Work at Limerick nuclear plant threatened by rising Coronavirus death toll in Montgomery County
Montco coronavirus deaths at 12; officials Officials said there were 113 new positive cases of the virus reported on Thursday, bringing the county’s total number of cases to 707 since March 7. The new cases included residents from 35 municipalities, two of which reported their first cases – Bridgeport Borough and Red Hill Borough. To date, 55 of the county’s 62 municipalities have reported coronavirus cases. The new cases in the county included at least 48 men and 62 women whose ages ranged from 1 month to 94. Six of the individuals are hospitalized, officials said Arkoosh said county officials continue to be in contact with Exelon representatives regarding the county’s concerns that social distancing measures were “perhaps not being adhered to” during a maintenance refueling project involving more than 1,000 workers that began last month at the Limerick Generating Station operated by Exelon near Pottstown. The county’s Office of Public Health is currently reviewing information that it received from Exelon in response to questions the commissioners posed to company officials on Wednesday. The information is helpful and I remain deeply concerned that this maintenance refueling will ultimately contribute to the number of people that are exposed to the coronavirus in our region,” said Arkoosh, who was joined at the news briefing by fellow commissioners Kenneth E. Lawrence Jr. and Joseph C. Gale, and Dr. Alvin Wang, regional EMS medical director, and Dr. Brenda Weis, administrator of the Office of Public Health. Without being specific, Arkoosh said the information provided by Exelon generated more questions by the county and officials are awaiting answers to those questions….. On Wednesday, Exelon officials confirmed two cases of COVID-19 among the workforce at the Limerick plant, adding the full-time employees were sent home and were receiving care and that neither employee had been onsite since March 20. Company officials added that any employees who came in close contact with the affected persons or worked at that reporting location were notified, and that an additional deep cleaning occurred at all areas that potentially were exposed. Arkoosh said officials believe they were misled about the start date of the refueling project. “We were always told March 30. An (event of public interest alert) went out on March 27 saying that they were starting that evening. We’ve also been told by others that there were quite a large number of people here for a number of days before that,” Arkoosh said. County officials have requested the permanent address and the lodging information for all of the contractors hired to work on the refueling project. “We received information back from Exelon on about 950 of those individuals. They are staying all over the area…some people are driving from other states every day. It’s quite a lot,” Arkoosh said. Officials said the contractors, many of whom travel from one generating plant to another to work on refueling projects, are staying locally at AirBnBs, private homes, campsites, hotels and other rental units. “I believe that they have an obligation to not only the families of these workers but to whatever community they’ll be going to next to do a refuel, that these individuals should be sequestered for 14 days before they leave here so that at least when they leave they can be fairly assured that they have no disease,” Arkoosh explained. County officials said they are concerned that contractors where coming from other states into the county which was an area of community spread of COVID-19. Arkoosh said that situation could put the workforce at the Limerick plant at risk as well as local first responders…….. https://www.pottsmerc.com/news/montco-coronavirus-deaths-at-12-officials-concerned-about-work-at-limerick-nuclear-plant/article_dd37f986-7522-11ea-8daa-73c6d383e3e3.html |
|
Worker fatigue is a worry at U.S. nuclear stations, as NRC allows longer shifts
US allowing longer shifts at nuclear plants in pandemic, Taiwan News, By ELLEN KNICKMEYER , Associated Press, Associated Press
2020/04/03 WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. nuclear plants will be allowed to keep workers on longer shifts to deal with staffing problems in the coronavirus pandemic, raising worries among watchdogs and some families living near reactors that employee exhaustion will increase the risks of accidents.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision to temporarily allow longer worker shifts is one way the industry is scrambling to keep up mandatory staffing levels through what will be weeks or months more of the outbreak. The shift extensions would allow workers to be on the job for up to 86 hours a week. Currently, they’re generally allowed to work up to 72 hours in a seven-day period. As part of the waiver, workers could be assigned to 12-hour shifts for as many as 14 days in a row. Nuclear plant workers already are having their temperatures checked on arrival for each shift, and employers are studying options including having workers temporarily live at plants full-time…… “This is highly specialized work that needs a lot of attention and focus,” Treat, a nuclear safety activist, said by telephone. It’s a problem, she said, “if people are fatigued or sick….. The NRC closely regulates total staffing and staff hours as a condition of reactors’ continued operation. Fatigue has often been deemed a factor in accidents at nuclear plants, as in the former Soviet Union’s 1986 Chernobyl disaster, where key plant staffers had worked multiple shifts. In the United States in recent days, nuclear plants are reporting some of the first coronavirus cases among their workers. Over the weekend, the NRC said it would consider on a plant-by-plant basis 60-day exemptions that would let plants keep workers on the job for up to 86 hours in a seven-day period, including up to 12 hours a day for 14 days straight. No plant had received a work-hour waiver as of Thursday, regulators said……. But Edwin Lyman, a nuclear power expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists watchdog group, called proposals like Basso’s “alarming.” “I hope that the NRC will conduct due diligence on industry claims that the best way to reduce the potential for COVID-19 spread among its personnel is to force them to work fourteen 12-hour days in a row,” he said in an email. He called that solution likely “untenable.” If a plant fails to keep up minimum staffing requirements in the pandemic, regulators could order it to shut down, something that has happened rarely, if ever, to an operating plant, regulators said. Besides the kind of crew consolidation Basso described, individual nuclear plants also are looking at the possibility of bringing former plant operators back into service. Another option is sequestering crews on site — keeping workers fed and bunked down at the plants during the pandemic, NEI spokeswoman Mary Love said…… https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3909533 |
|
Nuclear Regulatory Commission pulls back inspectors, because of Covid 19
|
The agency and the primary industry group say the change in oversight does not pose a threat to the public. “Nuclear power plants also have plans to maintain appropriate staffing under adverse conditions,” the agency said. “The NRC will require plants to shut down if they cannot appropriately staff their facilities.” Still, the decision has raised alarm from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear plant safety at the UCS, which monitors the intersection of policy and science, said he was worried plant operators could request that inspections of their plants be delayed during these refueling periods. In part, he said, “other concerns are potential requests from reactor owners to postpone certain inspections that take place during refueling outages until the next cycle, which could result in delays of more than 18-24 months in some of these critical activities. The concern is some of these inspections require personnel to be in tight quarters or might require specialized contractors from off-site.” The agency also said in a March 27 announcement that it was evaluating scheduled inspections of nuclear sites, including reactors being decommissioned and facilities where spent fuel is stored. NRC did not respond to questions about which facilities would be affected……. the industry is running low on protective medical supplies — gloves, wipes, masks and thermometers, Korsnick said — and the scheduled refueling operations could present a problem during a pandemic when authorities have locked down cities and states from non-essential activities. Nuclear reactors need fresh fuel every 18 or 24 months, and to complete these refueling changeovers requires hundreds of specialized technicians to enter each plant and work for a month or two before leaving. “These workers typically stay in hotels or board with local families, and eat in restaurants,” she said……. Nuclear plants are required to maintain a certain number of staffers in their control room, as well as at least 10 armed guards to protect against attacks. They also fall under regulations that bar staff from working too much in a brief period of time, typically no more than 16 hours in a day, 26 hours in two days and 72 hours in a 7-day stretch. …….https://personalliberty.com/citing-virus-nuclear-agency-pulls-back-inspectors/ |
|
Danger in transporting spent nuclear fuel to New Mexico
Why should NM store nation’s nuclear waste? https://www.abqjournal.com/1439716/why-should-nm-store-nations-nuclear-waste.html BY LAURA WATCHEMPINO / MULTICULTURAL ALLIANCE FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, PUEBLO OF ACOMA
Friday, April 3rd, 2020 If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s conclusion that it’s safe to move spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants across the country to a proposed storage facility in Lea County sounds vanilla-coated, it’s because the draft environmental impact statement for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility submitted by Holtec International did not address how the casks containing the spent fuel would be transported to New Mexico.
It’s likely the casks would be transported primarily by rail using aging infrastructure in need of constant repair. But our rail systems were not built to support the great weight of these transport casks containing thin-wall fuel storage canisters.
Nor was the potential for cracked or corroded canisters to leak radiation studied because an earlier NRC Generic EIS for the Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel assumed damaged fuel storage canisters would be detected during an intermediary dry transfer system or a pool. But Holtec’s proposal only addresses a new destination for the high-level nuclear waste – not the removal and transport of the fuel storage canisters from nuclear power plants to New Mexico.
Even transport casks with canisters that are not damaged will release radiation as they are transported from nuclear power plants to the storage facility, exposing populations along the transport routes in a majority of states and tribal communities in New Mexico to repeated doses of radiation.
Other issues not considered in the draft EIS were the design life of the thin-wall canisters encasing the nuclear fuel rods and faulty installation at reactor sites like San Onofre, or the self-interest of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance in using the land it acquired for a consolidated interim storage site.
Thin-wall canisters cannot be inspected for cracks and the fuel rods inside are not retrievable for inspection or monitoring without destroying the canister. NRC does not require continuous monitoring of the storage canisters for pressure changes or radiation leaks. The fuel rods inside the canisters could go critical, or result in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, if water enters the canisters through cracks, admits both Holtec and the NRC. None of us are safe if any canister goes critical.
Yet a site-specific storage application like Holtec’s should have addressed NRC license requirements for leak testing and monitoring, as well as the quantity and type of material that will be stored at the site, such as low burnup nuclear fuel and high burnup fuel.
With so many deficiencies in the draft EIS, a reasonable alternative is to leave this dangerous radioactive nuclear waste at the nuclear plants that produced it in dry cask storage rather than multiply the risk by transporting thousands of containers that could be damaged across many thousands of miles and decades to southeastern New Mexico, then again to a permanent repository.
Interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at existing nuclear plant sites is already happening – there are 65 sites with operating reactors in the United States and dry cask storage is licensed at 35 of these sites in 24 states. But since the thin-wall canisters storing the fuel rods are at risk for major radioactive releases, they should be replaced with thick-walled containers that can be monitored and maintained. The storage containers should be stored away from coastal waters and flood plains in hardened buildings.
Attempting to remove this stabilized nuclear waste from where it is securely stored across hundreds or thousands of miles through our homelands and backyards to a private storage facility also raises some thorny liability issues, since the United States will then be relieved of overseeing the spent nuclear fuel in perpetuity. The states and nuclear plants that want to send us their long-lived radioactive waste will also be off the hook, leaving New Mexico holding a dangerously toxic bag without any resources to address the gradual deterioration of man-made materials or worse, a catastrophic event. It’s a win/win, however, for Holtec International and the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance.
Environmental justice footnote: When removal of uranium mine waste on the Navajo Nation was being discussed a few years ago, communities got this response from EPA: Digging up the waste and tr+ansporting it to a licensed repository in different states outside the Navajo Nation – which has always been the Nation’s preferred alternative – is the most expensive option. “Off-site disposal, because of the amount of waste in and around these areas, means possibly multiple years of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of trucks going in and out of the community and driving for miles.”
Finally: 1000s of sailors leaving nuclear Aircraft Carrier and going into Coronavirus isolation
US Sailors Pour Off Aircraft Carrier and Into Coronavirus Isolation on Guam, Defense One , BY BRADLEY PENISTON, DEPUTY EDITOR, 2 Apr. 20 NAVY LEADERS PRAISE SHIP’S CAPTAIN FOR URGENT EVACUATION REQUEST; 3,700 WILL LEAVE THE SHIP WITHIN DAYS.
About one-fifth of the USS Theodore Roosevelt’s 4,865 sailors are off the COVID-stricken aircraft carrier and into isolation on Guam, with about 2,700 more expected to evacuate in the next few days, Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said Wednesday.
Modly’s update comes two days after the ship’s captain sent a stark letter up the chain of command — made public on Tuesday by the San Francisco Chronicle — warning that fully 90 percent of the crew needed to evacuate and isolate for two weeks for their own safety. The secretary’s comments clarify that the Navy was indeed evacuating most sailors from the ship, after Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in a CBS News interview aired late Tuesday that said an evacuation was not yet necessary. Modly praised the captain for the prodding, and said that evacuation efforts already were in the works but not with the right urgency. ….. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/04/us-sailors-pour-aircraft-carrier-and-isolation-guam/164287/?oref=d-topstory
Second: Navy change of heart: nuclear-powered aircraft carrier sailors can evacuate
|
“We are not at war,” Caprain Brett Crozier wrote in a four-page letter to bosses detailing how the ship did not have enough quarantine facilities. “Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset – our sailors.” Now, his demand to get crew ashore appears to have been met with Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly confirming sailors were being taken off board in stages, with 1,000 people already evacuated and placed in isolation on land. It is thought around 100 people on the nuclear-powered vessel have tested positive for Covid-19, although this remains unconfirmed by the navy itself. Modly said the force had been working for several days to get the majority of crew off the ship but that, because Guam was dealing with its own outbreak of Covid-19, there were not currently enough isolated beds. He said he was in talks with officials there to use hotels and set up tents. “It’s not the same as a cruise ship, it has armaments on it, it has aircraft on it, we have to be able to fight fires if there is a fire on there,” he said……..
|
First: Captain of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier begs to have its sailors evacuated
Navy Rejects Captain’s Plea to Evacuate Virus-Ravaged Carrier, Bloomberg, By Roxana Tiron ,Travis J Tritten, and Glen Carey
- Admiral says sailors will be rotated off in smaller numbers
-
A U.S. Navy captain’s dramatic plea to evacuate most sailors from an aircraft carrier struck by the coronavirus was tamped down by an admiral who called for a more gradual rotation of crew members off the ship that’s sidelined in Guam.
Citing an “ongoing and accelerating” danger on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt, Captain Brett Crozier sent his Navy superiors a memo pleading, “We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die.” He called for removing all but a skeleton crew off the carrier, where sailors are in close quarters, so that they can be isolated and tested……
The Roosevelt, meant to be patrolling the Pacific and South China Sea, is sitting dockside in Guam indefinitely as the number of soldiers infected by the novel coronavirus rises daily. Infections started cropping up after an early March port call in Vietnam, which Pentagon leaders say had about 16 known virus cases at the time …… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/carrier-s-captain-pleads-for-coronavirus-action-to-save-sailors?fbclid=IwAR2jMtSh2oHrD8_xM384jGcK52DX3TihqP3brMrzaUrSNBgY17GYBVxcbEg
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission weakens some regulations in view of COVID-19
Nuclear regulators ease some power reactor regs in response to COVID-19, By Matthew Bandyk Utility Dive, March 31, 2020,
- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its strain on available nuclear plant personnel, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is allowing power reactor operators to apply for temporary exemptions from regulations limiting the amount of hours workers can stay on the job, according to a letter released by the agency on Monday.
