UCS at NRC Region II: Downsizing without Compromising Nuclear Safety Margins

, director, Nuclear Safety Project | June 9, 2016, 9:46 am EST
Bookmark and Share

One of my favorite board games growing up was Monopoly. It featured a playing surface with four corner squares. Jail occupied one of the squares, but player’s pieces could be placed on the square as “Just Visiting.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has four regional offices. NRC Region II monitors the operating nuclear reactors in the southeastern United States and the new reactors under construction throughout the entire country (which actually turns out to be just the southeast again). The NRC Region II’s offices are located in downtown Atlanta, Georgia.

When the NRC’s inspectors identify potential violations of regulatory requirements, the respective owners are invited to Region II to explain their sides. Depending on the nature of the prospective violation, some of the trips must seem more like being in jail than “Just Visiting.”

Twice each year, Region II conducts a multiple-day counterparts meeting in its offices. Resident inspectors from each operating reactor site and the sites with reactors under construction gather with reviewers, supervisors, and managers in the regional office.

Catherine Haney, the NRC’s Regional Administrator for Region II, invited me to make a presentation on June 7, 2016, during one of the counterparts meetings. Ms. Haney asked me to share UCS’s perspectives on the NRC’s Project AIM downsizing initiative as I had done earlier in the year during a session at the NRC’s annual Regulatory Information Conference. She also invited me to share any perspectives on a similar downsizing effort being undertaken by the nuclear industry, called Delivering the Nuclear Promise. It was clear from our communications and from my presentations at similar gatherings in NRC Regions I and III that I would be “Just Visiting” Region II.

My presentation to the nearly 200 people at this counterparts meeting focused on the need for backstops to guard against the good intentions of Project AIM and Delivering the Nuclear Promise having unintended consequences or getting side-tracked.

Q&A, and Evaluating the NRC

Following my presentation, the session opened for questions and answers. The final question was asked by Joey Ledford in the Region II’s Office of Public Affairs. Paraphrasing Mr. Ledford’s question, he asked if the shoe were on the other foot and I was evaluating the NRC’s performance using a scale like that used in the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process, what column of the Action Matrix would I put the NRC?

(Column 1 is where the NRC places reactors with Performance Indicators and NRC inspection findings in the expected bands. Columns 2, 3, 4, and 5 are where NRC places reactors with more and more indications of declining performance.)

I have been asked lots of questions over many years at UCS. By now, most questions are repeats or versions of prior questions, which makes answering them easier. Mr. Ledford posed a new one.

If I had an axe to grind, Mr. Ledford was offering up the NRC’s neck as a target. I could have flippantly responded “6.” Having known Mr. Ledford for several years, I knew that the question was asked in good faith and deserved an honest response. (Besides, I had to pass through a metal detector before entering the Region II’s offices, so I was axe-less.)

Infographic of the Reactor Oversight Action Matrix Performance Indicators from the 2015-2016 Information Digest, NUREG 1350, Volume 27.

Infographic of the Reactor Oversight Action Matrix Performance Indicators (Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission)

After a brief pause, I said that I would place the NRC in Column 1 of the Action Matrix, with some Green findings to work through. I had paused to decide between Columns 1 and 2. Column 2 is warranted when one or more White findings suggest performance below “normal” levels. I recalled that the Green to White threshold for the ROP’s Performance Indicators was established based on actual reactor operating experience over a multiple year period in the mid-1990s. The threshold was defined such that 95% of the time, the fleet of reactors actually performed at or above that level. I lack the data, but strongly suspect that the NRC does the right thing at least 95% of the time (and also strongly suspect that I spend most of my time whining about that 5% or less time.)

I think it is unfair to say or write something bad publicly about an organization that you would not say to their faces. It seems equally unfair to say something good to their faces, but to do so in private. Thus, this commentary posted to the All Things Nuclear blog repeats in a more public venue what I had said about the NRC in a more private setting.

That does not mean that I will rein in my whining about the times the NRC does not do the right thing. Instead, it suggests why in whining about those times that UCS does not call for the NRC to be abolished, replaced, or overseen by a more capable entity. We seek changes that enable the NRC to be right even more often.

In fact, UCS’s nuclear power safety project seeks to someday make this question moot by having the NRC’s performance so clearly and consistently good that there’s no reasonable doubt in any one’s mind which column the NRC occupies. Reaching that objective might make me useless at UCS, but it would be best retirement reason I could imagine.

Posted in: Nuclear Power Safety Tags: , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments


Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • grumpy

    Dave, The dishonesty in your position is that you are in denial about climate collapse.
    And you are in denial about air pollution casualties.
    The worst imaginable nuclear accidents are insignificant compared to air pollution from fossil fuel use alone, which causes MILLIONS of deaths PER YEAR.
    Climate collapse is already bringing down governments in Europe who are struggling to handle tiny numbers of Syrian and African climate refugees. Soon there will be 100 times more.
    ANd you sit there pretending that a spent fuel pool is somehow more dangerous that air pollution which has a 1/8th chance of killing you, me, and every other human being, according to WHO.
    And you do everything in your power to make air pollution and climate collapse worse by denying us innovative cheap and rapidly deployable MSR nuclear power.

  • neroden

    The NRC’s persistent refusal to require operators to actually implement safety improvements which have been documented and identified, together with the persistent relicensing of reactors with known and uncorrected problems, seems to be to plant them firmly in column 2.

    This level of performance is clearly below what I expect of a typical regulatory agency such as the EPA, which *will* issue shutdown orders to operators who are persistently noncompliant.

    If the NRC had ever, even once, ordered a reactor such as Davis-Besse or Palisades to be shut down until the persistent problems with safety culture had been corrected — if they had ever, even once, denied a license renewal, or refused to allow a reactor to operate after its license had expired pending inspection — then I would not make this assessment.

    But this is a persistent cultural flaw in the NRC. They bend over backwards to keep reactors operating regardless of the dangers. This is not a “green” problem, this is at least a “white” problem, since it happens persistently under all circumstances and has been extremely resistant to repair over the course of decades.

    • solodoctor

      To this sensible, albeit powerful, indictment of the NRC I would add the following: it only takes one ‘disaster’ caused by inadequate oversight by the NRC of these irresponsible operators to affect the lives and livelihood of thousands of people.

      Witness what happened at Fukushima: the owners and the regulatory agency were warned about the potential dangers of a huge tsunami a few years before March 11, 2011. They not only ignored the warnings. They refused to include them in their annual reports. How many potential Fukushimas are there here in the USA?!? For example, the NRC refuses to require hardened vents and the movement of spent fuel into dry casks. the one remaining plant in California, Diablo Canyon, is sitting on an earthquake fault that turns out to be larger than was originally estimated when the plant was built. Yet the NRC has done nothing about improving safety operations for this plant.

      So it is worth Dave’s ongoing efforts to ‘whine’ about the 5%….or maybe even the 1-2%.