Skip to main content

Staffing Up the NRC

As you may know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has five commissioners. Currently, the count is three: Gregory Jaczko, who chairs, Kristine Svenicki and Dale Klein, the former chairman. Nils Diaz left in 2006 and Peter Lyons earlier this year. Terms run for five years, which keeps electoral politics from interfering overly, though of course, commissioners can and have left before their terms end for various reasons.

The reason for this potted lesson? President Obama has now announced his intention to put forward two names to fill out the commission.

clip_image001First up: Bill Magwood. He was DOE’s Director of Nuclear Energy from 1998 to 2005, during which time he championed the forward-looking Nuclear Power 2010 initiative and also took a hand in the Global Nucelar Energy Partnership (GNEP). The former is still going strong, the latter less so, but both show his interest in keeping the technology moving forward. Along the same lines, he was chairman of the Generation IV International Forum. Lately, he founded Advanced Energy Strategies, an energy consulting firm.

Here’s a paper Magwood co-wrote this year on used nuclear fuel.

clip_image002Second: George Apostolakis. A Greek immigrant, his long tenure as KEPCO Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, and professor of engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (whew!), may suggest Obama’s decided taste for raiding academia for government positions. You can read about Apoktolakis on his MIT page. You’ll see the word “risk” a lot. Here’s where his current, well, until very recently current, research interest lies:

Methods for probabilistic risk assessment of complex technological systems; risk management involving several stakeholder groups; decision analysis, human reliability models; organizational factors and safety culture; software dependability; risk-informed, performance-based regulation; risk assessment and management of terrorist threats.

Risk assessment and security are very big topics in the nuclear industry – start here for more - so it’s extremely interesting Obama chose an decidedly expert figure for the commission.

The industry is certainly pleased. Why?

The industry is particularly pleased that the NRC will be fully staffed at the commissioner level. The NRC operated at its best when there is a collegial dialogue on the issues among the full complement of commissioners.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Bill Magwood is an excellent choice. Knows his stuff and communicates well. The other choice? Not sure, but we have to be fair and give him a chance.
Maybe those who have been victim of Apostolakis at ACRS meetings might want to speak up. "Constant analysis is a paralysis." Note also that he's a "software expert" of some kind - which is why digital I&C (all that SQA and Cyber Security analysis) will be 80% of the cost of a new plant. Hey, but if NEI is happy, why shouldn't we be?
Unknown said…
Your Commissioner history is a bit off:
Nils Diaz left in 2006 when his term expired, replaced by former Chairman Dale Klein.
There was a full Commission until late 2007, when Ed McGaffigan passed away and Jeff Merrifield's term expired.
Kristine Svinicki was appointed in 2008, and Peter Lyons' term expired in 2009, leaving the Commission at its current size of three.

Professor Apostolakis is a former chair of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety (ACRS) and has extensive experience with the NRC. He's certainly qualified.

Both men are supportive of nuclear power, and their nominations ought to kill the notions promoted by some readers here that the Obama administration will kill nuclear power by appointing anti-nuclear Commissioners.
Anonymous said…
"digital I&C (all that SQA and Cyber Security analysis) will be 80% of the cost of a new plant."

I assume this is extreme hyperbole to make some oblique point? If not, please provide a source for that figure.
perdajz said…
Ioannes hits the nail on the head. Apostalakis has impeccable academic credentials and an incredible PRA resume, but he will have to overcome the risk analyst mind set in his new role. He has spent a career calculating very obscure and arcane metrics that rarely have anything to do with actually building or operating a nuclear power plant. Studying airplane crashes, to draw an analogy, is a useful and serious endeavor. But would you want someone who spent a lifetime studying the fracture mechanics of airplane crashes regulating commercial aviation?

He will have to stop thinking about the nuclear power industry as a reliability problem and act like a regulator. He'll have to put away the magnifying glass and put on some sunglasses.

That said, the choice could have been a lot worse and I wish him well.
Anonymous said…
"very obscure and arcane metrics that rarely have anything to do with actually building or operating a nuclear power plant."

this is NOT the industry's position on PRA!! anyone from NEI want to weigh in?
David Bradish said…
I'd have to agree with the last anon. Here's the NRC's definition of PRA:

"PRA provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the design and operation of a nuclear power plant."

If it's obscure and arcane for anyone to understand, there is training available I believe through the NRC and definitely through a company called Scientech who I trained from.

I've gone through a little bit of PRA training and have learned that PRA is the key to operating nuclear plants safely and efficiently. That's why all 104 nuclear plants in the US have bought into the program.

It's not a secret. Here's NRC's contact page about PRA if anyone's interested in asking for more info.
perdajz said…
I did PRA for many years, and that's my opinion of it. I am fully aware of its applications.

Figuring out the likelihood of a small LOCA, or a station blackout, isn't really good preparation for regulating the industry. PRA necessarily involves the study of things that are extremely unlikely, rather than the day to day operation of the plant. Apostalakis will need to stop thinking about a nuclear plant as a set of accident sequences waiting to happen, and start thinking about how to safely and efficiently regulate the rebirth of the industry.
perdajz said…
David,

Nuclear plants are safe, efficient and reliable for two reasons: the technology itself is superior, and the people who run them are well-trained and dedicated. PRA simply confirmed these facts; it did not create them. Saying that PRA is a key to operating nuclear plants safely is like saying an accurate bathroom scale is the key to a weight loss.
David Bradish said…
perdajz, appreciate the response. With your years of experience in PRA, why do you consider it secretive? It sounds like something an anti would say.
Brian Mays said…
David - "Obscure and arcane" (at least the way that I interpret how perdajz is using the words) are not the same as secretive. For example, to the layman, quantum mechanics seems very obscure and arcane, but it is hardly a secret.

PRA is transparent, but it is only fully transparent to someone who has been trained to understand the methodology.

I think that the point that perdajz is trying to make is that there are many little details associated with this methodology that, while interesting in themselves, have nothing to do with the basic question that needs to be answered: is the plant safe? Thus, it is important for the regulator not to get bogged down in these details, since that is not his job. His concern is safety, not answers to questions that have only academic value.

In other words, there is a danger of failing to see the forest for all of the trees, and this could be an expensive mistake.
Anonymous said…
A selection of current and future applications of PRA:

* Engineering
Input to 50.59: Evaluate plant modifications
Recommend new plant modifications
* Training / Procedures
Recommend procedural changes
Identify critical operator actions
Prioritize training issues
* NRC / Licensing
Licensee Event Reports: Evaluate plant problems/errors
Prioritize inspection resources
License Amendment Request: Evaluate licensing basis changes
FSAR Chapter 19: New Plant Design
* Maintenance
Maintenance Rule 50.65: Prioritize preventative maintenance
Risk-Informed Tech Specs, Initiative 5b: Determine testing frequencies
Risk-Informed Tech Specs, Initiative 4b: Schedule when equipment is removed from service

It is no longer just the industry that is pushing PRA. The NRC (without a PRA specialist commisioner) has been jumping on using PRA as one means to regulate. I am well aware that PRA is considered "black magic" even within the nuclear industry, but I do not think that having a commissioner that understands the uses and limitations of PRA is a bad thing.

We all have to put on different thinking hats every day - some people are better at that than others. Merely having had a career in PRA does not mean Apostolakis will be unable to do so.

-Sarah
Anonymous said…
"His concern is safety, not answers to questions that have only academic value."

NEI and the industry want to risk-inform much regulation of power reactors, including key core cooling requirements, using PRA models and the analyses they produce as the basis for future regulation. That means PRA issues are directly related to safety, not "only academic value."
Brian Mays said…
Anonymous - You have done a fine job of trying to misrepresent what I wrote. Nobody is arguing that PRA is not a useful tool for understanding risk and assessing the safety of a plant.

Popular posts from this blog

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should