 50-66) reguire each nuclear site to hold a full-scale emergency response exercise, no later than June 1, 1999, that include& a Y2K-related component. '
The purpose of this proposed rule is to build an industry-wide storehouse of knowledge that can be called upon if Y2K problems do evidence themselves. Until July 1996, all nuclear sites were required to hold annual emergency response exercises; now they must hold them biannually. This proposed rule would simply, for one year only, return the industry to an annual exercise and require a Y2K component. !he NRC and the nuclear utilities 'are all preparing Y2K contingency plans, and are to be commended for this. However, there is a vast difference between an untested contingency plan and an actual exercise, in _which .nuclear utility *personnel must respond to events as if they actually were liappening. This type of training is invaluable, particularly _ f or the type and range of problems Y2K issues could present.
- 3) (Docket # 'PRM 50-67) require each reactor to have both pf its emergency diesel generators declared operable, as of December 1, 1999; have a 60-day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class 1E (or safety-related and thus requiring back-up power); an~ require utilities to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by December 1, 1999.
I I
This proposed rule addresses what may be the most important Y2K issue-the possibility of local, regional, or widespread blackouts. Nuclear reactors require offsite electrical power to cool the reactor core and fuel pool. The scenario of losing electrical power is called by the NRC "station blackout," and according to the agency's own safety studies, this scenario represents about 50% of the risk of operating atomic* reactors. In short, if an operating reactor loses power for any 1 significant amount of time (several hours to a couple of days), the reactor will meltdown., . . To compensate for this, reactors are required to have emergency diesel g~nerators, each capable of powering the entire plant. The NRC clalms these generators are 95% reliable--an uncomfortably low reliability factor for an industry that requires just about 100% perfection in operations.- But NIRS' own research suggests that generator reliability is considerably lower. Moreover, one of the two emergency generators is often- out-of-service for routine maintenance. I This proposed rule would require both emergency dies~I generators to be operable, and to have enough fuel onsite to compensate for potential fuel delivery problems caused by unrelated Y2K disruptions. Astonishingly, irradiated fuel pools, which also req*uire cooling, are not even considered safety::. related by t~e NRC, and thus are not subject to backup power requirements. This proposed rule would ~emedy that situation. Furthermore, because of the high failure rate of emergency diesel generators, this proposed rule would require utilities to install an additional source of dedicated back-up pow~r (which could be added to the electrical grid once the Y2K issue .is fully addressed). The petition does not specify the source of ba~k-up power, -although STAR' preference is that it be locally-appropriate renewable energy sources. Finally, we believe that the proposed date in the petitions (December 1, 1999) is adequate, though not ideal, and it is our position that the date should be no later than June 1, 1999. Sincerely, Scott M. Cullen Counsel
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE -. PR~- -
mil
/991 Add'I Copies s DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 5o-(p5 ((pt/Ff? 31'10) From: <nifer@scott.net> ooc* ETED U .R C To: TWFN_DO. twf2_po(NRCWEB) Date: Sun, Feb 21, 1999 5:12 PM
Subject:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff *99 FEB 23 A9 :35 I feel nuclear power facilities should be shut down if there are any on . systems at all that are not ready for the year 2000. I am a concerned RlJ citizen. I have read everything I can on the y2k issue. I would rather ADJUu feel safe about the nuclear facilities even if it means going without power for a while. (However long it takes)! am a teacher for third grade. I have taught my students to respect the goverment and those in charge of our safety. I want to feel that what I am teaching means something. There should be no QUESTION about leaving a plant on that can not be one hundred percent safe no mater what the problem might be. SHUT IT DOWN! nifer@scott.net
£-t!Vi,I Ff 8 2 4 1999_
-'clmowledged by - *HIHI I I JU
- c.::,a
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS&ADAl>ICA1D4811'AFF OFFICEOF'RESBJEl'ARY OF THE COMIE8ION DocunarCSl!lllab
>>~3('19 tfµIJ;P- ~Yi)~
Copies ~18d' -, ' r Add'I Copies Reprotmced ___S_____ r ", o S~Distrl>utlorl ~ c~ ~ CP12tR "'RID~ -
From: David Meyer To: Emile Julian Date: Tue, Feb 23, 1999 8:13 AM
Subject:
Fwd: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Emile: This is a comment on the NIRS petitions for rulemaking received via the NRC website .
GLOBAL RESOURCE G ENVIRONMENT
*99 FEB 23 A9 :35 0
l Helaine Lerner DOCKET NUMBER AD..i Board Chair PETITION RULE PAM so-t,5 February 18, 1999 Alice Slater (f, 'IFR31'1t>) President Secretary Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Project Directors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David Brubaker William J. Weida Washington, DC 20555 Re: Nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking Advisory Committee
- arArias
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
- bara Bergman Selma Brackman Kim Brizzolara GRACE (Global Resource Action Center for the Environment) supports the three petitions Jacqueline Cabasso for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on Helen Caldicott Manas Chatterji December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great Mark Dowie concern to our organization, especially as it relates to nuclear power.
Faye Duchin Lloyd Dumas Gary Ferdman It is our position that the NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to Shirley Fingerhood address this issue. The NIRS petitions, if adopted, would establish new rules for the Hamilton Fish atomic power industry and the NRC. These rules would: Karl Grossman Hazel Henderson Walter lsard 1) (Docket# PRM 50-65) require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any nuclear Michio Kaku reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time as they are compliant. Kaul i Kenner There is a widespread belief that the NRC has ordered the shutdown by July 1, 1999, of id Krieger nuclear reactors that are not Y2K compliant. This is untrue. The NRC so far only has Gloria Lawrence ordered the nuclear utilities to report by July 1 as to whether they are "Y2K ready" and if Sidney Lerner Leonard Marks not, when they will be ready. The NRC has NEVER threatened to close any nuclear Ann Markusen reactor for non-readiness. Rather, the NRC has said it will evaluate reactors that do not Myron Mehlman report readiness by July 1, "on a case-by-case basis." Myriam Miedzian James Parks Morton Monroe Price Therefore, GRACE maintains that the present regulatory plan is inadequate. The NRC Douglas Roche must require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any nuclear reactor that is not Stanley Sheinbaum Henry Spira demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time as they are compliant. Emily Squires Theodore B. Taylor The purpose of this proposed rule is to ensure that there are standard criteria that the Grace Thorpe William J. Weida utilities must meet to demonstrate Y2K compliance (a stricter standard than "readiness"), Stanley Weithorn and that the NRC will apply these criteria uniformly across the industry. The NIRS Alan Woltz definition would require testing of all systems and we believe that the first test of these systems must not come on 01/01/00, but must be performed no later than June 1, 1999, in order to provide ample time to shut down any non-compliant reactors with assurance that the cooling pools for the reactor rods will continue to be supplied with a non-interrupted source of electrical power. t.cknowledged by card _FE_B_2,_1__,__ th 15 East 26 Street, Room 915, New York, NY 10010
- Tel. 212-726-916 1
- Fax 212-726-9160
- grace@gracelinks.org
¥4.t= s peollpQdll:I 98P>O LPP\1 7 ~setdoo -------.z-b./. a-,7...*z:-t!llta >tftllHISOd IOISM)03HJ.:JO M:NIBll8K:JOD:l:t0
- l:ffll8tDDO(J11'QVWSeNDl'v'W31flt:
NOISSMftOO A\:IO.M0031:1 HV3mN *s*n
Nuclear reactors should not be allowed to operate on December 31, 1999, if compliance is not demonstrated, as the potential interactions among non-compliant and compliant systems presents an unknown, but foreseeable, risk to the public. Moreover, we echo the sentiment of Congressmembers Hom, Manzullo and Kucinich, who in a December 17, 1998, letter to Shirley Jackson called upon the NRC to conduct audits at all 109 NRC-licensed power reactors and facilities.
- 2) (Docket # PRM 50-66) require each nuclear site to hold a full-scale emergency response exercise, no later than June 1, 1999, that includes a Y2K-related component.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to build an industry-wide storehouse of knowledge that can be called upon ifY2K problems do evidence themselves. Until July 1996, all nuclear sites were required to hold annual emergency response exercises; now they must hold them biannually. This proposed rule would simply, for one year only, return the industry to an annual exercise and require a Y2K component. The NRC and the nuclear utilities are all preparing Y2K contingency plans, and are to be commended for this. However, there is a vast difference between an untested contingency plan and an actual exercise, in which nuclear utility personnel must respond to events as if they actually were
- happening. This type of training is invaluable, particularly for the type and range of problems Y2K issues could present.
- 3) (Docket # PRM 50-67) require each reactor to have both of its emergency diesel generators declared operable, as of December 1, 1999; have a 60-day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class lE (or safety-related and thus requiring back-up power); and require utilities to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by December 1, 1999.
This proposed rule addresses what may be the most important Y2K issue - the possibility of local, regional, or widespread blackouts. Nuclear reactors require offsite electrical power to cool the reactor core and fuel pool. The scenario of losing electrical power is called by the NRC "station blackout," and according to the agency's own safety studies, this scenario represents about 50% of the risk of
- operating atomic reactors. In short, if an operating reactor loses power for any significant amount of time (several hours to a couple of days), the reactor will melt down.
To compensate for this, reactors are required to have emergency diesel generators, each capable of powering the entire plant. The NRC claims these generators are 95% reliable--an uncomfortably low reliability factor for an industry that requires just about 100% perfection in operations. But NIRS' own research suggests that generator reliability is considerably lower. Moreover, one of the two emergency generators is often out-of-service for routine maintenance. This proposed rule would require both emergency diesel generators to be operable, and to have enough fuel onsite to compensate for potential fuel delivery problems caused by unrelated Y2K disruptions. Astonishingly, irradiated fuel pools, which also require cooling, are not even considered safety-related by the NRC, and thus are not subject to backup power requirements. This proposed rule would remedy that situation. Furthermore, because of the high failure rate of emergency diesel generators, this proposed rule would require utilities to install an additional source of dedicated back-up power (which could be added to the electrical grid once the Y2K issue is fully addressed). The petition does not specify the source of
back-up power, although GRACE's preference is that it be locally-appropriate renewable energy sources. Finally, we believe that the proposed date in the petitions (December 1, 1999) is adequate, though not ideal, and it is our position that the date should be no later than June 1, 1999. Sincerely, 1* ~
~.
President
OOCt< ~r EO usr RC
*99 FEB 22 P3 :09 February 18, 1999 OH-1, Attn: Docketing and Service Branchf;l1j 11 -.I F U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisti'b'i i ~i~
Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET NUMBER PETITlON RULE PAM 5o - t,5 Re: Nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking (t,t/PR379o)
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent prudent steps to address this issue. The petitions are a welcome contrast to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) own Year 2000 Draft Contingency Plan, which attempts to place power production on an equal footing with public health and safety concerns. The clearest example for me of disregard for the importance of public health and safety contained in the NRC Draft Contingency Plan is .the argument for keeping every possible reactor operating on January 1, 2000. Rather than recognizing the possiblity for disaster if offsite-power losses make it impossible to shut down nuclear reactors, the NRC emphasizes continued reactor operation, regardless of compliance for Y2K safety criteria. By contrast, the NIRS petitions call for closing non-compliant reactors by December 1, 1999, and would require steps to ensure adequate supplies of backup power for reactors in the event of a loss of offsi te-power. I urge the NRC to support the proposed rules put forward by NIRS, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known. Richard Berger 9817 51st Ave SW Seattle, WA 98136 FEB 24 1999
~edged by card -,. m 1Ur.<
IJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJIJDICATD48 IWF OFFICE OF THE aa:AETARr OFntE COMllsaON llocltnlaJStllll > Postmark Date f/
;2,/t q 'I Copies RacaMKta-..__ I Add'I Cqa ~ -.....5 . __ _
Sp~ ~ T D ,e 7? / '/)S
@)
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 5/J-foS' FEB 221999 FIIM**NG IIDliD l t,J./ FR. 3 7'1o) February 18, 1999 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent prudent steps to address this issue. The petitions are a welcome contrast to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) own Year 2000 Draft Contingency Plan, which attempts to place power production on an equal footing with public health and safety concerns. The clearest example for me of disregard for the importance of public health and safety contained in the NRC Draft Contingency Plan is the argument for keeping every possible reactor operating on January 1, 2000. Rather than recognizing the possiblity for disaster if offsite-power losses make it impossible to shut down nuclear reactors, the NRC emphasizes continued reactor operation, regardless of compliance for Y2K safety criteria. By contrast, the NIRS petitions call for closing non-compliant reactors by December 1, 1999, and would require steps to ensure adequate supplies of backup power for reactors in the event of a loss of offsi te-power. I urge the NRC to support the proposed rules put forward by NIRS, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known. Sincerely, 14 (;*feds Peg ~ ls 9817 51st Ave SW Seattle, WA 98136
., I
- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ION RULEMAKINGS&ADJl,QCAlDalWF OFFICE OFlHE aaarARY OF T H E ~
Docula.t81:d la Postmerl<Da ::1/1B/9'i Copies~------- Adcfl Cqa Raproduc8(S_..:;. 5 _ __ Special~ ~
~~
0 K 1 NUMBER PETITI RULE PAM 5 o-- i:>5" (&I/ FR 3790) February 18, 1999
~,,7-,-
Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent prudent steps to address this issue. The petitions are a welcome contrast to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) own Year 2000 Draft Contingency Plan, which attempts to place power production on an equal footing with public health and safety concerns. The clearest example for me of disregard for the importance of public health and safety contained in the NRC Draft Contingency Plan is the argument for keeping every possible reactor operating on January 1, 2000. Rather than recognizing the possiblity for disaster if offsite-power losses make it impossible to shut down nuclear reactors, the NRC emphasizes continued reactor operation, regardless of compliance for Y2K safety criteria. By contrast, the NIRS petitions call for closing non-compliant reactors by December 1, 1999, and would require steps to ensure adequate supplies of backup power for reactors in the event of a loss of offsi te-power. I urge the NRC to support the proposed rules put forward by NIRS, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify m e once their publication date is known. Sincerely, ff/A Miriam yak 9817 51st Ave SW Seattle, WA 98136 HB 24 1999
~owledged by card UUlllM . . . . 1111 I *""'"'
-1 L I ~IJ(;Lf:AA REGULATORY COMMISS(ON RULEMAKINGS &ADJUOICAlDe ll'AFF OFFICEOF THE sa:RIWW OFTHEeot.11881CJa DocurmSI ltllJl Postmark Date ,:; S 't ft /t:;
Copies RecfiMd _____, _ _ __ Add'I C o p e l ~ _ _s_ - _ __ Spec~
~~~ ,,
L
DOCKET NUMBER PETITO RULE PAM So-1t,5 ( ~t./f:R37t:Jo'1 DOLKETED From: Jerry Mitchell <jerry@gbasin .net> us IC To: TWFN_DO. twf4_po(CAG) Date: Tue, Feb 16, 1999 2:42 PM
Subject:
Nuclear power plants! *99 FEB 22 P4 :36 Mrs. Gallagher, Ot I A couple years ago my wife and I attended a local atomic preparedna.._ss class. And during that class, the instructor mentioned that our nuclear power plants, coulA e'e lthe same problem as the Russians had, if the power grid happened to go down, and they didn't have a chance to do a controlled shut down on the plants! At the time this didn't seem to be too much a concern . But now with the Y2K problem coming in 10 months, it seems to be of great concern now! Are all these nuclear plants Y2K compliant? And if not, have these concerns been considered! And what are the chances of a "China syndrom" really happening? Thanks, Jerry f.rn4, I HB 2 4 1999
~ owledged by ...,,oM%
____ _ _ _,...,111tAU*
LI.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM SSION AUL.EMAKlNGS&AOJUDlrRION8STAFfi OFFICE OFTffE SECAETARV OF THE COMMIS9ION DocamanlWr>> Postmark ..2 /,pp /qq /4u- ' t i ~ ~~ Copies Recatved ' ' 1 Add'f Coples RaploMad .5 Special~ ~
J February 16, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ft /J A, JiA ~ ADM, DAS (_ffi1-V ~ - VJ .
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65, "SHUTDOWN OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES NOT COMPLIANT WITH Y2K ISSUES" Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petition for rulemaking. This comment was received via e-mail on February 16, 1999. The submitter's name is Jerry Mitchell. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 50_ - ~ 5'
"'IFR379D)
DOCKFTEO From: "Knoblauch, Duane" <Duane.Knoblauch@NesbittBurns.com <, RC To: "'CAG@nrc.gov"' <CAG@nrc.gov> Date: Mon, Feb 15, 1999 4:05 PM
Subject:
Shut Them Down! '99 FEB 22 P4 :36 Ms. Carol Gallagher, Off , Rl, No nuclear plant in North America has demonstrated (with third-partyA@dfi.cation) that it will safely handle the date transition from 1999 to 2000. It takes at least four months of reliable external power to properly cool a downed nuclear plant. There is no guarantee that other forms of electrical generation (hydro & coal) will reliably deliver in the period of January through May, 2000. A mistake now could cause death & destruction to millions. You have an obligation to enforce your July 1 deadline and shut down all nuclear facilities that do not demonstrate (with third-party verification) complete Y2K compliance . For the sake of us all - YOU MUST SHUT THEM DOWN! If you don't, and we have a single accident, may God have mercy on your soul. Thank you for your consideration in the life threatening matter, Duane Knoblauch Duane. Knoblauch@nesbittburns.com 905-983-9090 f-""'i/ rre , 4 1999
.f\cknowledged by ""°"' I I _ _ _ ,,,,
LI.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM ISSIUN RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION oocumantw>>
February 16, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher /p ~ OtJ A _ 1 A ADM, DAS ~ /"7 v ~ v . , / -
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65, "SHUTDOWN OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES NOT COMPLIANT WITH Y2K ISSUES" Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petition for rulemaking. This comment was received via e-mail on February 15, 1999. The submitter's name is Duane Knoblauch. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-
- 4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
DOC ETED FROM: CAROL MOORE BOX 65518 WASHING TON D'C !20035 202-635-3739 "99 FEB 19 P2 :44 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch OHi t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULt ADJUD!C 1AFf Washington, DC 20555 Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM ob .,5
DearNRC:
((. l/f/?3790) I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. I am involved in a DC Y2K group and promoting that issue. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue. I urge the NRC to support these proposed rules, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known. Sincerely, Uw-1 FfB 24 JIii
~edged by card ...._.__ I -II-**-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiSSI A U ~ &ADJUDD\l'ICltllWF OFFICE OFlfEaa:Amfff OFTtE C'CII IIION Dotl*aSI It Poslm8lk 0. o'2 lj 1/29 I _ s _I ,.._.._ _ Copial fUat,oo _ _ Ad(ft~~-- s'_ __ ~~~~ I
o ocn:TE Sophia Hegner USIRC 800 N- Mollison, Apt. C-10 El Cajon, CA 92021 "99 FEB 19 P2 :46 OFtit, RU* t ADJJC1l I February 15, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER Secretary PETITION RULE PRM so-t-6' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( f,C/FR37'1 iJ) Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
Dear Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff:
It is imperative that measures be taken to ensure the prevention of a catastrophe on January 1, 2000. I support the NIRS's three petitions including docket numbers PRM 50-65, PRM 50-66, and PRM 50-67. Shutting down the plants in the event of Y2K non-compliance may not be the most popular choice among plant owners and those who stand to lose money, but it is the only safe choice. Please be responsible and adopt the NIRS's proposed policies. Sincerely,
~--<~
- Sophia Hegner
LI.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COllleslON RULEMAKINGS&ADJlm..-lfAFF OFFICE <FlMEIIIRIWW OF THE O(J
*
- 1-.
- oamatatrs Postmafk Dale ,:ila, /qq j
Copies Racalfad _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Add'I Coples~ _ 5'____ Special ~ ~ 7= ~,~ J ~~
4-tt~ :
~ f-~ ~ /4/k_ ~ ....--<-
.,.._ ~~ k /,(t11- .n _ tr
~
,r .z l'{-5" U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMHASSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATION8 SWf OFFICE Of THE SECRE1'AFW OF THE cow.umoN DocllnentStallab PostmarkDate .:lf S/ 9t:t Jfu tof~ f Y / ~ ~
Copies Received ' Add'I Coples Reproduced .5 Spec~ ~ - -=-- - -
~ .
Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy 29 Temple Place, Boston MA 02111 [617] 292-4821 phone* [617] 292-8057 fax* e-mail mwilson@toxicsactiJJ. 148 Washington Street, Duxbury MA 02332 [781] 934-0389 phone * [781] 934-5579 fax
- e-mail jlampert@idt.net February 10, 1998
*g;; FEB 16 P3 :23 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 OF I *-
R J: AD,JL.L ~ RE: Nuclear Power and Y2K Petitions for Rulemaking PRM 65; 50-66; 50-67 The Y2K computer problem poses serious potential safety threats to communities near nuclear power plants. Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy, Clean Water Action, Toxics Action Center and the Citizens Awareness Network are state-wide public interest groups concerned with nuclear energy issues. We support the three petitions for rule making put forth by the Nuclear Information Resource Service - PRM 50-65; 50-66; 50-67. I. Close by December 1, 1999 any reactor that can not prove, through full testing, that it is Y2K compliant - PRM 50-65. We know that not every nuclear utility will be Y2K compliant in time for the millennium. In Massachusetts, we have one operating power plant and are surrounded by others in our neighboring states. We are all downwinders. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Plymouth), as an example, is not compliant, now. We feel that the industry has deceptively downplayed the seriousness of the situation. A November 6, 1998 audit at Seabrook, for example, found 12 safety-related systems affected by the Y2K bug, another 13 that would cause a reactor trip and more than BOO affected systems "significant to business." We find no comfort in the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), only plans to conduct audits at 12 reactor sites - out of more than 70. Given the General Accounting Offices (GAO) recent harsh criticism of NRC oversight and Time Magazine's cover story, we have good reason to be apprehensive. Some of our members, who live within EPZ's, have made travel plans for the New Year to assure that their families can get away from potential danger. It is wrong to place this burden on our citizens. How many safety systems, for example, would be compromise~ *?Y X~~ issues at Pilgrim NPS, Vermont Yankee, Seabrook, the Millstones? Clea.:i..\ Y*. this is a major Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ). We understood tha t , . af~er Three Mile Island, regulations supposedly were created which mandated an exhaustive review of all USQ's. We believed that an essential element of the USQ issue was that any existing circumstance that could potentially place the plant in a condition adverse to safety must be reviewed for adverse impact as soon as the condition is discovered. Y2K computer and embedded controls problems are USQ issues and have been recognized, at least, since 1996. ~ - - - - - - - - - - - --- -* *- -- - - - -
u 'LEAR REGUI.ATOAY COMMt&:;ION A LEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATION$ STAFF OFFICEOf THE sa&lAAY OF COMMISSION
, o1,.../_1_~""'/_1_1___
nark Date _ __ _ ,:;, 1es Received---=='= ---- Ac Copies eproduc8d _ __ _ s,~ .~ __J'l>_A 1< I ~ ~
Have all the many administrative computer systems been reviewed for Y2K compliance at Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, Seabrook and the Millstones? Although, they have nothing to do with operations per se, we know that they have everything to do with safety. For example: Security computers - if the security computer locks because of Y2K rollover problems, will plant operators be able to access the remote shutdown room/facility were it to become necessary? FFD computers - used in federally mandated random substance abuse testing - to track and schedule random testing on a daily basis. Millennium, holiday season, party time ... a need for tracking. Computer-based access training: qualification recording/data (both at licensee, data interchange with other utilities, NRC) - at Pilgrim, for example, they never fixed the Condensate Pot, but instead rely on "training." Others - materials requirements planning, maintenance rule tracking, surveillance scheduling - and on. Plant operations: Event logging. What if Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, Seabrook, the Millstones had an automatic shutdown? Scrams, trips are relatively common events. What would happen if the event recorder (computer) crashed during a routine scram? We know that event logging is the only way for operators to see the big picture and control/stabilize the plant while the event is in progress, and to reconstruct the event after it's over. If they do not have a log, they will not know what has happened. If event logging is inoperable, the plant will be in an unanalyzed condition. Direct System Control: With respect to embedded logic control of plant safety systems, no one (including the NRC) knows if there is a Y2K problem; because no one (including the NRC) has performed extensive testing to determine if there is a problem. NRC, vendor, licensee statements to the contrary, there is enough precedent in the outside-non-nuclear world to say that there are many issues around embedded logic and date controls in all systems. Why should nuclear plants be the exception? Not knowing for sure is the same as assuming that there is a problem. At least, that is what we have been assured nuclear safety is all about. Y2K problems are the big "What ifs." Our understanding is that this meets the criteria of potential problems requiring documented analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and/or a written JCO (Justification for Continued Operations). We know that current federal regulations and individual plant licenses require cessation of operations when operating in an unanalyzed condition. Y2K is an USQ - in Technicolor. The NRC had said publicly that they would require certification of Y2K readiness. It is reasonable to require said certification by Dec. 1, 1999 so that the plant has time to get-it-together and the regional grid knows what to plan for in terms of probable, available, power supply. 2
The NRC has been rightly criticized for lack of oversight. To "save face" and attempt to regain some consumer confidence, it is imperative to close any plant that is not complaint by 12/1/99. Proof of compliance must include a detailed review of all systems important to safety, as described in the plant safety analysis report (SAR) or safety evaluation Report (SER), for Y2K impact. Examples from our reading would include: electro-mechanical systems - reactor control, turbine control, event logging, safety related embedded control systems, emergency cooling systems, etc. Nuclear safety-significant administrative systems such as plant maintenance scheduling, commitment tracking and security systems. Reliance on vendor reports or licensee self reporting is unacceptable . NRC on-site inspection at every plant is necessary. Any parts identified that required replacement must be re-tested prior to certification. II. Require nuclear plants to install additional backup power units to ensure a steady supply of electricity to reactors, and re-classify spent fuel pools so that they require back-up power, too - PRM 50-67 .
- We know that reactors need electricity; there is a potential due to Y2K roll-over problems for regional/local blackouts; on-site, back-up power currently is inadequate to meet the challenge - too many times, things have gone wrong with the emergency diesel generators.
We understand that the Y2K bug threatens to disrupt the electrical grid, and could cause regional and local blackouts. Boston Globe, Sunday, January 10, 1999 Edison will say that it is 'very optimistic that there will be only minimal problems' come Jan. 1, 2000. Edison and Northeast say ... prudent customers should expect at least minor problems or blackouts on New Year's day 2000. Anybody who assumes it will be perfection has a mis-perception. While this would be inconvenient for most people, it is potentially disastrous for nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors require large amounts of electricity to cool their cores and irradiated fuel pools even when they are shut down. Without this cooling ability, even closed reactors would melt down; fuel pools would boil dry and release radiation into surrounding communities. The NRC puts "station blackout" among the largest risk factors of operating reactors. The loss of off-site power issue is further compounded. The diesel powered generators that nuclear utilities typically use to provide necessary back-up power in the event of blackout, frequently do not work . Pilgrim NPS, for example, has had a history of problems with their emergency diesel generators. Checking our records for 1998: March 21, 1998 (Event#33938); June 22, 1998 (Event #34425); July 22, 1998 (Event
#34563); October 2, 1998 (Event #34868).
