Re[5]: HP Job Shortage

[BRZGV@ccmail.ceco.com]

     Mr. Flood may know what he's talking about...


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[3]: HP Job Shortage
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at INTERNET
Date:    4/5/96 10:17 AM


>     FPL's nuclear division formally announced today that they will 
>     eliminate ...
     
I've been through this same ritual myself, which is why I am no longer part 
of the commercial reactor industry. As a result of the continuing downsizing 
in the power reactor community, I found myself wondering about the impact on 
emergency response programs.
     
As I observed at one place and suspect is true at others, staffing 
reductions based on headcount objectives can have unanticipated (or 
disregarded) consequences. Power reactors have emergency response 
commitments to meet, commitments specified in 10CFR50, operating licenses, 
reposnses to violarions, etc., and these commitments include the staffing 
and operation of various facilities during a declared power plant emergency. 
These facilities are designed to focus control of corrective and remedial 
activities during the emergency, and must be able to operate 24 hours a day 
for the duration of the event. In general, this means 2 teams working 12 
hours shifts directing/coordinating the activities of the crews actually 
performing the tasks to mitigate the dangers on the event.
     
Have nuclear utilities been keeping an eye on this emergency response 
capability? At what point does a utility save so much payroll expense that 
the emergency response capability no longer exists within the company? Are 
these companies willing to ask themselves the hard questions that will lead 
to learning whether the emergency response system has been effectively 
disabled? Are they regulated by an agency that doesn't want to ask this 
question because they don't want to deal with the answer? Remember the 
Millstone article in Time magazine and the assessment of the current NRC 
behavior, being less than rigorous at a time when the regulated utilities 
are obsessed with cost-cutting.
     
I fear that some utilities appear to show adequate staffing in their 
training records and phone lists, but close examination will find that the 
same list of people appears for almost every emergency center position, or 
that the list of people staffing one center is the same as other facilities 
within the company, and that there really aren't enough qualified people 
left to staff all required positions 24-h a day. And if a plant can manage 
to staff the centers, does this leave the plant population asking "if they 
are all in the centers, who's going to be out in the plant, face to face 
with the malfunctioning equipment, to fix things?"
     
I am a supporter of nuclear power, and I am afraid of another nuclear plant 
accident that could mean the end of the industry. I worry about a small 
incident, a relatively minor system failure, leading into a larger event of 
serious consequence because of a lack of resources available to deal with 
the event. This is not just possible but, in my opinion, the most probable 
scenario today for a significant power plant accident accident, significant 
not in public health terms but for the survival of the industry. I don't 
believe it can survive an important accident in the aftermath of TMI, 
Chernobyl, and its own marginal financial condition.
Bob Flood
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone. 
(415) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu