Join
Search

Nuclear Power Safety Report Cards

Bookmark and Share

Nuclear Energy Activist Toolkit #24

Since spring of 2000, the NRC uses its Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) to assess safety levels at the nation’s operating nuclear power reactors. For about two decades prior to the ROP, the NRC used its Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) process. While neither process is perfect, the ROP is less imperfect than SALP.

SALP evaluated performance in large areas over extended periods. Over the years, the number of areas evaluated for SALP varied from four to seven. The SALP assessments were conducted every 18 to 24 months. It was easy for to mine such large data fields to cherry-pick a handful of examples needed to support preconceived notions that reactor X was doing superbly while reactor Y was performing dreadfully. And when the NRC cited examples from nearly two years ago when concluding reactor Y was performing dreadfully, owner Y could easily dodge that criticism by claiming maybe it was back then, but it certainly not true now.

The ROP avoids most of SALP’s problems. Instead of assessing performance levels every 18 to 24 months, the ROP’s assessments are conducted every three months. Instead of grading performance in four to seven broad categories, the ROP examines performance in 24 areas (17 performance indicators coupled with NRC inspector findings from 7 cornerstones.)

The ROP assigns four colors to distinguish different performance levels. Red indicates the lowest performance level, with yellow, white and green showing increasingly better performance. Each quarter, the NRC looks at the “rainbow” of colored performance indicators and NRC inspector findings to place reactors into five columns on the Action Matrix.  When all colors are green, reactors fall into the left-most column. As the performance palette broadens to include more colors other than green, reactors move right-ward across the Action Matrix columns.

In theory, ROP should detect declining performance levels before they grow to epidemic levels by evaluating discrete areas more frequently.

Bottom Line

The ROP is better than the SALP process it replaced, but still has imperfections.

(Click to enlarge)

(Click to enlarge)

The Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio illustrated the ROP’s imperfections. For the first quarter of 2002, the ROP had only green colors for the reactor, leading the NRC to believe it was the top performer among all reactors operating in the Midwest. Yet Davis-Besse shut down that quarter and remained shut down for over two years as an army of workers undid damage caused by nuclear neglect. By the owner’s own concession, it had placed production ahead of safety, allowing safety margins to be compromised. The NRC calculated that the problems put Davis-Besse closer to meltdown than any U.S. reactor had ventured since the Three Mile Island accident in March 1979. An evaluation system that mistakes the worst for the best clearly needs some re-calibration.

(Click to enlarge)

(Click to enlarge)

The Action Matrix on January 15, 2014, showed 21 reactors not in column one of the Action Matrix. Some might ask why the Tennessee Valley Authority has three nuclear plants—Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, and Watts Bar—in the Degraded Cornerstone Column (column three). The answer would be that TVA only operates three nuclear plants. All six of TVA’s reactors have performance problems that moved them out of column one. Whether one believes in nature or nuture, when all six children receive troubling report cards, one has to question the role of the parents.

NEAT24 Figure 3

(Click to enlarge)

The UCS Nuclear Energy Activist Toolkit (NEAT) is a series of post intended to help citizens understand nuclear technology and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s processes for overseeing nuclear plant safety.

Posted in: Nuclear Energy Activist Toolkit (NEAT) Tags: , ,

About the author: Mr. Lochbaum received a BS in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Tennessee in 1979 and worked as a nuclear engineer in nuclear power plants for 17 years. In 1992, he and a colleague identified a safety problem in a plant where they were working. When their concerns were ignored by the plant manager, the utility, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), they took the issue to Congress. The problem was eventually corrected at the original plant and at plants across the country. Lochbaum joined UCS in 1996 to work on nuclear power safety. He spent a year in 2009-10 working at the NRC Training Center in Tennessee. Areas of expertise: Nuclear power safety, nuclear technology and plant design, regulatory oversight, plant license renewal and decommissioning

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.

  • http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/columns/biodiversivist/ Russ

    Maybe we need to step back and look at the big picture when it comes to safety of nuclear energy. In the half century since we have been using it, there have been three incidents of note, with only one of them causing fatalities. Our cars literally kill ten times more people annually than Chernobyl killed in total.

    The airline industry can be used as an analogy for the nuclear industry in that both are regulated by a government agency (FAA and NRC). Airline accidents also have killed far more people than nuclear energy. If the safety of air travel can be entrusted to the FAA, certainly the safety of nuclear energy can be entrusted to the NRC without help from environmental organizations.

  • Joyce Agresta

    NRC has some brilliantly designed paper doodads such as the ROP “report cards” maybe they‘ll even go 3- D with some origami as artistic creativity begins to flourish at the agency. For reasons veiled they can not get compliance from TVA no matter how artistically inclined and otherwise clever they may be.
    TVA need not comply with NRC guidelines TVA does what TVA wants to do bragging about their recent safety cost cut measures and improved productions http://www.tva/gov. at the same time NRC is issuing reports cards with an F in safety for the bad to the core boys. Might be they get special treatment for running double dirty in Watts Bar 1.They wouldn‘t be this blatant without holding a get out of jail free card.
    Meme with superseding authority to the NRC both The Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety and the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. Are suggesting regulatory changes. Currently taking steps in regulating the NRC to run more like a fast food franchise. Faster quicker service. Some in Congress want to see safety on the dollar menu when others voice safety is a priceless commodity. Like fast foods the dollar menu is risky business and priceless is not obtainable. Conspiring through the back door are proponents of Nuclear revival demanding quicker colas on the problematic mini modules . As many members on the committees lack even an elementary education on nuclear safety misunderstandings abound. So communications are difficult. At is if the committee members are demanding “fry’s with that “and the NRC responds with “we have no bananas today.” or invoking state secrets privilege.
    A slight of hand and twist of fate. It’s politically correct to find fault with everything NRC.

    “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”Mark Twain”

    By 1974, the AEC’s regulatory programs had come under such strong attack that Congress decided to abolish the agency…like a cinch and with that also buried some big dark secrets changing a countries written history.

    As to how the NRC will go about frying burgers and keep the colas clean with both hand tied behind their backs is going to prove difficult.