3
The spent fuel pools that must be cooled to keep the rods covered with water are currently not required to have backup power. Any extended blackout would put these pools at risk. The pools are loaded way-beyond their intended capacity. As a result, we know that a fuel pool accident would have dire consequences. The spent fuel pool is an accident waiting to happen. Nuclear plants were originally licensed and designed to store only one and one-third core equivalents. However, they are storing far more fuel assemblies and under conditions that have never been fully analyzed. For example, Pilgrim was originally designed to store temporarily 880 assemblies and now holds in the same space well over 2000 assemblies. They continue to generate waste. Most importantly, the spent fuel pool is in the main reactor building but outside primary containment . In the early 1980's, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported that a spent fuel accident involving fuel damage would result in a radiation exposure 479.2 times the maximum dose that federal regulations permit any member of the public to receive in an entire year. This would affect 667,588 people living within a 50 mile radius of the plant. This grossly underestimates the potential danger. The study falsely assumed that the accident would involve only the fuel damaged during the recent fueling outage. It did not consider the massive amount of fuel that had accumulated since 1972. Numerous spent fuel incidents have occurred, including many repetitions of the same events. Since 1972, at least 25 spent fuel incidents are on record around the country involving seal failures; loss of fuel pool cooling; radiation overexposure; and fuel handling. Pilgrim was responsible for 3 fuel handling events. Y2K could exacerbate this problem. We need spent fuel pools to be classified so that they require back-up power; we need additional and reliable on-site back-up power. Remember, too, that Y2K adds to the potential problems brought on by Northeast winter storm coinciding with the millennium. Y2K issues are the big "What Ifs." "What Ifs" do not belong in nuclear power regulatory policy. Our members should not be afraid of "What If" and be forced to leave home next December 31st. III. Require 1999, Full-Scale, Emergency Planning Exercises for All Nuclear Plants to Test Y2K Problems - PRM 50-66. We support PRM 50-66 because: we recognize that nuclear plants have been slow to design and implement emergency plans to cope with unforeseen Y2K problems. A Senate Committee found, in June 1998, that "none of the utilities surveyed has completed emergency plans ... " Compounding the problems is that emergency plans are tested every two years, meaning that under current regulations, many utilities will never test their Y2K-related plans. We appreciate, too, that all emergency plans rely heavily on off-site sources of help - police, fire and other essential services. But these services, as well as critical communications abilities, also may be vulnerable to Y2K bugs if not properly assessed, remedied and tested. 4
We are aware of the numerous emergency planning problems that have occurred in previous exercises without Y2K computer glitches. For example, at Pilgrim (December 13, 1995 exercise) Boston Edison Company was unable to communicate the proper protective action to the proper authorities. This is the key or "starting gun" to the entire exercise. In later exercises, buses were lost. Planning is never 100%, therefore it is important to test and re-test for every conceivable contingency. Y2K presents many new and challenging contingencies. Submitted on behalf of Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy, Clean Water Action, Toxics Action Center and Citizens Awareness Network by, Mary Elizabeth Lampert cc. Senator Edward Kennedy; Senator John Kerry; Congressman William Delahunt; Congressman Edward Markey; Governor A Cellucci; NIRS 5
ATTACHMENT *
' ' * * ~W,,1.ln .,__,_.,, ,vs*_:!:~) !h'l'\l, * . *
* ;,- ' * . :l j'. ~i *., ll ,PPl,ntlllft .
~ ' ..
*=-**ec"" ~
1* . . " .
THE PEACE RESOURCE CENTER OF SAN DIEGO OCKET UMBER
,,.ir-,iTrtl'\I.U RllE PR 5()- ~s . .working for peace, social justice and the en m f1t .i'!_fe 1980
( &I/FR31'lo} @) US \RC February 10, 1999 FEB '6 P3 :'\ 9 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi09F-1,. 1 , Washington, DC 20555 RUU
- I ADVISORY BOARD Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudicatio.ur=,'-'13'~ aff Mignon Bowen Dr. Howard Carey Barbara Filner RE: Docket# PRM 50-65, PRM 50-66 and Judy Forman Sam Hinton PRM 50-67.
Dr. Robert Livingston Ernie McCray Arthur OIiman
Dear Sir,
Reverend Tom Owen-Towle Lionel Van Deerlln Dr. Herbert York The Peace Resource Center of San Diego urges SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS you to adopt the above proposed rules. BOARDMEMBERORGANIZATIONS We are deeply concerned about the vulnera-FirstChurchoftheBrethren,SanDiego bility of nuclear reactors to Y2K problems and llowshipofReconciliation nds Meeting of La Jolla believe that the problem is of sufficient ends Meeting of San Diego scope to necessitate mandatory, effective ennoniteFellowshipofSanDiego Pilgrim United Church of Christ contingency planning. We do not believe that FRIEND ORGANIZATIONS the nuclear industry can be relied upon to Bahais of Chula Vista adopt universal compliance standards, nor too BahaisofSanDiego conduct sufficient emergency drills unless BahaisofSanMarcos Bahais of Vista required to do so by the Nuclear Regulatory Ben & Jerry's Scoop Shops of San Diego Agency. The Big Kitchen BuddhistPeaceFellowship R eso 1 ving
- Y2 K pro bl ems is
- a comp 1 ex issue,*
CampusYMCAatsosu the scope of which is historically unprece-Cart Rogers Institute for Peace d *
- CenterforNonviolentCommunication ented. While it may be possible to predict ChaliceUnitarianUniversalistChurchofPoway many of the foreseeable situations that might Church of the Brethren, North County commissiononChurchandSociety,First arise and correct them ahead of time, there UnitedMethodistChurchofSanDiego still remains the problem of "embedded sys-Cooperative Campus Ministries, SDSU Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft terns" in the form of microchips and microproc-mocratic Socialists of America logical Life Systems Institute essors. Th ese semi-in ' ' d epen d en t sys t ems-wi' th in-
- ironmental Health Coalition systems are hard to locate and difficult to 1ends of Nicaraguan Culture Global Energy Network International (GENI) f i* X , an d th e U lt i* ma t e e ff e c t s o f mu lt i* P 1 e La Jolla Presbyterian Church Peacemakers breakdowns in embedded systems are poor 1 y La Mesa-Foothills Democratic Club d ,
OfficeforSocialMinistries,CatholicDioceseof un erstooa. Particularly in the case of sup-San Diego plying power to nuclear plants, the complexity Pax Christi Peace and Freedom Party- of the U.S. power grid and its interlinked San Diego County Central Committee systems could potentially cause a problem if Peace Task Force, First United Methodist Church of La Mesa power to a plant fails and the plant I s backup Pe~cemaking Commi_ttee, Presby~eryofSan Diego systems are not themselves Y2K compliant. Point Loma Community Presbytenan Church , ' , San Diego Catholic Workers Because of this danger, we believe that the
~;~ g::~~ ~~~o~~~conversion council SanDi_ego~e~ceco_rpsAs_sociation .
above three proposed rules ar~ abs.olutely necessary to protect the public from the very Summ1tUmtananUmversahstFellowsh1p Temple Emanu-EI real possibility of a nuclear accident
- TheGreenStore In regards to Docket # PRM 50-65, we strong-Unitarian_UniversalistSocialConcernsCommittee, ly support the requirement that any nuclear San Diego Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of San Dieguito reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant United Nations Association b WorldFederalistAssociation ___g_ shutdown as of December 1..,_ 1999. Currently nuclear utilities are only required to report 12/98
.a.cknowiecJgeooycaro. FEB I B,J~IL-..
5717 Lindo Paseo, San Diego, California 92115 Phone: (619) 265-0730 Fax: (619) 265-0791 Email: prcsandiego@igc.apc.org
Li ...:i.1~UCLEAR REGULATORY OOMMl88K)N Aul E:MAKINGS &ADJUOIOATQt81w:f OFFICE OF THESBJEfARV OF THE COMMIS8ION OocumentS'1t!Blcs Postmark Date Copies R8Cliiwed _ _
/11 Jc,
..2 > I 'I
___1.,...__ __ Add' p
----- 5
Peace Resource Center of San Diego Page 2 by July 1 as to whether they are "Y2K ready" and if not "Y2K ready" when they will be. This approach does not sufficiently protect the public interest. To protect the public, the NRC must set a deadline for nuclear plants to be demonstrably compliant and must declare what actions will be taken if plants are not compliant. Because of the unprecedented poten-tial for Y2K disruptions, the rule of prudency should apply. It is better to shut down a plant than to run the risk of an accident. Setting a December 1, 1999 date (or earlier) provides a safety margin rather than waiting until December 31, 1999 "to see what happens." In regards to Docket# PRM 50-66, we strong-ly support the requirement that each nuclear site hold a full-scale emergency response exercise during 1999 that includes a Y2K-related component. Actual emergency response exercises, as opposed to computer simulations, are necessary because of the complexity of Y2K interactions and the fact that nothing on this scale has been experienced before. In regards to Docket# PRM 50-67, we strong-ly support the requirement that each reactor have both of its emergency diesel generators declared operable as of December 1, 1999; have a 60-day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class lE (or safety-related and thus requiring back-up power); and require utilities to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by December 1, 1999. Because no one knows the extent to which Y2K disruptions may occur in the power grid and in fuel delivery systems, it is imperative that every power plant be prepared to be self-sufficient in supplying the power needed to operate its cooling systems. This can be assured by mandating the above requirements. We cannot state too strongly that the Y2K problem requires swift and decisive action. We cannot put populations at risk from a nuclear accident for want of planning. Please adopt these proposed rules. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely,
~~-*
Carol Jahnkow Executive Director
SOUTH RIVBRASSOCIATION OOCKETE @ DOCKET NUMBER ' HRC
,_...,..... 111.E PR 50- b!J
( ~c/ F1<379b) *g; FEB 16 P3 :18 Secretery, U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555, Attn: Rulemaak fii~ r '. s. and Adj uca ~ ns Staff, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rock *1;1e Marylan6 1Ar:F
,_ ,.) I/"\I
Dear Sirs:
As a representative of the South River Association, a Statewide Water resources oriented organisation since 1969, I am expressing our approval of the rules proposed by NIRS, specifically, Docket #PRM 50-65, Docket #PRM 50-66, and Docket #PRM 50-67. In addition, because of the large number of nuclear plants involved, we strongly recommend the additional safety measure of shutting down all nuclear plants at least a month before Y2K and leaving them shut down until a point after Y2K when Y2K complience can be demo n strated. Yours truly, d~~~~ember 820 Merrie Road Raleigh NC 27606 J/J f.1 * .'i'f (919)85 15237
~ by card FEB l 8 1999I 1 5 FOR THE PRESERVATION Of' BLACK WATER RIVERS AND STRI!'AMS IN NORTH CAROLINA
U. . 1~UCLEAR AEGUI.ATORV COMM168KlN FIUL.~INM~ &AOJUOICA1D81Mft: OFFICE a:M 8l!Dil1'ARY a: T H E ~ flocunatW:a Copi&IRallN:I
~ Jr,/19 g I /
,\ddl~~----- ~
DOCKETED US NRC 820 Merrie Road Raleigh NC .276Q.pB pJ :18 10 February ~ 9<!13 16 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjuca tJt-ons Staff 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville Maryland RLJLI" I' AOJL,'1, FF
Dear Sirs:
As a representative of the Conservation Council of North Carolina, a Statewide environmental group operating since 1968, I wish it to be known that the Conservation Council approves the rules proposed by NIRS, specifically, Docket #PRM 50-65, Docket #PRM 50-66, and Docket #PRM 50-67. In addition, because of the large number of nuclear plants involved, we strongly recommend the additional safety measure of shutting down all nuclear plants at least a month before Y2K and leaving them shut down until a point after Y2K when Y2K compliance can be demonstrated. Yours truly, 4 ,-/~ ,?,1f.J:_;. David H. Martin, Board Member 820 Merrie Road Raleigh, NC 27606 (919)8515237
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAT RULEMAKI & OfflCEOF OFTHECOMIIANBlON P10S11R!Mk CQliesfllaMC:1 _ _ __ _ __ Add'I Speciatllltll:um._ _;~ ~~ - oe 'J<... IM,._ _ _ __
so-,£" 8 to J,tu,.,*l! ~J.rl R,:1/ et1/. /VC ;z 7 j~ I// r~J,. lfe/ 1"CJ"} FEB l6 P3 :17 S'ee refi:,., J (/.f. Af.,c/l!Jr /Pep,/;.-6,,, e...,....,;-s,~~ . .. ' . 1,v.,s 1.,;. J (YI,. D c ~ os-. rr, A ii,.,'. R.,Ie MJ.,t.;.7 r ,. 4J1,.f,,r/' ,f
~ Jfl..., J7., F I I r.rr RtJ C ,t" / 1/4 /?'ke I IPoe.,t 1,,"/1~ ft J "1 /4 ... / ADJL:.., L
- J) e tJ r S', ~ s :
[ 1,+,, i I, 7" nt.l ;t._ ~~ m, Jj;,HrovJ I 4 o~J
~ j -l'e~ l1t .,.,-, w;f~ /y I Hf'.r )'r?"s-e.l t"v /,e > re 'ltJ t-d, :..]
y t k .J,. I 1t vr.le, t- )lt1"' ft ( '/)pc J t! t' # PIPH rd-ts; 1J o cJe r'r .PRJ-t s-o- ~6, 'i)0c,/p~f-,,l,I-/JRM rtJ-,'7). I?et:-~ VS-e 1 f/4 t,,c c&rn,-~ ,s 1- J><at'i,-,'e,, ,I ,_C<! 4 Jo-- ...,. .,...,.., a -J /r'*r-f ,;,,,/,.,,', "1f . .rrt-... , ,, s Well d J ', _, , ~ r. I " ~ C er-r:'11 .;..-e, 1 ~.It~, .... , I;_ .,. '< <(/ l! .. e,,.,., I -n;., .,_
~ 't ,l /( J I re "-o m-t,,. ./ t',(., 7" 4 / / kv ,:/e J..- ) '/.,., .,,., /,<
SJ.,r ;/,-..,_ ,If /4 .J t"7' J >>o,n,z',( /J ef,,,-,,_ 'f .2 Jo( h, J J~ /~ft $" /.-/ J ,,,,,._
- f-l-e.- Y <k "i,.-{, *1 1"/4 ,..fof>t r,.:r,,~ -t,.;.. c,,. J-e.. ev./~d t..J.
M '1 J ~ *k7,.,,., ,..; , ;- 7,1,._,, .L ""' *~ e.,.~.,.,;,..,, ,P-t,,,.-, j:,rutfa,rr.., ii t' /1/.C. F~.. ~ (h,V~,:,,'1, lfJ/e,", f, HL. J}ur,~1
.i ir ::,e .... c,.~_,e .. , I r.f-:'4.-r- ,...,., '{/ "'1 -f',:...e .,,-,..,.,,.,;;f J 1,,,.,{ ,
- J d ,,,;.'I ,. ~r-l. " ,. t: "- ..., ".,,./4 * ..- .,. e, ~...,... ,) ~s-, *cs-,
1
; " ' ' , ;I, e lo .,. ~ I..,__,, '~J :t'.. " -*r4 ,rJfej '{/- n v<./,e *.,.
}" -t. tJ C --f D'Y F
- Y~,.,. -t~~',,
4--~~- ~ J) cl~, :J JI. /'?Ir~,;;_ FEB 18 1999
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 5 o- t,5 ( t,t./ FR379o) OOCt<EfED February 6, 1999 USN C Secretary, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 '99 FEB 16 P3 :15 Attn: Rulemaking Staff or1-. ~ To Whom It May Concern: HL1 r ADJL;:=., r i. *T I am writing to express my concerns that our nuclear reactors may or may not be Y2K compliant and I am unsure that the proper measures are being taken to ensure appropriate safety in the matter. I am very much in favor of the NIRS petition. I believe that it is imperative that any nuclear reactor that has not demonstrated its Y2K compliance be shutdown by December 1, 1999 until they are compliant. A July 1999 evaluation is simply not good enough. All parties including "vendor certified" systems that are currently exempt should meet this requirement.
- I also feel strongly that each site should hold an emergency drill that includes Y2K related situations. The issues that arise from this drill should be closely documented and the resolutions itemized into a database with other helpful information so that the industry will create for itself a "Y2K manual" so to speak.
They are several other critical and well thought out components of the NIRS petition that need to be considered and approved as soon as possible. Sincerely,
/ -**.
L i >~e Laura McDonald 3801 Tail Feather Round Rock, Tx 78681 FEB 18 1999
~b'Jcad-s , . .,.:.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS SrAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRE'TARV OF THE COMMISS DocumentQmlsb 0 ostma,k Date _ c:2~ _ ~ 10.... /_q_q____ Copies A8ceiver _ ___,~ - - - dd'f Cqi8s ep~ - -s______ ~Dllrfbution
~ -P-:D~ 7?_!_ 1).5,_ ,_,.::;r-..g,,~~ ~ ~
oor*-::r UMBER PETITION RULE PRM 50-{p5 January 23, 1999 (t,t./FR 3110 DOCKlTEO U" I RC ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch
*99 FEB 16 P3 :17 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission OF- I Washington D.C. 20555 flu, f ADJL :* rF This letter supports the three Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) petitions for rulemaking regarding Y2K emergency planning, shutdown of non-compliant facilities, and assurance ofreliable back-up sources of power submitted to the NRC on December 10th , 1998.
As you know, nuclear energy is a super-lethal force delicately contained by nuclear power plants. It is pure grace, supporting the efforts of nuclear power plant operators, that keeps the energy produced in those plants controlled to the extent that it is. There are constant threats to that control by power outages, faulty equipment, human error, and earthquakes to name a few. Y2K poses an additional threat. The likelihood of a Y2K-nuclear disaster does not matter. As always, there is a chance of meltdown. Y2K increases the chance, and calls for heightened responsibility by the NRC, and ultimately, the nuclear power plant operators. What is distracting certain people in the nuclear and nuclear regulatory industries from taking necessary responsibility for Y2K preparedness and ongoing nuclear safety for that matter? Meltdown is a far greater threat to humanity and all life on Earth then any lost profits, political incorrectness, or national or global economic recession. Nuclear meltdown can render the Earth uninhabitable or a living hell for thousands of years. It is obvious which is more threatening. It is also obvious that the NRC has the responsibility to do everything in its power to prevent meltdown. The three NIRS petitions for rulemaking ask the NRC to do only the minimum to ensure nuclear safety. I ask the NRC to at least enact the three NIRS petitions immediately. If the minimum is all the NRC will do, so be it. Ultimately, Y2K or not, nuclear power production has no ethical, or humane role. It is too dangerous and needs to be discontinued. Please act on your own conscience. Sincerely, j 1230 High St., #217 Auburn, CA 95603 HB J 8 1999 __
~owledged by LUC *w
u.S CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS&ON fruLEMAKINGS &ADJlJDICA11C>>- lrAfF OFFICE OFlffE sa:AEl'ARY THE CONIIBION Docunm8bU1I~ Coples R8CQIWQCJ _ _ _j__ __ dd'I ~ ' ~bullol11_ ) j ~ ~- - --
'J)~ I 'ls I ,,,,,__ _ _ __ _
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM S O:f5 DO CKl:TEO February 2, 1999 ( t,'/FR31'1o) LJS iRc Secretary *99 FEB 12 P2 :l 5 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 --;;, .
'Do~-hh,.") T ~~ DY".:i\ ""0C...... )
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff AFF I. NIRS Three Petitions for Rulemaking on Nuclear Power and Y2K
- 2. NRC's Draft Contingency Plan
Dear Secretary:
I am asking that the NRC require utilities to meet specified criteria to operate after December 1, 1999 and that the NRC require emergency response exercise and finally that the NRC require additional steps to protect against offsite power loss. I live with in ten miles of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant. I hope that the NRC will be very aggressive in regulating this plant. The NRC is mandated to protect the public health and safety and I think this mandate should take precedence over any perceived need for electrical power from this reactor. Docket #PRM 50-65 would require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any nuclear reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time as they are compliant. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that there are standard criteria that the utilities must be to demonstrate Y2K compliant (stricter than "readiness") and that the NRC will apply these criteria uniformly across the industry. I hope that nuclear reactors will not be allowed to operate on December 31, 1999 if they have not demonstrated compliance. I do not think compliance is the same thing as readiness. Docket #PRM 50-66 would require each reactor to have both of its emergency diesel generators declared operable, as ofDecmberl, 1999; have a sixty day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class IE (or safety related and thus requiring back-up power); and require utilities to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by December 1, 1999. This rule addresses what is the most important Y2K issue of all - the possibility of a widespread blackout. Nuclear power plants require offsite electrical power to cool the reactor core and fuel pool. If an operating reactor loses power for any significant amount of time (several hours to a couple of days) the reactor will melt down. This means reactors are required to have emergency diesel generators, each capable of powering the
~ e d by Clld :w HB_ 18 tlH .,.,
lJ.S. ~UCLEAA REGULATOHY l.iUMMt.:itilON RUU:MiWNGS & ADJODICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFM SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION DoCllnertSIBtistics F'Qallllklls c2/ 9/ 97 Cqa Raad I I / Attft
entire plant. NRC claims these generators are 95% reliable, which is not good enough. In addition, research suggests that generator reliability is lower than 95% especially if one is out-of-service for maintenance. The rule would require both emergency diesel generators to be operable, and that there be enough fuel on onsite to compensate for potential fuel delivery problems caused by unrelated Y2K disrucfitions. Information suggestei that it is nearly impossible to reach a cold shut down witH i1tctrical power. Without such power there could be a melt down. NRC's Draft Contingency Plan places too much emphasis on power production and in fact redefines NRC's mission by arguing that ensuring power production is in itself a public health and safety issue. If this trick works it will be too bad and allow the operators to make decisions in order to keep reactors running without having to go through the normal process of obtaining exemptions. This eliminates the public from the decision making process. Please enter my comments in the hearings record(s). Sincerely, ~~V9 Tina Daly 1880 Pickering Road Phoenixville, PA 19460
DOCKEi NUM EF February 9, 1999 PETlTION RULE R~, 5"o-ros- [<t,'I FR31'1o) o CKETEO USURC Concerning the petition to Shutdown Nuclear Powerplants on Dec. 1, 1999
.99 FE8 11 P2 :15 I would agree entirely with the Petition to Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants.
QF r-*, I have always been, and will always be, a proponent of Nuclear Energy, but as cbmputer F programmer that has been dealing with the Y2K issue from a programming ph~dtive, I believe it is in the publics best interest to shut down these plants to be on the safe side on Dec. 1 if not compliant as the petition states. In this instance, it is better to be safe then sorry. Mike Wright 8641 Creston Street Pinckney, MI 48169 FfB 18 1999
~ by
Docaml8f\t Statistics PostmAf'k _2)---i/1,f. .qCJ Copl8sR8celv8c! / - ,\ddl CqJlea flaprolb:8cl
~
~~ -
l February 10, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher /1 /J A. IJ I) A . ). ~ ,-.-,/ ADM, DAS ~ ~--v
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65, "SHUTDOWN OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES NOT COMPLIANT WITH Y2K ISSUES" Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petition for rulemaking .
- This comment was received via the rulemaking website on February 9, 1999. The submitter' s name is Mike Wright, 8641 Creston Street, Pinckney, MI 48169. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
UGKET MBER
~ PR 50--~5
& fR319t>)
DOCKETED JS *,c From: Nancy Allen <nallen@acadia .net> To: CAG Date: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 1:12 PM *99 FEB 11 A8 :16
Subject:
Y2K/Nukes public comment OF~ ,_
>TO CAROL GALLAGHER - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nu ADJLJI_ T
Dear Ms. Gallagher,
Thank you for your email. My browser does not support file uploads so I am sending my comments directly to you as you suggested. Thank you for your assistance. Nancy Allen To the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: Comments on Rulemaking Petitions PMR 50-65, PMR 50-66 and PMR 50-67 Comments in CAPS
>>1) (Docket# PRM 50-65) require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any >>nuclear reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time >>as they are compliant. >> I AGREE NUCLEAR PLANTS SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN IF NOT FULLY Y2K COMPLIANT, BUT I BELIEVE THE SHUTDOWN SHOULD OCCUR BEFORE DECEMBER 1 SO THAT CITIZENS HAVE TIME TO PREPARE IN THE WARM SEASON RATHER THAN IN WINTER. MOST PEOPLE IF GIVEN THE FAUSTIAN CHOICE OF POWER LOSSES OR POSSIBLE NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE WOULD CHOOSE, I BELIEVE, TO CUT POWER USAGE. THE APPARENT NRC DECISION TO KEEP REACTORS ONLINE EVEN IF THERE ARE Y2K PROBLEMS IS NOT A PROPER DECISION FOR THE NRC ALONE. FOR THIS MOMENTOUS CHOICE, THE PUBLIC, AND STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, NEED TO BE MUCH MORE INVOLVED.
IF NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE NOT 100% COMPLIANT BY JULY 1, I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN AND THE PUBLIC PREPARED FOR THAT POSSIBILITY SOON.
>>2) (Docket# PRM 50-66) require each nuclear site to hold a full-scale >>emergency response exercise during 1999 that includes a Y2K-related >>component.
AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE EXERCISE MUST BE HELD AT EACH SITE AND SHOULD COME IN THE SUMMER AS SOON AS ANY NON COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN DETERMINED.
>>>3) (Docket# PRM 50-67) require each reactor to have both of its >emergency diesel generators declared operable, as of December 1, 1999; >have a 60-day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each FfB f 2 1999
EGULAT RY CQMMISSK)N ADJ lCA110NS STAFF FACEOFTtfE SECRETARY FTHE CQMMISSK)N oacumertSmtlf#CS
.;;fo/qq ~rJr ~ JLJ!/t,.~,~
1esR8CEWOO / ~---- dd'I Cop ~ ',_- - '-""-- pecial lstrit'J ti( ___.u 11t:.~-::r- - - -
~D~5~~~~
r
>generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class 1E (or >safety-related and thus requiring back-up power); and require utilities >to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by >December 1, 1999.
SPENT FUEL POOLS SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE CLASSIFIED 1E IMMEDIATELY. REACTORS WHICH WILL CLEARLY NOT BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE BY JULY 1 SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE BACK UP SOLAR OR WIND OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES IN PLACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR REACTOR CORE AND SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEMS. General comments: THIS EMERGENCY MUST NOT BE MET WITH TYPICAL INDUSTRY PUBLIC RELATIONS. THE SITUATION IS SO SERIOUS AND FRIGHTENING THAT BRAVE AND BOLD SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PERHAPS UNPOPULAR DECISIONS INCLUDING REACTOR SHUTDOWNS, MUST BE MADE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. PLEASE DO YOUR
- DUTY.
Nancy Allen co-chair Maine Green Party RR 1 Box 109 Surry, ME. 04684 nallen@acadia.net
February 9, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM, DAS
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65, PRM-.50-66 AND PRM-50-67 Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petitions for rulemaking . This comment was received via e-mail on February 9, 1999. The submitter's name is Nancy Allen, co-chair Maine Green Party, RR 1 Box 109, Surry, ME 04684. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
DOCKET NUMBER February 8, 1999 ETITI RULE e,RM 50-~5 DOCKETED Attn: Docketing and Service Branch {fa t/FR37C/O} USRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
*99 FEB 11 A8 :16 Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking OF'-ll
Dear NRC:
RUL ADJU[ F I am writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. The NIRS petitions for rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to address this issue. I urge the NRC to support these proposed rules, and to publish them in the Federal Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when they are published; please notify me once their publication date is known . Sincerely, Joe Perryman E-Mail:joeperry@yourlink.net Web Site at:http://www.yourlink.net/joeperry f*rt)eii( HB 12 1999
"-cknowledged by GIIIIG l) IO 11a~'"IP!aJ.
