FYI: Y2K & Nukes, Article on Internet...

[maury@webtexas.com (Maurice Siskel)]

From: Maury Siskel,       maury@webtexas.com

> --
>  Nuke plants and Y2K
> Environmentalists push for shutdowns
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By David M. Bresnahan
> © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> An environmental group wants nuclear power plants shut down because of the Y2K
> computer bug, but regulators and industry spokesmen say that is unnecessary
> and reactionary. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service is so concerned
> about the
> nation's nuclear power system that it has filed a petition with the Nuclear
> Regulatory Commission. That petition calls for all nuclear plants that are not
> Y2K compliant to be shut down no later than December 1, 1999.
>
> "Industry and NRC alike continue to claim there is no safety significance to
> Y2K vulnerabilities," complained Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and
> Resource Service, an environmental activist organization.
>
> "What they point to is that the safety systems in U.S. nuclear power plants
> are not imbedded chip vulnerable, or they're usually hardwired. What they're
> saying that all of their Y2K vulnerable equipment is not related to safety
> system initiation and maintenance," explained Gunter.
>
> Industry spokesmen disagree with Gunter's concerns for safety and claim there
> is no need to shut down any nuclear plants.
>
> "I think they are being a bit alarmist. They're actually recommending a
> negative strategy. The most secure we can be is to have as many options as
> possible," said Gerry Cauley, Y2K program coordinator for the North American
> Electric Reliability Council.
>
> Gunter maintains that the nuclear power plants will face many safety concerns
> because of the hazards of the Y2K millennium computer bug. When the year 2000
> arrives, some computer programs will not be able to recognize the date
> properly and will malfunction.
>
> Cauley claims the Y2K problem is being resolved in the electric power
> industry, and Gunter claims the steps that are being taken not only risk a
> loss of power but a nuclear accident as well.
>
> "Both of the catastrophic incidents to date (Three Mile Island and Chernobyl),
> were initiated from the non-reactor side of the power stations. They were the
> result of those initiating and cascading into the nuclear side. It is
> possible, for events from the non-nuclear side to cascade into the reactor
> side with the potential for catastrophic accident," explained Gunter of his
> group's major concern.
>
> "Y2K vulnerabilities to systems on the second side can impact the ability to
> shut down the reactor or maintain the operation of safety systems. Any event
> of a power grid interruption will result in the automatic scram, or shut down
> of the reactors.
>
> "A scram is a violent event in a reactor much like an emergency stop or
> slamming on the brakes in your car. It tests all systems and structures and
> components within the reactor. Any frailties or age related degradation or
> systems problems can complicate the scramming of the reactor. Power
> interruptions will result in a scram of the reactor," said Gunter.
>
> Taking over 100 nuclear power plants out of service is not a practical or
> justifiable solution to the threat presented by the Y2K bug. There are
> naturally occurring hazards which cause nuclear power plants to shut down on a
> regular basis. Cauley believes it is important to keep the nuclear plants
> operating, and he says it can be done safely.
>
> Concern over potential safety hazards related to the Y2K bug prompted the
> Nuclear Regulatory Commission to announce that all nuclear power plant
> operators would be required to offer written confirmation that they had a
> program under way to deal with potential Y2K problems. The requirement
> specifies that nuclear power plants must be "Y2K ready no later than July 1,
> 1999."
>
> Twelve nuclear plants were selected for Y2K audits. About half of the audits
> have been completed.
>
> "Thus far, the audits indicate the plants have solid plans in place for fixing
> any Y2K problems well before the new millennium arrives," described Nuclear
> Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil A. Sheehan.
>
> "Another Y2K initiative undertaken by the NRC has been the preparation of a
> Y2K contingency plan. Currently in the draft stage, the plan will spell out
> how the agency will respond should Y2K problems develop at any of the U.S.
> nuclear power plants," Sheehan told WorldNetDaily.
>
> "If we had systems dramatically failing some of these tests (for Y2K
> problems), and it looked like we were going to lose power plants and
> transmission lines, I would the first one to say we really need to take a
> different strategy here, but we just don't see that result being there,"
> Cauley told WorldNetDaily.
>
> A recent storm caused a power outage in Scotland which forced a nuclear power
> plant to resort to backup generators while shutting down. The backup power was
> then lost causing a near catastrophe at the plant. Reports claim the problem
> could have been prevented if there were more staff on duty at the time. Cauley
> says that could not happen in American nuclear plants.
>
> "The nuclear plants typically have a lot more personnel on site than a fossil
> plant (coal, natural gas, or oil fired)," Cauley explained. "Where a fossil
> plant might be running with 20 or 30 people, a nuclear plant typically will
> have maybe a couple hundred people around continuously."
>
> Because of rotating shift assignments, only about 25 percent of available
> staff are on duty at any one time at a nuclear power plant. In the event of an
> emergency there are many additional staff members who can be called to duty,
> according to Cauley.
>
> There are obvious economic incentives for power plants to avoid being shut
> down for any reason. Gunter claims that those incentives result in nuclear
> plants taking unwise risks. He believes those profit driven incentives are the
> reason the North American Electric Reliability Council and the Nuclear
> Regulatory Commission have changed the terms they use.
>
> Power plants are now encouraged to be "Y2K ready" instead of "Y2K compliant."
> Gunter says the change in terminology is purposeful.
>
> "We are using it purposely," agreed Cauley. "It's just as a practical matter.
> Y2K compliant is a very rigid standard. It forces you to spend 90 percent of
> your effort for the final 5 percent of benefit. The standard that we have as a
> practical matter is, 'is the facility completely ready to operate?'"
>
> A computer program that operates and functions correctly after the start of
> the year 2000 may not be Y2K compliant even if it works just fine with not
> safety concerns. This could happen if the program produces incorrect dates in
> log entries, or the wrong date on a display panel. These are nuisance
> problems, not safety issues. The system would be Y2K ready, but not Y2K
> compliant, according to Cauley.
>
> "There's a very diverse mix of strategies in preparing for Y2K. In some cases
> a device is being replaced. In some cases software programs are being replaced
> by the vendor with compliant software. In some cases a date is rolled beyond
> 2000 and tested and it works fine and it's left there. In some cases they are
> rolled back to prevent the rollover. In some cases there is a remediating type
> fix that works around the problem. It's not any one solution," Cauley
> explained.
>
> A national test of all power plants will take place on April 9 to determine if
> the national power grid can continue to function without the use of the phone
> system for voice and data communications. It is possible that the Y2K bug
> could knock out all communications, which would force the power plants to shut
> down.
>
> The drill will make use of a radio system that is already in use, and which
> will force power companies to rely on human eyes and ears to monitor meters
> and dials, then relay the information by radios.
>
> All the testing and drills are not evidence that the power companies expect a
> disaster on New Year's Eve 2000.
>
> "Those are not signs that we expect all hell to break loose. We're just being
> conservative in terms of preparing and so on," said Cauley, who added that
> power companies are just trying to put the Boy Scout motto into place.
>
> "Be prepared."
>
> "We're not finding major things that would cause alarm," explained Cauley of
> his conviction that the nation's power grid will remain on-line and nuclear
> plants will be safe. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-UT, agrees with him.
>
> "I still think we will have brownouts," Bennett told WorldNetDaily. "I don't
> know how long they will last. I don't know where they will hit, and I don't
> know how severe they will be. The very nature of the problem indicates that we
> cannot get through this with complete, absolute, 100 percent assurance,
> although there are people in power companies that are now telling me that's
> what we can depend on.
>
> "My own sense of the thing says, no, there's got to be some brownouts. There
> will be some interruptions, but the power grid will not fail. Don't go out and
> dig up your backyard and bury propane tanks, or go out and buy your very own
> generator, because I think we will have power," predicted Bennett, who is the
> chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000.
>
> What is the worst case scenario?
>
> "It's on the scale that Sen. Bennett is now describing. We can't say with
> certainty that there won't be local or isolated areas that would be out for a
> short duration. I don't think we'll be able to guarantee that right up until
> the end," said Cauley.
>
> "Our goal and expectation now, and we're beginning to get confidence that it's
> possible, is that nobody loses their lights. Can I say that with certainty?
> The answer is no," he said.

---
Wonder how much faster lightning could go if it would quit zigzagging....

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html