Accident More Likely |
|
Safety Equipment Cutbacks
Three Mile Island recently began re-classifying safety-grade equipment to a lesser grade. This would allow for financial savings but would compromise safety.
The NRC describes TMI's efforts as "poor" and says
they are concerned about the potential implications
of bad management.
see the NRC's Press Release Criticizing TMI Management
TMI Fails Emergency Test on March 5, 1997
Operators Could Not Evaluate Accident Conditions!
Three Mile Island raised even more concerns when they were not able to recognize that simulated accident conditions had reached levels requiring a declaration of emergency. Also, the company failed to detect that conditions had eroded to the point where citizens outside the 10-mile emergency planning zone were going to be irradiated and that additional protective actions were needed. This is sadly reminiscent of the 1979 accident.
|
Charles Hehl, NRC Director of Reactor Projects said GPUN was "five or ten steps behind the curve" during the drill. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said, "Given TMI's history, its not something we want to see happen."
Deregulation Makes Another Accident More Likely
Shortly after the Three Mile Island Nuclear accident, the NRC'S independent investigation by the Rogovin Commission recommended that state Public Utility Commissions "eliminate incentives that might tempt a utility away from its commitment to safety." Now the Pennsylvania PUC has done exactly that through deregulation. The Rogovin Commission said state PUCs must give special attention to nuclear plants. |
Electric utilities are scrambling to cut back expenses to be competitive in a free market. But, deregulation of the electrical industry (a.k.a. retail wheeling) has a major
drawback which hasn't gone unnoticed. Nuclear generators are in the least favorable
position to pare down expenses because of the safety required to protect us from deadly releases.
Because nuclear plants require such a high degree of safety, there is little room
for cost saving cut-backs. Three Mile Island has announced that it is
studying how to reduce the number of its employees. They expect "that up to
one-quarter of the engineering positions will be eliminated this year." TMI has already
reduced its security staff by six people despite the 40 weaknesses that were exposed
during the 1993 intrusion. Many plants are reducing security staffs by 25 percent.
GPU Press Release on Cutbacks at Three Mile Island
| "...From a safety point of
view, we must be sensitive to the unprecedented competitive pressures wheeling [deregulation] could
impose on utilities which in turn could lead to significant safety concerns at some nuclear
power plants." former NRC Chairman Ivan Selin |  |
| "These structural changes and economic uncertainties for electric utilities are
driven by regulatory and market forces that will determine how, and in what form, nuclear electric
generators will survive in an unregulated, or less regulated, world. Our focus at the NRC must be on
ensuring that economic pressures do not erode nuclear safety. " former NRC Chairman Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson | "...Eliminate incentives that might tempt a utility away from its commitment
to safety. ...Both utility executives and PUC commissioners have fallen
under the illusion that nuclear stations are like any other generating unit except for the
fuel source. Nuclear power plants are unique and require special attention."
NRC's independent Rogovin Commission |
![[image]](cash.jpg) "We are concerned that management in a number of utilities -- not across
the board -- will be tempted to cut corners or reduce those capital investments necessary
to maintain equipment in top shape. The staff has found that some licensees are
performing more maintenance on-line without assessing the risk consequences."
former NRC Chairman Ivan Selin
| "The question now facing the NRC is what
deregulation will mean for how we go about meeting these safety
objectives. For example, what level of assurance does the NRC
have that a particular utility will spend the money required for
adequate maintenance and for necessary safety upgrades? What
changes do we have to make in our inspection program and other
evaluation processes to ensure that we stay ahead of any
potential degradation in safety at a plant, so that we can detect
adverse trends and correct them."
former NRC Chairman Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson |
| "The Commission has asked the staff to examine measures to
identify plants where economic stress may be impacting safety.
Moreover, since deregulation may change the economic umbrella for
some licensees, the NRC may need to monitor their financial
qualifications more closely." former NRC Chairman Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson |
"In short, the NRC is being presented with a host of new
challenges, just as a result of utility deregulation, which
involve far more than technological issues. A single change in
the law -- one that on its face has nothing to do with nuclear
regulation -- can have major ramifications for the way we go
about ensuring the safety of the public." former NRC Chairman Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson |
| "Any deregulation must consider operation, maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear generating stations. Competitive pressures can result in pressure on the operators for decisions adverse to safety.
Decommissioning costs are tremendous
and major accident costs, although unlikely, could be staggering." testimony of Three Mile Island Nuclear Engineer (retired) Francis C. Rosch Jr. before the PA Public Utility Commission |  While ratepayers might bailout billions of dollars for stranded costs of nuclear plants in accordance with deregulation guidelines, stockholders will continue to reap profits. |
| "I am particularly concerned with the potential adverse effect of deregulation on nuclear generating stations because of the severe impact from competition. Increased competition will result in pressure of the operators and management for less safe operations."
| "Nuclear electric power competitiveness is problematic and obviously depends on the availability of the unit to produce power. … A decision to shut down the plant for operating or equipment concerns results in a loss of $5 to $10 million dollars per month. A decision to not shut down the unit could result in unsafe operation. Another TMI accident is very unlikely, but the possibility must be considered." |
| "The inability to compete could create a safety problem where the utilities may not have the resources to provide safety and cost concerns." | "Great Britain decided to privatize their utilities but industry did not acquire the nuclear units because they did not think that they would be competitive." |
Pennsylvanians will assume a greater risk if nuclear plants cut corners to compete
with the other electricity generators. Oh, didn't anyone tell you...nuclear electricity is
already the most expensive source in PA you can choose. Electrical competition will cause a
lower degree of safety as corners are cut, employees are overworked, and safety
inspectors turn the other cheek and allow long delays for needed repairs.
NRC does not fine TMI despite safety violations (12/18/97).
Reactor Coolant Spill
Radiological Control Violation
In-Operable Valves and Failure to Test
Failure to Control Spread of Radioactive Particles
Since July 17, 1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued 18
Non-Cited Violations and one "Apparent Violation" to Three Mile Island
Unit-1's owners and operators: AmerGen. Based on calculations prepared by
the Nuclear Energy Institute, the average cost to a company to respond to a
Notice of Violation is $50,000. The NRC has saved AmerGen at least $950,000
by "redefining" 19 Violations at as "Non-Cited Violations."
Three Mile Island Alert Control Room