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGUlATORY ~ RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATICHI l1RFF OFFICE lHE SECRE1'ARV THE CONIMISIO
February 9, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher /1 11 ;f. ~ ()Li.,,,-/ ADM, DAS ~ ~*-*
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66 AND PRM-50-67 Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petitions for rulemaking. This comment was received via e-mail on February 8, 1999. The submitter's name is Joe Perryman. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
f)QCKET NUMBER PETITIO RULE PR 6 O- b£ (fa <</PR 3190) From: <Jaggedrock@aol.com> To: TWFN_DO.twf2_po(N RCWEB) Date: Sat, Feb 6, 1999 1:16 PM *99 FEB 11 A8 :16
Subject:
The 3 petitions Dear Sirs* orFil',
- ll r,
ADJLI_ I have read all 3 petitions that have been brought before the commission, and wish to respond t to your request for public comment. All 3 petitions I agree with . If strictly defined "compliance" is not achieved as verified by an outside validation source, by a certain date, the plants should be shut down. Further, extraordinary contingency plans must be mapped out and implemented quickly so that, if we run into problems, they will have been thought out ahead of time and can, hopefully, be dealt with. Lastly, it is clear that outside power is necessary, not to mention telecommunications, to run many of the systems that control nuclear power plants. A well defined source of
- alternative electricity and the fuel(s) necessary to produce it would certainly seem in order for the public's safety.
My concern though, with the petitions in general, is that based on prior research that I have done, a certain amount of time is required to safely shut down a power plant. The petitions call for shut down 12-1-99 if certain things have not definitively fallen into place with Y2K compliance, etc. Let's say the decision is made that the plants must be shut down. Does doing so 12-1-99 provide sufficient time to shut down? From what I've read, I think not. Don't you need more like 4 to 5 months, which would indicate that a mandatory shut down date in the July, August or September time frame would make better sense? Respectfully yours, Jeff Ottle San Diego, California CC: GATED.nrcsmtp("year2000@mail.catholicity.com") f-r,ai / Ff8 12 1999
~knowledged by *------"""
U.S. NUClEAA REGULATORY COMM688fON RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICAl'DGsrAFf: FACE OFTfiE SECRETARY FTHE COMMIS910N DocumentSmtlab Postmark Copies R8Clillv9d P./to/qq r I {[urcf/!_ , ___ ~ {Te,vn I
~A Add'I Copi86 ~ ,_ _?'_ _ __
Special Distrltlubl-'-~ ~ ~,- -
February 9, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ~ /J A I ,1,,j_/ I () ADM, DAS QU+U ~-0
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66 AND PRM-50-67 Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petitions for rulemaking. This comment was received via e-mail on February 8, 1999. The submitter's name is JeffOttle. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
OLOBAL RESOURCE G E N DOCrFTED
'\!Jt'i,=i-c,:N M E N T "9<J FEB 10 P3 :Q3 Helaine Lerner Board Chair Attn: Docketing and Service Branch FF Alice Slater U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission President Washington, D.C. 20555 DOCKET NUMBER Re: nuclear power and the Y2K petitions for rulemaking P TITION RULE PAM 5~ - /pt, Project Directors (r,y FR379o)
David Brubaker
Dear Sir/Madam:
William J. Weida We are writing in support of the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the isory Committee Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998,
- regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. This is of great concern to us considering Oscbar Arias the devastating consequences of a nuclear reactor accident. The NIRS petitions for 8 ar ara 9 ergman . .
Selma Brackman rulemaking represent modest, prudent steps to addressing these problems. Kim Brizzolara Jacqueline _Cabasso I urge the NRC to support these proposed rules, and to publish them in the Federal Helen Caldicott Register as soon as possible. I intend to comment upon these proposed rules when Manas Chatterji Mark Dowie they are finally published; please notify me once their publication date is known. Faye Duchin Lloyd Dumas Sincerely, Gary Ferdman Shirley Fingerhood Hamilton Fish Karl Grossman W~~ A~ Alice Slater el Henderson r lsard President of Global Action Resource Center for the Environment io Kaku 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 Inge Kaul New York, NY 10010 Patti Kenner David Krieger Gloria Lawrence Ann Markusen Leonard Marks Myron Mehlman Myriam Miedzian James Parks Morton Monroe Price Douglas Roche Stanley Sheinbaum Henry Spira Emily Squires Theodore B. Taylor Grace Thorpe William J. Weida Stanley Weithorn Alan Woltz FFB 7 1- - 15 East 26th Street, Room 915, New York, NY 10010
- Tel. 212-726-9161
- Fax 212-726-9160
- grace@gracelinks.org
wm1111111lllllaaG& P<asOale
~
akl-t't
' v,
~---- -
DOCKETED Suzanne Knutzen US lRC 3101 102nd Place Long Beach, WA 98631 *99 FEB 10 P3 :o 3 Feb. 6, 1999
)
.FF U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 DOCKET NUMBER PETITION PRM 50 -,5
Dear Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff:
t~1/FR37qi) I am writing in regards to Docket No. PRM-50-65. I believe that all Nuclear Power plants should be shut down on December 1, 1999 if they cannot demonstrate
- full compliance for the Year 2000.
This is a very important issue to me. I would hate to jeapordize the health and safety of our planet. Full disclosure ofNRC data pertaining to Y2K is vital to the well-being of the people of the United States. We need to lead the way and show other nations the importance of keeping Nuclear Power safe. I am a primary school teacher, and have researched Y2k extensively. Sincerely, UNITED STATES Ir
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON DC 205~1
- 0.33:
- OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENAL TY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 PBt-t TER
- n n l..llt.,;,~-.a::.:.=::.:..i*
3101 102ND PLACE LONG BEACH , W 98631 CMT DA : 02/06/99 ( 64FR03790 )
***/:,
21 s~ b,- ~o,4
§ ~~
~~,;,~-~'§ o~~,.s~.
ll.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiSS&ON RULEMAKINGS & ADJUOICAIIN lfAfF OFFICE OFlffEaa:Rl1'ARV Of THE COMll88ION Oocu11a1t .a11r P0&1Rlalk Dela ;;Iif I/ 9 9 Copie8Rr8GC1 _ _ _,_ _ __ A d c f l ~ ~ -5_ _ __ Bi~
DOCKET NUMBER 24 Winifred Ave. PETITION RULE PRM so -IP5' DO. . K TEO Eppi ng ['1'1 FR31'JI)) Australia 2121 3n1 February 1999 USNRC The Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission *99 FEB 10 P3 :Q3 Re: Y2K amendments to regulations OFrl RU Dear Sir/Madam ADJUL Despite the fact that I live on the other side of the world I am extremely concerned about the potential effects ofY2K-induced failures in nuclear power plants in the United States. I believe that failures could result in disasters of the magnitude of Chernobyl. I write to wholeheartedly support the Nuclear Information and Resource Service's petitions calling for;
- 1) A shutdown of nuclear facilities that will not be Y2K compliant.
- 2) Full-scale emergency planning exercises to prepare facilities for any Y2K problems.
- 3) Provision of reliable back-up sources of power for nuclear facilities .
I strongly believe that a 'safety-first' approach must be taken by the NRC to ensure that there is no chance of any nuclear accidents occurring as a result of the Y2K problem. Yours Sincerely g~ Gus Gulson Sydney, Australia. FEB 11 1999
~knowfedged y card ,en I 11 Ill &IIDl:C:A:
u.~ NIJClEAR REGULATORY ~ O N RULEMAKINGS&ADJUDICATICM STAFF OFFICE OF'M SICAl1J'QY OFlHE COMMISIION Oocu111ant.-11c1 PoalRledc*Os _ _ _ __ __ Cqa~----------- A d c f l ~ ~ - - - -- - ~ ~~k:, I
DOCKET NUMBER DOCKETED PETITION RUlE PRM .5(). ir>S lS RC February 2, 1999 r, rl? 37'1())
*99 FEB 10 P3 :03 Secretary US Nuclear Aeg_ulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Rulemakin9s and Acjjudication Staff RE: Support for NIRS Y2K Petitions We the undersigned, concerned us citizens, urge you to adopt the 3 Nuclear Information and Resource Service petitions for rulemaking on nuclear ,power and Y2K issues.
We support: Docket# PAM 50-65 requiring the shutdown of any reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant by December 1, 1999. Docket # PAM 50-66 requiring each nuclear site to hold a full scale, Y2K related, emergency response drill during 1999. Docket# PAM 50-67 requiring each reactor to have 2 diesel generators fully operable by December 1, 1999; to have a 60 day supply of diesel fuel on hand; to declare spent fuel Class 1E (requiring back-up power) ; and to install additional back-up power for each reactor by December 1, 1999. We are especially concerned about the NAC's implication that ensuring power production is the most iroportant goal of Y2K preparation plans. The only way to ensure health and safety for the communities directly, and indirectly, affected by the operation of nuclear reactors is to make the sites as accident-proof as possible - even if that requires temporarily shutting them down. We thank you and the nuclear industry for your ongoing attention to, and work to resolve, possible Y2K related problems. Mt.,y v'1 11 Hod vie--h e le J . ' Name City, State-btt Ai-ker-,tl--iJ:'
- HB l 1 199
- - - -**IJIU
IJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISStON RULEMAKINGS &ADIOQIIDll ll'AFF OFFICEOFM:~ OF THE COMMIS8K)N Oocullat Sblaltdl Postmark Ofll9 ¢ / q /9 9 Cop~s-_,,.., I Add'I Cqa ---=-~ --
I Support for NIRS Y2K Petitions Page 2 Name City, State
-. . -J P ~ Llvl ~ , µr, 4vir\. A &r. ,Mr C r-q_ ~~ //. /-!GI' v e, /1£ Sc.otl -r;_vd£ (l,a:_
14J M_J;... L u.k(.. r1 ., kl~ho.W ~ lo.."'-+~ (J:d'rt~ ~'-<<JI( l~ . 1/4fid~/ M f
~ LCA.J'\ ' . . AL-A~ LI=W ,s ANN ~R.., W\) -1< -H _f\ +\f:BA> P' AeJJ AP-*/JR-' M \
t:n-W/~ P~ Ul1r,0-- P~~
;ta-..4L ~ 1-Lro,1,,( /.... 'Sfok, Wwfd, /11I
,/ Support for NIRS Y2K Petitions Page 3 Name City, State
~lrfllly lwµLf) /&.v~~ f}'J/
12 l t> /V1:- ---nOf\..t A-~
)__ o.r r r11, e}, 4 fr f'
-f/...Ji~ ~ ~='-- - --1.Yvl.&..li&
. ~Gfz1ZJ> :li: 4/iJ,4 < ~/
,4 ~ >. J ~ J(;ort_~
Merrill Hodnefield 4481 Willis Rd. Milan, MI 48160
DOCKETED IJS. RC "99 FEB 10 A8 :44 Of I r--1l ;I ADJ!. February 8, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER fll~llTION RULE A So- t,S" Secretary to t/ F-R "3 7'1o) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff
SUBJECT:
Comments On Petitions Related To Year 2000 Computer Readiness PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66, and PRM-50-67 Gentlemen: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) submits the following comments in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's request for comments on three petitions for rulemaking from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. These petitions are related, discussing date-sensitive, computer-related issues related to year 2000, commonly referred to as Y2K issue. (64 Fed. Reg. 3790 -January 25, 1999) General Comments We recommend that the Commission deny the three Y2K related petitions from Nuclear Information and Resource Services. This recommendation is based on the following:
- Current regulations are adequate to address potential issues that rnay*arise from potential Y2K computer issues.
- Regulatory requirements were reviewed in an October 1997 public 'meeting between the NRC staff, industry experts, and other interested parties. This review concluded that no additional regulations were required.
- The petitions do not raise new issues that would change this conclusion.
- NRC staff oversight of the industry's year 2000 remediation is providing the ._ ..
technical information needed by the Commission to make informed decisions and ensure public health and safety. HB 1 , 1999
~
lJ.S. NUCtEAR*REGUt.ATORYCCIIISnlON RUi.EMAICINGS&ADII llff OFRCE(EM fJQY OFnEO<JetalD
~SWlll:s Postm6rk Os o2 /;t>/9'J ~ y ~ ~ ~
=;;s:@w;:~, Coples~ I
l , SecretaryFebruary 8, 1999 Page 2
- Industry testing has confirmed that safety-related initiation and actuation systems (e.g., reactor trip system, engineered safety feature actuation system) were not subject to the Year 2000 concern.
- Industry testing has shown that there are cases where remediation is required, but no situation has been identified that would prevent proper operation of safety systems to shutdown the plant if required.
- The nuclear power industry has taken a closely coordinated approach to year 2000 readiness, making regulatory oversight easier.
- Staff suggestions and comments were incorporated in the final document, NEVNUSMG 97-07, "Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness" issued on October 20, 1997. SCE&G committed to this standard industry program.
- In accordance with Generic Letter 98-01, SCE&G will report to the Commission the status of their Y2K readiness program by July 1, 1999. This report will identify any safety related remediation that has not been completed and the facility schedule for achieving readiness. This report, combined with long term NRC staff oversight, will provide the Commission with the technical information needed to conduct a rational evaluation of Y2K issues. Current regulations provide adequate authority if Commission action were needed to protect public health and safety.
PRM-50-65 Shutdown of nuclear facilities Current regulations provide adequate authority if Commission action were needed to protect public health and safety. Therefore, additional regulations are not required to ensure safe plant operation.
- PRM-50-66 Emergency planning The additional emergency planning exercise suggested by the petition is not needed to ensure public health and safety. NRC analysis and industry testing have confirmed that safety systems will function to shutdown a reactor if required. The facts do not support the petitioners speculation that Y2K-induced events could cause severe challenges to critical safety systems leading to potential core meltdown.
SCE&G is conducting contingency planning for key Y2K rollover dates. These contingency plans evaluate specific risk factors and where appropriate providing mitigation strategies. This is a more effective approach to ensuring we can continue to operate and meet commitments.