- In addition, the NRC staff is also working on a separate memorandum that will guide nuclear plants as to which labor and time-intensive tasks they can temporarily waive, such as many of the inspections during refueling outages………
The nuclear industry and the impact of coronavirus
|
Nuclear industry’s response to Covid-19 outbreak, Power Technology, 1 Apr,20 “……..Impact of coronavirus on the nuclear industry’s operations The nuclear industry is assessing measures to safeguard their workforce and implementing business continuity plans to ensure continuous functioning of key aspects of their businesses. The nuclear industry already has a robust safety culture in place worldwide. Based on the guidance and directives put into practice across various countries and regions, actions have been taken. Since the time that coronavirus was first detected in China’s Wuhan region, before becoming a global pandemic, companies worldwide had time to execute business continuity plans and take the necessary steps for the dealing with the impact of the virus. Measures have been taken to screen workers and isolate those who show virus symptoms through temperature checks to detect fever, which is among the common Covid-19 symptom. Few countries have advised their staff to work remotely and not on-site, hence aiding with social distancing measures. For example, in the US, officials have recommended they may isolate or quarantine crucial nuclear power plant (NPP) technicians and allow them to live onsite to decrease their proximity with others in case this is needed. Many operators are getting hold of supplies of food, beds along with other essentials items required to support their staff for this purpose. Key NPP staff could be required to stay in assigned accommodation and commute to and from the nuclear facility in separate transportation. To safeguard the health of workers in regions where the occurrence of coronavirus may rise considerably, actions such as changing shift patterns are being assessed. Companies are also limiting or dropping their non-essential business travel plans and making use of conference video and audio calls for carrying out business meetings. France’s regulator, Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), is avoiding direct physical contact to stop the spread of the coronavirus and is prioritizing control of operating facilities. A number of inspectors from the UK’s regulator, Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), will go ahead with travel plans to sites where needed but will restrict most of its business operations via phone, email and Skype. Currently, NPP operations are continuing in many countries. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) has stated that it may close down any of the country’s 60 NPP if they cannot be aptly staffed. Few nuclear facilities have temporarily shut down their operations to avoid the spread of the coronavirus and secure their workforce. In the UK, authorities have idled a nuclear fuel reprocessing site located at Sellafield after 8% of its 11,500 workforce were asked to self-isolate or quarantine to avoid the spread of the coronavirus infection. This step came after a staff member was tested Covid-19 positive a few weeks earlier, and will eventually lead to a controlled shutdown of the site’s Magnox facility, expected to close down permanently this year. The EDF-owned Hinkley Point C (HPC) NPP in the UK, has also reduced its workforce by more than half and will further decrease its staff members as work in progress is finished. Rosatom’s overseas NPP construction projects have also progressed under the recommendations and guidelines of the disease control services as well as governments of the corresponding countries where construction work is going on. Work was suspended on few nuclear reactors which are under construction in China following the coronavirus outbreak. Now as work is slowly restarting in the country, countermeasures have been taken for all staff members returning to nuclear site. France, the most nuclear dependent country in the world, announced scaling down of staff at its Flameville NPP, operated by EDF, the country’s major nuclear operator. EDF stated that it is decreasing staff at the NPP from 800 to 100, because of the high regional Covid-19 infection rates. Three workers at the EDF’s Fessenheim NPP, Belleville NPP, and Cattenom NPP have already been tested positive for the coronavirus. French grid operator Réseau de Transport d’Électricité (RTE) presumes that nuclear availability will stay 3.6 Gigawatt (GW) below 2015 to 2019 average, in addition to a national fall in nuclear power demand. EDF has withdrawn its 2020 nuclear power generation target amidst an expected drop in its output this year due to the coronavirus outbreak. Orano, an integrated nuclear energy company, has also withdrawn its financial year (FY) outlook for 2020. When it comes to nuclear reactor operations, the Ascó I NPP in Tarragona and Almaraz I NPP in Cáceres, Spain, have notified about rescheduling or delaying of their outages for nuclear fuel loading. In Germany, NPP operators are stepping up precautionary measures to stop the spread of coronavirus. For instance, RWE, is involved in disinfecting radiation meters which are normally used by staffs quite often. The company has also shut down visitor centres and called off its scheduled group visits to decrease the risk of Covid-19 infections. The Finnish state-owned energy company Fortum Oyj’s Loviisa NPP is also undertaking precautionary measures to help stop the spread of the coronavirus. The company is adhering to the Covid-19 recommendations and guidelines put forward by the World Health Organization (WHO) and national authorities. External visitors are also prohibited at the NPP until further notice. MiningKazatomprom, Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium production company, with a total uranium production volume (100% basis) of 22,808t of elemental uranium (tU) in 2019 has made announcement of drawing on its current uranium inventory if its mining activities are affected. The company’s uranium mining sites are located in remote areas of the country and so far the coronavirus outbreak has not yet affected its operations. However, considering the remoteness of these mining sites, the company needs to take precautionary measures if in case any outbreak occurs. The Canadian uranium company, Cameco, has also temporarily idled production of its Cigar Lake uranium mine located in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This will reduce the staff members working on-site from around 300 to 35, hence leading to physical distancing and heightened safety precautionary measures. In addition, Cameco’s joint venture (JV) partner, Orano Canada, has also shut down operations at its McClean Lake uranium mill, which processes ore from the Cigar lake mine…… https://www.power-technology.com/comment/nuclear-industry-covid-19/ |
|
|
Montgomery County officials not happy with Exelon’s Limerick Nuclear Power Plant plans for addressing Covid19
A parking lot has been designated for the new contractors that have been hired as the annual refuel of the reactor maintenance project is underway.
Dr. Valerie A. Arkoosh, chair of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, says back on March 16, Exelon, the company that runs the Limerick nuclear plant, gave them a lackluster social distancing plan.
She said, “We learned of plans to bring approximately 1,800 workers into our region from around the United States. We asked Exelon to postpone this refuel until a time when the disease burden from COVID-19 was lower.” …….. https://6abc.com/limerick-plant-exelon-corporation-covid19-cases/6067085/
A creeping catastrophe: the world’s nuclear reactors are getting dangerously old.
Nuclear Power Plant Lifetime Extension: A creeping catastrophe, https://bellona.org/publication/nuclear-power-plant-lifetime-extension-a-creeping-catastrophe March 30, 2020
Any discussion of nuclear disasters brings events like Chernobyl and Fukushima to mind. But the civilian nuclear industry could be facing a quieter nuclear failure. Simply put, the world’s nuclear reactors are getting dangerously old. Yet more and more often, countries operating nuclear reactors are deciding to run them for longer than they were designed to run – which has implications not only for their own populations, but for those in neighboring countries as well – including Norway. The majority of the world’s 442 commercially operated reactors were built nearly four decades ago – and that’s all the time they were designed to run. Some of the oldest are located in European area and there’s little hope that newer units will replace them. Private investors view new reactors as a risky prospect. Smart money is gravitating toward alternative forms of energy production like solar and wind. Given the high costs of building new reactors – costs that run to several billion dollars – many plant operators are leaning into extensions, making them a common – but dangerous – practice. Our new working paper examines this practice and the science that needs to be taken into account when nuclear power plant operators consider extending the runtimes of old reactors. We also propose that national and international regulations need to be put in place that would guide decisions on which reactors can safely be upgraded – and which should be decommissioned. PLEX working_2 |
|
|
Pandemic plan for Nuclear Power Plant could make employees isolate at the reactor
Nuclear plant could ‘sequester’ employees to live on-site under pandemic plan By Brad Devereaux | bdeverea@mlive.com-27 Mar 20, COVERT, MI — The company that owns Palisades nuclear plant has a private pandemic plan that includes a contingency to sequester employees live at the site temporarily, though that scenario is unlikely, a company spokeswoman said……
Entergy owns the nuclear plant situated on the Lake Michigan shoreline about 7 miles south of South Haven…..
Sequester means employees would reside on site, Gent said. The company declined to release its full plans to MLive because they contain business-sensitive information, she said….
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which inspects to ensure safety at plants across the country, said resident inspectors are ready to respond immediately should there be developing safety issues amid the coronavirus outbreak. Resident inspectors will make regular visits to operating nuclear power reactor sites and will remotely monitor plant data systems, meetings and other information. Back-up inspectors are available from regional offices or headquarters should they be necessary to maintain oversight, the NRC said…..
In 2017, Entergy announced that it planned to close Palisades in the spring of 2022.
In Aug. 2018, Entergy announced it had agreed to sell the subsidiaries that own Palisades and the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts, after their shutdowns and reactor defuelings, to a Holtec International subsidiary for prompt decommissioning.
Call to suspend all contractor work at Hinkley new nuclear site, because of Covid19
NFLA 26th March 2020, The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) calls today for the suspension of all work by contractors of EDF Energy at the Hinkley Point C proposed new nuclear reactor site, due to the concerns of an infection spread from the public health emergency sparked by the covid-19 outbreak.sadly considerable amounts of people losing their employment – though the
government is seeking to provide most of them with 80% of their current
income.
The nuclear industry’s 2007 NEI Pandemic Licensing Plan still accepted, but not really safe
![]() Nuclear Power Safety and the COVID-19 Pandemic https://allthingsnuclear.org/elyman/nuclear-power-safety-and-the-covid-19-pandemic ED LYMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR SAFETY PROJECT; SENIOR SCIENTIST, GLOBAL SECURITY PROGRAM | MARCH 26, 2020, With the world facing overwhelming and immediate threats from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the risks of nuclear power are probably far from the thoughts of most people. But there is no escaping the fact that nuclear plants, which provide about 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply, require highly-trained staff to operate them safely and to protect them from terrorist attacks.They also need periodic maintenance to ensure that critical safety systems remain in good working order. And, they must be closely supervised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure that plant owners are effectively implementing nuclear safety and security requirements. However, the NRC does not generally oversee the health and safety of plant workers unless it is related to radiation exposure, so it is largely up to the plant owners themselves to implement protective measures against COVID-19 to ensure they have a functioning workforce. Reports about potential coronavirus cases among the workforce at Plant Vogtle in Georgia and allegations of a lack of enforcement of social distancing protocols there raise concerns about the adequacy of the industry’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. During crises such as the current pandemic, ensuring that nuclear power plants operate safely and reliably is even more critical. Tens of millions of Americans live within 50 miles of operating nuclear power plants. A reactor accident or terrorist attack could release a large amount of radioactive material into the environment, potentially exposing many people to high levels of radiation. As the world saw after the 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima accidents, such an event at a U.S. nuclear plant might force people from their homes for months or longer and contaminate food and water supplies—the last thing Americans need to deal with right now. Compounding the impacts of such a disaster with the social and economic disruptions caused by spread of the virus would further strain an already fragile health care system and economy. Thus it is incumbent on the NRC to make sure that the pandemic does not compromise nuclear safety and security—and if it does, to take whatever actions, including ordering plant shutdowns, are necessary. However, the NRC will likely face tremendous pressure from nuclear plant owners, some of whom are financially strapped, to keep their plants running and generating revenue. The NRC should have developed a policy long ago to address these questions, but like the rest of the U.S. government, it is now playing catch-up fast. Short-staffing nuclear plantsA key question the NRC may soon face is how it should react if a nuclear plant is unable to maintain the required numbers of licensed control room operators and security personnel per shift. For example, a single control room at a two-unit plant must be staffed with three operators and two senior operators. Also, there must be at least ten armed responders on each shift to protect the plant from radiological sabotage attacks—and the actual number most plants have committed to providing is likely higher. There are also regulations governing work hours and fatigue management that were put into place partly to address excessive overtime issues that arose after the 9/11 attacks. Licensees could apply for waivers from work hour restrictions if the number of available personnel were to decline, but those extensions would be limited due to the potential for fatigue. If a plant is unable to meet any of these requirements, it generally must shut down unless the NRC provides an exemption from the regulations or relief from license commitments. NRC can allow reactors to operate while in violation of their legally binding license commitments by granting a “notice of enforcement