\ . SecretaryFebruaiy 8, 1999 Page 3 PRM-50-67 Backup power Current regulations requiring backup power are sufficient to ensure public health and safety. Facilities operating within the requirements of their license have adequate alternate power sources.
In its most recent report issued Januaiy 11, 1999, the North American Electric Reliability Council states that, "Transmission outages are expected to be minimal and outages that may occur are anticipated to be mitigated by reduced energy transfers established as part of the contingency planning process." Widespread, long-term loss of the grid due to Y2K induced events is not a credible scenario. Summary SCE&G does not believe additional regulations are required to maintain the current high standards for public health and safety. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these three petitions for rulemaking. If you have any questions please contact Jeff Pease at 803-345-4124. Sincerely, Jeffrey Pease Licensing Specialist (Y2K Issue Manager) V.C.Summer Nuclear Station South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. P.O. Box 88 Mail Code 830 Jenkinsville, SC 29465
February 8, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher /I /) A* 0I ~ ADM,DAS ~ ~--d
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66 AND PRM-50-67 Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petitions for rulemaking . This comment was received via e-mail on February 8, 1999. The subrnitter's name is Jeffrey Pease, Licensing Specialist, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina Electric & Gas, P.O. Box 88, Mail Code 830, Jenkinsville, SC 29465 . Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
I ' DOCK T NUMBER ETITI RULE PR 5 o- f.oS ( c, t./ FR31'1o) DOCK ETED From: "M. Higgins" <mhiggin1@columbus.rr.com> us r.:c To: TWFN_DO.twf2_po(NRCWEB) Date: Sun, Feb 7, 1999 5:51 PM "99 FEB 10 A8 :4 4
Subject:
Y2K & Shut-Down of Nuclear Facilities TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, Oi-r 11
~,UI The petition has been docketed by the Commission and h"ii~'B~en assigned Doct et No. PRM-50-65. The petitioner requests that the 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). The petitioner requests that the NRC take this action to ensure that Y2K issues will not cause the failure of nuclear safety systems and thereby pose a threat to public health and safety.
The petitioner requests that the NRC adopt the following text as a rule: Any and all facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 shall be closed by 12pm Eastern Standard Time, December 1, 1999, unless and until each facility has (a) fully and comprehensively examined all computer systems, embedded chips, and other electronic equipment that may be date-sensitive to ensure that all such systems that may be relevant to safety are Y2K compliant; (b) repaired, modified, and/or replaced all such systems that are not found to be Y2K compliant; (c) made available to the public all information related to the examination and repair, modification and/or replacement of all such systems; (d) determined, through full-scale testing, that all repairs, modifications, and/or replacements of all such systems are, in fact, Y2K compliant. The petitioner notes that in Generic Letter 98-01, the NRC has recognized the potential date-related problems that may affect a system or application (the Y2K problem). These potential problems include not representing the year properly, not recognizing leap years, and improper date calculations. These problems could result in the inability of computer systems to operate or to function properly. The petitioner states that the Y2K problem could potentially interfere with the proper operation of computer systems, microprocessor-based hardware, and software or databases relied on at nuclear power plants. The petitioner asserts that the Y2K problem could result in a plant trip and subsequent complications in tracking post-shutdown plant status and recovery due to a loss of emergency data collection. The petitioner is also concerned that power grids providing offsite power to nuclear stations could be impacted to the extent that localized and widespread grid failures could occur. The petitioner acknowledges that the NRC has recognized the potential safety and environmental problems that could result if date-sensitive electronic systems fail to operate or provide false information. The petitioner also notes that NRC has, in Generic Letter 98-01 , required its reactor and major fuel cycle facilities to report on their programs to ensure compliance with Y2K issues by July 1, 1999. However, the petitioner asserts that the NRC has not made explicit how it will define compliance nor what it plans to do for facilities that cannot prove compliance. In the petitioner's suggested regulatory text, the petitioner defines compliance with Y2K issues as evaluation of all potential problems that may be safety-related, repair of all such problems, and full-scale testing of all solutions. The petitioner would also require full public disclosure of all evaluation, * *
- repair, and testing data so that it may be examined by independent experts and the public.
l 199
~cknowledged by card _HB_1 _ __
U.S. NUQ.EAR REGULATORY COMMl .;N AUIBMICIN88 &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE OFM SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION OoCllll8nt Statlstk:s r.-OtJta o2µ 0/qq @c 1d ~ ~~ Cqa~ I - Mn~~ 3 . _ -* ~~ l./1S - ~ '---=F- / ~
~d _
Finally, the petitioner's suggested amendment would make it clear that nuclear facilities will be closed until they can demonstrate full compliance with Y2K issues. The petitioner states that the NRC is obligated to act decisively to protect public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner believes that anything short of its suggested approach is insufficient to fulfill this obligation and that the NRC should adopt this suggested regulation as soon as possible. Thank you! Christina K. Higgins 2464 Buckley Road Columbus, OH 43220 614-628-6286 email: mhiggin1@columbus.rr.com
February 8, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM:
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65 "SHUTDOWN OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES NOT COMPLIANT WITH Y2K ISSUES" Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petition for rulemaking .
- This comment was received via e-mail on February 8, 1999. The submitter' s name is Christina K.
Higgins, 2464 Buckley Road, Columbus, OH 43220. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment : M. Chiramal
uuCKEl UMBER PETITION RULE PAM 5 0- It, 5 (pt/ r-R~'lo) DOC KETE D From: mineux <uranus@nbn.net> U,:, r!RC To: TWFN_DO. twf2_po(NRCWEB) Date: Sun, Feb 7, 1999 4:50 PM
Subject:
y2k *99 FEB 10 A8 :44 it has come to my attention that there is vacillation within the n@Ff:egarding the closure of the nuclear facilities if they are not _COMPLIANT_ by 7/1/99. you wtfJlrtote i said compliant not y2k 'READY' whatever that might mean this week. ADJUC 1t J+* i live 10 miles away from TMI and remember only too well the last debacle. how anyone at the nrc can, in good conscience, consider, even if for a moment, not shutting down the reactors with the threat of a catastrophe looming on the horizon is unfathonable to me. you are jepoardizing the lives of innocent men, women, and children for political expediency. rather a total shutdown of our electrical systems and economy than a meltdown of our nuclear power plants. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES!!! we cannot afford to take a chance of this magnitude when the down side far outweighs the upside to such a degree. god save us from bureaucrats ... they will be the death of us all.
LI.S. NUCl.EAR'REGULATORY COMMISSION FIULEMAKINGS &AOJUDICATD48 STAFF OFFICE O.ClHE SIERJTARY OF THE COf.tlS8ION DoaunKmtStallallcl Postmelt(IJela CoplesR9c8M)d _ c:if_ o/t17__~le/~
' _7 ~_
~ d/,1,.,,~A,. .
r<r~UV&o-"" ~ ~ R8ploc'A,c8d 5 ~ ~ rd1 ~ lffe;h Ds
February 8, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM,DAS
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-65 "SHUTDOWN OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES NOT COMPLIANT WITH Y2K ISSUES" Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petition for rulemaking. This comment was received via e-mail on February 8, 1999. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment: M. Chiramal
MILLEE LIVINGSTON DOCKET D 11251 TAHOE ST. UN C AUBURN, CA 95602-9235 PHONE 530-823-2224 FAX 530-888-0535 "99 FEB -9 P3 :35 email : MLivin5387@AOL.com OFrlC AUL , ' February 3, 1999 ADJUvlC. Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER Washington , DC 20555 PETITION RULE PAM So-'- !i ( t, 'R 31'10) Attn : Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
Dear Sir,
We wish to comment on the NIRS' three petitions for rulemaking on nuclear power and Y2K issues. We wish to strongly urge adoption of rules that would safeguard safety and health concerns to the general public. We urge strong rules to ensure that there are standard criteria that the utilities must meet to demonstrate Y2K compliance. We urge a stricter standard than "readiness", and that the NRG will apply these criteria uniformly across the industry and the country. Nuclear reactors should not be allowed to operate on December 31 , 1999 if compliance is not demonstrated, as the potential interactions among non-compliant and compliant systems presents an unknown, but foreseeable risk to the public. It appears that compliance needs to happen before December 31 , 1999 so that the necessary adjustments and plans be met. We have heard that there is considerable misinformation on the Internet. All the rules must be clear and apply to everyone. We need to avoid a melt down and do not need to experiment with our lives. Again , we strongly urge adoption of rules that would safeguard the health of the general public. Thank you. Please let us know what the outcome of these comments.
- Sincerely, ..
~~
. Millce Li v inp ton 11251 Tahoe I. -
. 11b11t1t, CA 95602
~ by cmd ~fB I 1 1999 V:llltl
.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlON ULCMJ~~i.io &AOJUOICATIONS STAFF 1
OFFICE OF'RiE SECRETARY OFTHECO ION Oooument--. Postma,t 0s ,;; /4/ 9r CopiesRQcQlvad ' 7 I 6.dd1 Cq)les ~ -..........__Mr--....,_ ~ IDS .
ENVIRONMENTAL A D V O C A T E 5 DOCKETED USNRC DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 5 0- ,s "99 F~B -8 P4 :37 fl F. '31'10) or r1r PL AD,.JL 'T 30th ANNIVERSARY February 4, t999
' Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Rulemakings ap.d Adjudications Staff Washington, DC 20555 *
Dear Secretary:
We are writing to you regarding NIRS' three petitions for rulemaking on nuclear power and Y2K issues (Federal Register, January 25, 1999, Vol. 64, No. 15, pp 3789-3793). We wholeheartedly support these three petitions submitted to the NRC and we cornmeq.d you on your acknowledgment of these important public health and safety issues. We are happy to, hear that you are actively seeking Jo address ,this crucial matter which will have major implications for New York State's six commercial nuclear reactors. .. We believe-that for the NRC to truly ensure public health and safety it will need to be more aggressive in its approach to the Y2K dilemma. The NRC should immediately take the following actions as recommended in NIRS' three petitions:
- 1) set a: requirement that c.:;,lls far the shutdown of an.y nuclear reactor that is :uot Y2K compliant
. by December 1, 1999. Once, Y2K compliancy is ensured for a particular reactor, th~ reactor would be allowed to go back on line.
- 2) implement standard criteria that the utilities must meet to demonstrate Y2K compliance (a stricter standard than "readiness"). The NRC should apply such criteria uniformly across the industry. *
- 3) set a requirement that nuclear reactors not be allowed to operate on December 31, 1999 if compliance is not demonstrated. The logic .being that potential interactions among non-compliaht cµid compliant systems presents an unknown,. but foreseeable risk to the public.
- 4) set a requirement that each nuclear site hold a full-scale emergency response exercise during 1999 that in~ludes a Y2K-related component. Such an exercise, in w~ch nuclear utility
~bf----.-*. *EB*-**--*-~
353 Hamilton Street, Albany, NY 12210 Tet 5_18.4625526 Fax 518.427.0381 htt-p://~.envadvo9ates.org Printed With Soy Ink on 100% f'ost'Cqnsunior, ~ Chlorlno and Ac<i Free Recycled Paper
I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RUlEMAKlNGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE OFT-HE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Po.... Os ~/'1/ 9'1 Cqafaaiad - 7 MIi~~---¥- ~ ~ ~ D s.
personnel must respond to events as if they actually were happening, would be invaluable, particularly for the type and range of problems Y2K issues could present. This would help to build an industry-wide storehouse of knowledge that can be called upon if Y2K problems do manifest themselves.
- 5) set a requirement each reactor have both of its eqiergency diesel generators declared operable, as of December I, 1999; have a 60-day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class IE (or safety-related and thus requiring back-up power); and require utilities to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by December 1, 1999.
This would address what may be the most important Y2K issue-the possibility of local, regional, or widespread blackouts.
- 6) set a requirement that both _emergency diesel generators to be operable, and to have enough fuel onsite to compensate for potential fuel delivery problems caused by unrelated Y2K disruptions. It is our understanding that if an operating reactor loses power for any significant amount of time (several hours to a couple of days), the reactor will melt down. Given the severity of such an event, we believe it is vital that some action be taken on this particular matter.
- 7) set a requirement that subjects irradiated fuel pools, which also need cooling, to backup power requirements. Generally speaking, high-level waste requires water cooling for about five years.
- 8) set a requirement calling on utilities to install an additional source of dedicated back-up power (preferably a renewable energy source that ultimately could be added to the electrical grid once the Y2K issue is fully addressed).
Finally, we believe that the NRC's mandate to protect public health and safety should take clear precedence over any perceived need for electrical power from reactors. Thank you for taking the time to consider our comments. Sincerely, Kyle.. R.a.la;n fi; r- c1- c~J P ro3ro.W'
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM So- ~5 {t,'/FR379o) DO CKET ED Attn: Docketing and Service Branch USNRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
*99 FEB -8 P12 :53 Washington, DC 20555 Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking u
\ FF
Dear NRC:
I am writing in opposition to the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. However, I understand through various agencies, including the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the National Energy Resource Council (NERC) that the nuclear utilities are diligently working to ensure their plants are Y2K ready by December 1999. I am also aware the nuclear industry is providing periodic status reports to NEI and NERC, which are available to the public. These reports not only provide a viable forum for exchange of information among the utilities, but also allow the public to discern the efforts being put forth by these entities. As you are aware, the NRC is also gathering valuable information through the various plant audits and through information provided via Generic Letter 98-01, "Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants." Because of the efforts being made by both the nuclear industry and the NRC, I believe the NIRS petitions for rulemaking are unnecessary and would, if enacted, place unnecessary burdens on the nuclear industry. I urge the NRC to oppose these unnecessary and overly burdensome proposed rules. Si15tl~ Rt. q Box 120A Dill City, OK 73641
lJ. . UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISbtON f\ULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFTffE SECRETARY OF THE COMMtS8ION Doculllad -Btim3 Pl'ltMafkOS CqllesRrllaad c:2/.3/99 / AMI ~ ~ - - -1...-- - ~~~ -;R/1)5
DOCi<ET NUMBER OOCKEfED PETITION RULE PAM 5 o- b5 US~RC ( ~I/PR 3790) From: Mindy Landau To: "heparin@earthlink.net"@GATED. nrcsmtp '99 FEB -8 A9 :25 Date: Tue, Feb 2, 1999 12:53 PM
Subject:
Re: NIRS Of---)(,* - r 9l.h_ . Thank you for your opinion. I am forwarding your e-mail to the proper contifres,~rNRC.
>>> <heparin@earthlink.net> 02/01 10:46 AM>>>
i'm contacting you regarding the NIRS petitions for one, i am against the use of nuclear power. the benefits far outway the risks. but please, at least maximize the level of mandatory safety testing for such facilities. think of the outcome if you don't. thank you jeff taste
- CC: David Meyer
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS &AOJUDICATION8 STAFF OFFICE OF "fHE SECRETARY OF THE COMMlS810N OocumeAtS&alletic:s Postmark DeE ot/s /'iq tf'u )tl ~ ~~ {f=n-iAJ) CopiesR&CQlwQd Add'I Coples ~ --'- 0
- i - --
Sp: 'I~ ~
~7? /l)s
1Adrla Byrdsong - Fwd: Re: NiRs Page 11 From: David Meyer To: Emile Julian Date: Mon, Feb 8, 1999 7:38 AM
Subject:
Fwd: Re: NIRS Emile: Attached is a public comment (e-mail) received from Mindy Landau, Public Affairs, regarding the NIRS petition for rulemaking on Y2K at reactor facilities. David Meyer, ADM 415-7162 CC: Carol Gallagher, Jared Wermiel
Attn: Docketing and Service Branch DOCKETED USN.RC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: nuclear power and Y2K petitions for rulemaking I)
Dear NRC:
!\FF I am writing in opposition to the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to nuclear power. However, I understand through various agencies, including the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the National Energy Resource Council (NERC) that the nuclear utilities are diligently working to ensure their plants are Y2K ready by December 1999. I am also aware the nuclear industry is providing periodic status reporis to NEI and NERC, which are available to the public. These reports not only provide a viable forum for exchange of information among the utilities, but also allow the public to discern the efforts being put forth by these entities.
As you are aware, the NRC is also gathering valuable information through the various plant audits and through information provided via Generic Letter 98-01, "Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants." Because of the efforts being made by both the nuclear industry and the NRC, I believe the NIRS petitions for rulemaking are unnecessary and would, if enacted, place unnecessary burdens on the nuclear industry. I urge the NRC to oppose these unnecessary and overly burdensome proposed rules. Sincerely, Garland Favorito 3952 Spalding Hollow Norcross, GA 30092
~knowledged by card ---~"""Ja" FEB -4 1999
U. uCLEAR REGULATORY COl6tlB8ION RUI.EMAKINGS &AOJUOICAIDllllfF OFFICE OFTiiE SECRQIRY OF THE COMMl680I DocllmSl!llllet 0 o~tmark Date C( .,es Received_ h I 1/ 9'7
. ____ I _ _ __
Ac *"i Copies R8prooJced _ 9..._,___ Sp~ ~/DS
DOCKET NUMBER n ~ffU'I~ RULE PAM 5o- foS t,I/Ff(37f ti) DOCKETED Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission US RC January 28, 1999 Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff '99 FEB -2 P3 :02
Dear Sir or Ma'm,
OF; I ,. I agree with the NIRS petitions as to how to mana ~ l~ar pov.,~r through the transition to the year 2000.
- 1
"" T Specifically, the rulemakings should
- 1) (Docket# PRM 50-65) require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any nuclear reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time as they are compliant.
- 2) (Docket# PRM 50-66) require each nuclear site to hold a full -scale emergency response exercise during 1999 that includes a Y2K-related component.
- 3) (Docket# PRM 50-67) require four things relating to back-up power: each reactor to have both of its emergency diesel generators declared operable, as of December 1, 1999; have a 60-day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class 1E (or safety-related and thus requiring back-up power);
and require utilities to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by December 1, 1999. The risks of not being able to provide power safely are unthinkably high. The response to those risks must be commensurately aggressive. ~erely, Ma~fe~ 5901 Martita Ave Las Vegas NV 89108 Sierra Club Member FEB - 4 1999
~ by
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM~ON AULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE Of THE SECRE1MY OF THE OOMMISSION lloalllla Si llllEs Postm8lk o. , /~a, Ic, 9 CopiesRQcaa2 F . I I Add'ICqa~-¥- - ~~ll~~
OOCN:1 US CED 424 Woodlands Circle Brandon, MS 39047 January 26, 1999
'99 FEB -2 P3 :0 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 0 ~r*lt .
Attn: Docketing and Service Branch A.5~_1~,r ,I FF OUGKE 1 NUIVIBE '. Re: Y2K Petitions for Rulemaking ETITI RULE ....,.~--:- To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in opposition to the three petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on December 10, 1998, regarding nuclear power and Y2K issues. The Y2K issue is of great concern to me, especially as it relates to utility companies. However, I understand through various agencies, including the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the National Energy Resource Council (NERC), the nuclear utilities are diligently working to ensure their plants are Y2K ready by December 1999. I am also aware the nuclear industry is providing periodic status reports to NEI and NERC, which are available to the public. These reports not only provide a viable forum for exchange of information among the utilities, but also allow the public to discern the efforts being put forth by these entities. As you are aware, the NRC is also gathering valuable information through the various plant audits and through information provided via Generic Letter 98-01, "Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants ." Because of the efforts being made by both the nuclear industry and the NRC, I believe the NIRS petitions for rulemaking are unnecessary and would, if enacted, place unnecessary burdens on the nuclear industry. I urge the NRC to oppose these unnecessary and overly burdensome proposed rules. Sincerely, Guy H. Davant
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RUI.E:MAKJNGS &AOJUOICATIONS STAFF OFFtCE CFM SBHTARY OFTHECXJAMISSION 0o . . . a.1Wa Pc._ oeea , /:J 1 Cq)le,~--_.;.'~ - - I"" A d d ' I ~ ~ - - - - - -- ~ l ~ l /lS
DOCKET NUMBER PETITIO RULE PRM 5_Q _, 5 OOC\ ETEO January 23, 1999 (,'ffR3790) US' FC ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch *99 FEB -2 P3 :03 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission OH-- 1* Washington D.C. 20555 RUL ADJUI This letter supports the three Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) petitions for rulemaking regarding Y2K emergency planning, shutdown of non-compliant facilities, and 1 assurance ofreliable back-up sources of power submitted to the NRC on December 10 \ 1998. As you know, nuclear energy is a super-lethal force delicately contained by nuclear power plants. It is pure grace, supporting the efforts of nuclear power plant operators, that keeps the energy produced in those plants controlled to the extent that it is. There are constant threats to that control by power outages, faulty equipment, human error, and earthquakes to name a few. Y2K poses an additional threat. The likelihood of a Y2K-nuclear disaster does not matter. As always, there is a chance of meltdown. Y2K increases the chance, and calls for heightened responsibility by the NRC, and ultimately, the nuclear power plant operators. What is distracting certain people in the nuclear and nuclear regulatory industries from taking necessary responsibility for Y2K preparedness and ongoing nuclear safety for that matter? Meltdown is a far greater threat to humanity and all life on Earth then any lost profits, political incorrectness, or national or global economic recession. Nuclear meltdown can render the Earth uninhabitable or a living hell for thousands of years. It is obvious which is more threatening. It is also obvious that the NRC has the responsibility to do everything in its power to prevent meltdown. The three NIRS petitions for rulemaking ask the NRC to do only the minimum to ensure nuclear safety. I ask the NRC to at least enact the three NIRS petitions immediately. If the minimum is all the NRC will do, so be it. Ultimately, Y2K or not, nuclear power production has no ethical, or humane role. It is too dangerous and needs to be discontinued. Please act on your own conscience. Sincerely, Luc Olrich 1230 High St., #217 Auburn, CA 95603 FfB ~ 4 1999
~edoycara _ _ __
)
U.S. NUCLEAR FIULEMAKINGS ~ OFFICE CJ=lfE - OFlHE OOMMIS8iON
DOCKETE D l l". C DOCKET NUMB~ 5o. '1S-PETITIO RULE ( ls,'/FI? 31'!tJ) *99 JAN 29 Al 1 :29 OCKYlOOf ctlWX! t t 1Mt It f %\Ad.al&' 917:01 86, 1£ Jaa £86172:9S-17017: Xl?..:J
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONlSTAFF OFFICE Of THE SECAIE1'ARY OF THE COMMISSION Docllllm W>> Postmen< Del8 I p9/19 ,fµ '" ~ rn:k- / ~ CopiesReclM(j / Add'I CoJa R&JIOl-tll-icad!----:..-'-t ~ .~ / l + f
DOC ElED USNRC
'99 JAN 26 Pl2 :33 DOCKET NUMBER PEllll0N ilLE PIii 5o~ b5 OF=1,_
(ftJ'/t=fm91J} AUi . , January 13, 1999 ADJ 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn. : Docketing and Service Branch Re. NIRS emergency petitions for rulemaking TotheNRC: I support the Nuclear Infonnatiou and Resource Service (NIRS) in Washington, DC, in its December IO, 1998 submission of three emergency petitions for rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The petitions call for:
- 1) the shutdown of all reactors that are not demonstrably Y2K compliant through full testing, by December 1, 1999 until they are compliant;
- 2) Installation of additional sources of back-up power to replace or supplement the existing diesel generators. These may include solar, wind, natural gas, hydro or other dedicated power systems; and
- 3) A requirement that every nuclear utility test a full-scale emergency plan during 1999 with a scenario that includes a Y2K-related component.
r' urge you to adopt the rules suggested by the NIRS petitions and will inform my Congressional Representatives about my concerns regarding NRC's intention to test only 12 nuclear power reactors for their Y2K "readiness." Sincerely, ~ LaFo: ~ ~ Co-Director Nukewatch rn .. 4 1911 t.cknowledgedt'I The Progressive Foundation, P.O. Box 649, Luck, WI 54853, (715) 472-4185, <nukewtch@wln.brighlnet>
* *
- I,
- U.S. NUClEAA REGULATUHY COMMtSSI( N RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postm8lk 0eie Coples~
J/r3 /tt'iL -- - Add'I Cqie8 R8p'oduced t/: -* *- ~ ~ P S~ ---
GAINESVILLE, GEORGIA OPINION PAGE EDIJOR: RICK PARHAMIJ (770) 532-1234, (800) 395~5005 DOCKETED @
'IS RC MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1998
~ht ~fmts Founded Jan. 26, 194 7
~ JAN 26 Pl2 :32 N clear power.*s afety at risk from~~K I've read The Times' Y2K articles of more than 70), but so far only and waited to see If the paper would LETTERS TO THE EDITOR three have been completed.
address preparedness in the nuclear Joari 0 . King Industry. ~ince nothing has appeared, Letters must include your Sautee I want to mform readers of the fol- name, address and telephone lowing. number for verification. Letters Safety at a nuclear power is en- of 300 or fewer words have the tirely dependent on Its source of elec-best chance of being published. DOCKET NUMBER tricity. Since grid failure is always a Letters are edited for length and :noN IILE PAI 5o-'1S-possibility, nuclear power plants have backup genetators, often more than clarity. Send your letters to The PEl1 t r,4~~37'!ic) one. But according to the Nuclear Tim~s. P.O. Box 838, Gainesville; Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Ga.;30503; fax, (770) 532-0457 . nerators themselves have a 5 per-nt failure rate. The reason this is
- ch a critical problem Is because the when the attendants were able to find water surrounding the reactor core the source of the trouble. This i.lx;too must circulate to prevent a melt- close for comfort and it happened on down. Once the water stops circulat- an ordinary day under fairly ordi-ing, it is only a matter of hours before nary circumstances. A Y2K crisis will the water begins to boil away and be anything but ordinary. A wid~
once the core is exposed, a Cher- spread grid failure is a possibility and nobyl-type accident is in progress. would be complicated by emergency In March of 1990 an accident of demands over an extended area. this type was narrowly averted at . Furthermore, this is only one of the Georgia's Plant Vogtle when a fuel many problems that could hit a nu-truck struck a utility pole and clear power plant affected by the knocked out the electrical trans- Y2K bug. A NRC audit of the former. One of the two backup gener- Seabrook reactor In New Hampshire ators was down for maintenance and found 1,304 separate software items the other generator failed . The core and embedded chips that could be af-1'; 111 losing water and was within fected by Y2K. The N~~plans to ex-Pe and half-hours of a meltdown amine some oth/lants (only 12 out ' January 4, 1999 F£8 4 1199
~ s"f'f°'/-fl,p AR.ce;n/ fef ,J,;,y, No.&-..1 I,,,, r ,ma),IYYJ I l<e SO<Mef)
QAllcJ M8Wl>I '/"Jt,,. shat dow-n o.£e /11 u..clk a.-1 r cµ,e, fl.We~<; lM1 fti, ~ h~ae {;,eW} c~/1 tol) YZK f.1>o~r-. S'wce-,~ Jo<>cM
U.~. ~UCLEAR AEGUlATORY COMHISSKlN RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICA1DISDW OFFICE OF'AE SECRIIMV OF THE COMM1S810N Docllnaf. .b i/y / 9q P~Rlafk Date CquesR808Mld Ao-.'I Coples~-_'}_ 1 t !_ _ __ Sp~ ~ Jj~ ~ J Q . s
DOCKET NUMBER (J) PETITION /fill .PAM 50 ... ~S ( t, 'fFR37'1 o) DOCKETED Jan. 2, 1999 US 'RC Attn: Docketing & Service Branch *99 JAN 26 Pl2 :33 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 O Fi--i t RUl_ To Whom it may Concern: ADJUD l t I'm writing to you regarding my concern that Y2K-related disruptions be minimized, and that effective emergency and contingency plans are implemented. I support the 3 emergency petitions submitted to you for rule-making by the NIRS in December:
- 1) The shut-down of all reactors that are not demonstrably Y2K compliant through full testing, by Dec. '99 until they are compliant.
- 2) Installation of additional sources of back-up power to replace or supplement the existing diesel generators (solar, wind, natural gas, etc).
- 3) A requirement that every nuclear utility test a full-scale emergency plan during '99, with a scenario that includes a Y2K-related component.
Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Joy Nelson, MSW 3240 33 rd Ave. So. Minneapolis, MN 55406
"J;S. NUCtEAR REGULATORY COMMlv~1** 1N FIJLEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS sr:1~:F OFFICE OF THE SECRaARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Statistics
The Seacoast Anti-PollUf!tfef!Elr (Jgue@ Founded 1969 "S ~ SAPL DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM #Up '45 "99 JAN 26 P12 :35 P.O. BOX 1136 (r,f/F. 31'10) P O A T S M O U T H , N H 03802 Ot" I 603-431-5089 Ru ADJU U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 28, 1998 Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn : Docketing and Service Branch Re: NIRS emergency rulemaking petitions To whom it may concern, Please accept this letter as support for the three petitions for emergency rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service on Dec. 10. The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, is a 501 (c)(3) citizen environmental watchdog group with a total of approximately 350 members. Based in Portsmouth, N.H., most of SAPL's membership lives, works or has other connections to the communities that surround the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. The Y2K issue has been in the forefront of current thought over the past several years, particularly as potential problems stemming from the change in millennium apply to nuclear power plants. While SAPL is fully aware that your agency, as well as departments at all levels of government and the private sector, are attempting to address these potential problems, our contention is that when it comes to facilities that are using atomic energy to, essentially, heat water to turn turbines, special considerations must be given. Seabrook Station is, after all, not making chocolate. SAPL supports all three of NIRS' petitions: to shut down all non*compliant reactors on Dec. 1, 1999; to provide additional power backups for safety systems, including the spent fuel pool, and ; holding a full*scale emergency drill at every nualear power plant in 1999, using a scenario that mirrors a potential Y2K problem . The residents of the Seacoast and the nation deserve at least this level *of assurance that when the calendar turns to Jan. 1, 2000, they will be safe. Steve Haberman, Field Director. FH .. 4 t.cknowledgedbycald ..,1tt., --
\,I.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl&:iSfON RULEMAKINGS &AOJUOICA11Q!!pAFF OFFJCEOFTiiESECAlTAHY OF THE COMMISSK)N*
Document Stallaacs PO&tmart( Date / :). /-;i 'BI '3 8: Copies Recaed r ' I Add'! Cqiee R8pom,ced .,,...-.....i___ ~ ~ ~IQS
DOCKET NUMBER PETITIO RULE PAM 5()-t,jj DOCKETED l~L/FR 3 790) US,,*f~C NANCY KATHARINE WOODS OFFiC I 2!5 CIRCADIAN WAY flULC CHAPEL HILL, NC 27!516-4604 ADJUt_: r December 15, 1998 USNRC Washington DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Dear Friends I am writing in support of the 3 NIRS Petitions seeking to prevent y2k disasters. These seem minimal in view of the drastic possibilities that exist with regard, for instance to the need for uninterrupted 1 electricity in the cooling of nuclear materials. Please give them the needed serious attention, and act on them promptly to avert
- serious or catastrophic problems.
Sincerely,
/~
v...... ,-.uut:AH HEGULATORY GOMMl~tU1~ AULEMAKJNGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACEOFTHESECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics PostmEHk Date Cq)ies R8CSlw8d I
/ ;J /; 7 CJ 8'
.- I I Add'ICqi86~ _ _ 1/-_ __
~ IDS
(!) DOCKET UMBER DOCKETED PETITION RULE PAM 5t>- , 5 USNRC ( /,:,'fFR 37'1b)
*99 JAN 26 Pl2 :33 OFr RU, ADJ!Jf1.1
,-~~
Mr. Marvin Lewii " -~--, 3133 Fairfield St: Philadelphia PA 1tn~!,Wb ., I D-ea1r;f~. ~;
- ~a-u-~
lf!!.k".>. /1dft ?I-Vs o ,() 77/~ g
)/:?A.
?;eo~t.EIP! A;{JP /..{/Co~/Jo~/1-T~
""///E P-/X £? 7Z'1" ;/:?~ I ~
IPJ!3"4'-vLATJ t:JAJ s.~ / o c PR 60 .
~~~-l)o.~~~/~
/3# /r~ g .~.....,. ri;}1::;g:l~c;is
~- Pbiladelphia PA 19136- 11 07 HB - 4 1191 1'cknowleclged by card iQ111111llflllJOUIMJt08N~1fU.CJ.
lJ ..:; UCLEAR REGULA ORY eot.tMSSION RULEMAKINGS & ADJ1JOICATION$STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION DocumentSlmlatlcs Postmark Date / ~ U1 / CJ 8 Copies~---'--/....,..._ __ Add'I Copies~-?/..,_____ Special Dls1rlabl :l:22...LfJ&1:--',;..,.
/:J:~ ~~ l "KID.S
DOCKET NUMBER PETITIO RULE PRM 5"o ~r, 6 DOCKETED (v'/Ff< 31ffo) US*H~ C
. [7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *99 J N 19 Pl2 :12 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 r- , Or* Fl. [Docket No. PRM-50-65] ,A,[' II Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
The petition has been docketed by the Commission and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-65. The petitioner requests that the 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). The petitioner requests that the NRC take this action to ensure that Y2K issues will not cause the failure of nuclear safety systems and thereby pose a threat to public health al"!d safety.
g.~ :J'-11 1999 DATE: Submit comments by (36-c-a-,rs-,v11owlng p bttcatlon In ihe Federal Aeglster). Comments received after this date will be C':)nsidered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given exce: 1.as to comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Submit comments l\; Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attentior,: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
2 Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. For a copy of the petition, write: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the
- interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-mail:
CAG@nrc.gov). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301-415-7162 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or E-mail: DLM1@NRC.GOV.
- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received three related petitions for rulemaking, each dated December 10, 1998, submitted by the Nuclear Information Resource Service concerning various aspects of Y2K issues and nuclear safety. This petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations to require that nuclear facilities be shutdown if they are not compliant with Y2K issues. The two related petitions would require nuclear power plant and major fuel cycle facilities to develop and implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address potential system failures (PRM-50-66) and to provide reliable back-up sources of power for nuclear facilities (PRM-50-67).
3 Because of the nature of these petitions and the date-specific issues they address, the petitioner requests that the petitions be filed expeditiously and that public comment on the actions be limited to 30 days. The Petitioner's Suggested Amendment The petitioner requests that the NRC adopt the following text as a rule: Any and all facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 shall be closed by 12 pm Eastern Standard Time, December 1, 1999, unless and until each facility has (a) fully and comprehensively examined all computer systems, embedded chips, and other electronic equipment that may be date-sensitive to ensure that all such systems that may be relevant to safety are Y2K compliant; (b) repaired, modified, and/or replaced all such systems that are not found to be Y2K compliant; (c) made available to the public all information related to the examination and repair, modification and/or replacement of all such systems; (d) determined, through
- full-scale testing, that all repairs, modifications, and/or replacements of all such systems are, in fact, Y2K compliant.
Discussion The petitioner notes that in Generic Letter 98-01, the NRC has recognized the potential date-related problems that may affect a system or application (the Y2K problem). These potential problems include not representing the year properly, not recognizing leap years, and improper date calculations. These problems could re~ult in the inability of computer systems to operate or to function properly. The petitioner states that the Y2K problem could potentially interfere with the proper operation of computer systems, microprocessor-based hardware, and
4 software or databases relied on at nuclear power plants. The petitioner asserts that the Y2K problem could result in a plant trip and subsequent complications in tracking post-shutdown plant status and recovery due to a loss of emergency data collection. The petitioner is also concerned that power grids providing offsite power to nuclear stations could be impacted to the extent that localized and widespread grid failures could occur. The petitioner acknowledges that the NRC has recognized the potential safety and environmental problems that could result if date-sensitive electronic systems fail to operate or provide false information. The petitioner also notes that NRC has, in Generic Letter 98-01, required its reactor and major fuel cycle facilities to report on their programs to ensure compliance with Y2K issues by July 1, 1999. However, the petitioner asserts that the NRC has not made explicit how it will define compliance nor what it plans to do for facilities that cannot prove compliance. In the petitioner's suggested regulatory text, the petitioner defines compliance with Y2K issues as evaluation of all potential problems that may be safety-related, repair of all such problems, and full-scale testing of all solutions. The petitioner would also require full public disclosure of all evaluation, repair,
- and testing data so that it may be examined by independent experts and the public. Finally, the petitioner's suggested amendment would make it clear that nuclear facilities will be closed until they can demonstrate full compliance with Y2K issues.
The petitioner states that the NRC is obligated to act decisively to protect public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner believes that anything short of its suggested
5 approach is insufficient to fulfill this obligation and that the NRC should adopt this suggested regulation as soon as possible. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this l bJb, day of January, 1999. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1_"'~ \t Annette Vietti-Coo~. et::!:~ Secretary of the Commission .
DEC 1 1 1998
,__.INIIIGS ~O Nuclear Information and Resourm service 1424 16th St. NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20036; 202- 328-0002; fax:202-462- 2183; e- maU: nirsnet@lgc.apc.orgweb:www.nirs.org DOC ET UMBER ,,.
ETITl RULE PRM 6 o- '15 p (ftJJ/FR31'io) December 10, 1998 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch Petition for Rulemaking re: shutdown of nuclear facilities not compliant with Y2K issues The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) submits the following petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. Although NIRS normally believes in and advocates ample public comment periods, the nature of this petition and the date-specific issue it addresses require that this petition be placed on an expedited schedule. Therefore, we respectfully request that the NRC file this petition immediately and that public comment be limited to 30 days .
- The purpose of this petition is to provide reasonable assurance that date-sensitive computer-related issues (popularly known as Y2K) will not cause failure of nuclear safety systems and related environmental damage and destruction and will not pose a threat to the public's health and safety.
NIRS requests that the NRC adopt the following text as a rule:
"Any and all facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50 and 70 shall be closed by 12 PM Eastern Standard Time, December 1 1999 unless and until each facility has a) fully and comprehensively examined all computer syst ms, embedded chips and other electronic equipment that may be date-sensitive to ensure t}l.at all such systems that may be relevant to safety are Y2K compliant; b) repaired, modified and/or replaced all such systems that are found not to be Y2K compliant; c) have made available to tlie ublic all information related to the examination and repair, modification and/or replac men of all such systems; d) have determined, through full-scale testing, that all repairs, modifications, and/or replacements of all such systems are in fact Y2K compliant." @ printed on recycled paper dedicated to a sound non-nuclear energy policy.
I f l}.S. NUCLEAR HEG RULEMAKINGS & ADJUOtCAn OFRCE OF THE SECA . OF THE COMMISSL Document Statistli ~ Dale / :2/J, /ci 8' ff l) eo,a Racelved _ _ / - Adcfl Cqil6 Reproduced - - JI, - Spedat~ ~ ~ID.5_
Discussion As identified in NRC Generic Letter 98-01, the Year 2000 computer problem, also known as Y2K, pertains to the potential for date-related problems that may be experienced by a system or an application. These problems include not representing the year properly, not recognizing leap years, and improper date calculations. An example of a date-related problem is the potential misreading of "00" as the year 1900 rather than 2000. These problems can result in the inability of computer systems to function properly by providing erroneous data or failing to operate at all. The Y2K problem has the potential of interfering with the proper operation of computer systems, hardware that is microprocessor-based (embedded software), and software or databases relied upon at nuclear power plants. Consequently, the Y2K problem could result in a plant trip and subsequent complications on tracking post-shutdown plant status and recovery due to a loss of emergency data collection. Of additional concern to the petitioners, the power grids providing offsite power to nuclear stations could be impacted resulting in localized to widespread grid failures. There are numerous other dates potentially impacting computers and embedded software; a list is attached. The NRC has recognized the potential severe safety and environmental problems that could be caused by date-sensitive electronic systems suddenly failing to operate or providing false information to nuclear facility operators, or to other electronic systems. These potential problems run the gamut from inaccurate operations logs to full reactor core meltdowns. For these reasons, the NRC has required that atomic reactor and major fuel cycle facilities report to the NRC by July 1, 1999 on their programs to ensure compliance with Y2K issues. However, the NRC has not made explicit how it will define compliance with Y2K issues nor what it plans to do about those facilities that cannot prove compliance. The text in this petition for rulemaking defines compliance with Y2K issues as evaluation of all potential problems that may be safety-related, repair of all such problems, and full-scale testing of all solutions. The petition also requires full public disclosure of all evaluation, repair and testing data, so that it may be examined by independent experts and the public. The date (December 1, 1999) specified in the petition is to allow time for independent evaluation of all such data. The text in this petition also makes clear that nuclear facilities that cannot reach this hurdle will be closed until such time as they can prove full compliance with Y2K issues. While NIRS' primary concern is, as is the NRC's, with atomic reactors and major fuel cycle facilities, the text of this petition also makes clear that the NRC will require such compliance from all of its licensees, not a limited subsection.
The NRC has the power and the obligation to act decisively to protect the public health and safety and the environment. Allowing nuclear facilities to operate without absolute proof of Y2K compliance-in essence, to simply hope that everything would be ok--would be a serious breach of that obligation. Anything short of this approach is insufficient to assure public health and safety. Thus, we believe this petition is noncontroversial, that the NRC will support this petition for rulemaking and will adopt it as soon as possible. Respectfully submitted, Michael Mariotte Executive Director}}