discretion.” The radiological risk to public health and safety will generally increase when the plant is operating outside of approved license limits. In evaluating whether to issue a notice of enforcement discretion, the NRC uses a standard that there should be “no significant increase” in radiological risk after reactor owners have implemented compensatory measures. This standard is nominally the same during a pandemic or other national emergency as at any other time. But difficult choices may be necessary if nuclear plant shutdowns were to jeopardize the availability of electricity during such an emergency, which is unlikely given that most regions of the country have supply well in excess of their reserve margins and COVID-19 is suppressing demand. In any event, such considerations are beyond the scope of NRC’s authority to ensure radiological safety and security. The industry’s proposal: increase riskThese issues are not new. In 2006, the NRC held a workshop to consider the impacts of a pandemic flu outbreak on safety. A number of difficult policy questions were discussed, including the potential need to sequester workers early in an outbreak and the effect of high rates of absenteeism. But little was done to resolve these questions. In 2007 the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the nuclear industry’s main trade organization in Washington, submitted a draft “Pandemic Licensing Plan” to the NRC for review. The plan recognized “the potential for an influenza pandemic to reduce nuclear plant staffing below the levels necessary to maintain full compliance with all NRC regulatory requirements,” described “the regulatory actions necessary to permit continued operation with reduced staffing levels for approximately four to six weeks” and recommended, “NRC enforcement discretion as the most efficient and effective licensing response to a pandemic.” In justifying this approach, NEI argued that “regulatory relief to permit rescheduling of selected activities and deferral of most administrative and programmatic requirements would balance the risk from continued operation with the risk from regional blackouts and grid instability.” At the time, the NRC did not buy NEI’s argument for broad and pre-approved enforcement discretion that would increase radiological risk during a pandemic, responding that “the NRC staff finds that without bounding entry conditions and more specific technical bases for the proposed regulatory relief, NEI’s approach still presents significant challenges that may prevent meaningful overall progress in pandemic preparation. For instance, the plan contains only limited justification concerning the public health and safety need for nuclear power plants to remain on-line during a pandemic; likewise, the plan does not adequately explain why increased safety and security risk may be offset by considerations of need for electric power. Moreover, the plan continues to raise other significant legal and policy issues that would need to be resolved.” The situation today: too little, too lateAlthough the NRC and NEI continued to discuss these issues more than a decade ago, there is no indication that their differences were ever resolved. Concern about an influenza pandemic was overshadowed by the Fukushima accident. Today, the NRC is in a different place. Three of the four sitting commissioners are Republicans who embody the spirit of the pro-industry, anti-regulation Trump administration. It would be shocking to see the NRC staff criticize an NEI proposal in 2020 the way it did back in 2008. In an NRC public meeting on March 20 to discuss regulatory issues related to the coronavirus pandemic, an NEI representative referred to the 2007 NEI Pandemic Licensing Plan as the basis for the industry’s regulatory contingency approach, and no one from the NRC raised the staff’s previous concerns about the plan. The NRC staff said that the agency was planning to issue a memorandum to provide guidance on enforcement issues, but did not address the standards it would be using to approve enforcement discretion—and in particular, whether it now accepted NEI’s argument that a net increase in radiological risk would be appropriate to reduce the unlikely risks to the electrical grid. The NRC assured me today that its risk standards for granting enforcement discretion have not changed and that if they deemed any plant unsafe they could and would issue an order to shut it down. More details should be available when it releases its Enforcement Guidance Memorandum later this week. However, there may be extreme circumstances where the NRC may have to make difficult decisions that would involve the balancing of radiological risk and electricity supply risk. If so, the NRC will need to consult not only with other government agencies responsible for grid security and infrastructure protection but also with the public. Such discussions should begin now. Hopefully, it is not yet too late to come up with a satisfactory answer. |
|
|
-
Archives
- June 2026 (241)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS













