Re: Nuclear Agency Maintains All Plants Y2K Clear

[Shane Connor <shanec@gvtc.com>]

Radsafers,
I often get forwarded stuff from anti-nuke groups, some of which 
may be of interest here in talking about a prepared journalistic 
response to counter their claims. 

Thier current thrust is a call for a 'power down' over the Y2K 
period largely 'based' on these assertions highlighted by them...

http://www.latimes.com/CNS_DAYS/990817/t000073327.html 
Nuclear power plants are dependent upon an intact external 
electricity supply to maintain the circulation of about 1 million 
gallons of water per minute to cool the radioactive core and also 
to keep the spent fuel pools cool. If a section of the grid goes 
down, the approximately 100-ton fissioning uranium core in the 
affected reactor will melt within two hours if the two back up 
diesel generators--whose reliability has been estimated at 85%--fail. 
Unlike the reactor cores, most of the spent fuel pools, which hold 
four to five times more radioactivity than the core, have no back 
up power supply nor containment vessel, and thus could melt within 
48 hours if the reactor has been recently refueled; if not, they 
would melt within two weeks without cooling water. Twenty-six U.S. 
reactors are scheduled for refueling before Jan. 1. 
While Koskenin admitted the possibility of random power outages 
in the U.S. electricity grid, he did not address the issue of the precarious back-up generators nor the fact that the NRC requires 
only one week of diesel fuel at each reactor site, even though 
local power outages could last longer.

...and...

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/nov99/1999L-11-09-06.html 
On October 26, representatives of the federal General Accounting 
Office’s Y2K Computing Challenge office offered testimony before 
Congress that casts doubt on the NRC assurances. 
Joel Willemssen and Keith Rhodes, directors of the accounting and 
information management division of the GAO, detailed weaknesses 
in the NRC reporting process to subcommittees of the House 
Committee on Science and the House Committee on Government Reform. 
The GAO spokesmen pointed out that the NRC has not required that 
its licensees perform an independent verification and validation 
(IV&V) of their Y2K remediation programs. 
"Although we were told by NRC that some licensees obtained 
independent technical reviews of each facility's Y2K system test 
plans and results, NRC did not have specific, current information 
identifying the types of Y2K IV&V reviews performed at nuclear 
power facilities," Willemssen and Rhodes said. 
"NRC noted that the industry had reported in April 1999 that 
multiple audits were completed. ... However, neither NRC nor the 
industry issued guidelines establishing criteria to ensure 
consistency of reviews," they testified. 
Without an IV&V, the NRC cannot know which plants might need 
additional work, due to inadequate Y2K testing and preparation 
programs, the GAO testimony concluded. 
All NRC licensees, including nuclear power plants, are required 
to have contingency plans in place in case unforeseen problems 
do arise from the Y2K bug. The GAO says these plans, like the 
actual Y2K remediation, have not been adequately verified. 
"While the nuclear power plants have reportedly completed Y2K 
contingency plans, it is unclear as to whether these facilities 
have validated their plans," Willemssen and Rhodes testified. 
"While NRC's assessment ... included questions on whether the 
facility validated contingency plans, NRC has not summarized the 
results of each question from all plants and therefore does not 
know how many plants responded affirmatively that they had indeed 
tested their plans. Further, NRC did not assess how the plans 
were being validated." 
"It is unknown whether or not each plant has recently tested, 
through normal emergency exercises, scenarios addressing potential 
Y2K induced failures. Therefore, given the known Y2K threat to 
nuclear facilities, we believe that NRC should obtain information 
on the scope and extent of nuclear power plants' emergency 
exercises, and whether these exercises have incorporated Y2K 
scenarios." 
In addition, Willemssen and Rhodes pointed out that the NRC has 
not required nuclear fuel facilities or decommissioned nuclear 
power plants to develop specific Y2K contingency plans. Eight of 
10 fuel facilities plan to be in safe shutdown mode during the 
Y2K changeover. The remaining two facilities - the Paducah Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky, and the Portsmouth Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio - have contingency plans that are 
acceptable to the NRC. 
"NRC could not say how many of the decommissioned plants completed 
contingency plans," noted the GAO experts, "as the agency had not 
reviewed them because NRC staff concluded that Y2K issues were 
highly unlikely to cause a potential threat to public health and 
safety at such plants." 
In early 1999, some of the nation’s 14 decommissioned nuclear power 
plants that store spent fuel onsite reported they were not yet Y2K 
ready. Willemssen and Rhodes observed that the NRC has not reviewed 
their status since. "Because of the risk posed by the spent fuel 
facilities at these sites, we believe that NRC should evaluate and 
report on the current Y2K status of these plants," they recommend. 
Finally, the GAO questioned whether nuclear facilities are 
adequately prepared for potential power outages, supply shortages, 
and other external problems that could occur on or after January 1, 
2000. 

According to Willemssen and Rhodes' testimony, "Probably the most 
serious external risks faced by a nuclear power plant are the 
potential instability of the electric power grid and the loss of 
offsite electric power. ... NRC studies show that a major 
contributor to reactor core damage is a station blackout event." 

"NRC officials told us that nuclear power plants have taken 
certain actions to be ready for the Y2K rollover," Willemssen and 
Rhodes said, "such as requiring additional staffing and stockpiling 
consumables (i.e., diesel fuel for emergency diesel generators). 
However, these do not entail a comprehensive set of actions to be carried out systematically by every operational nuclear power plant." 
"The actions that the nuclear power plants and fuel facilities take 
during this time will be just as critical as actions taken already 
to become Y2K ready," the GAO spokesmen concluded. 
Willemssen and Rhodes recommended to Congress that the NRC further 
evaluate Y2K preparations that have already been made, and ensure 
that plant emergency plans include Y2K scenarios. 

Now, radsafers, don't shoot the messenger, me, but do expect the 
anti-nuke crowd to also now castigate the reliance upon "voluntary 
efforts" mentioned in the following article (posted to radsafe 
earlier today) and also to where they'll 'snip out' and now run 
with only these two paragraphs, from it, which they'll depict as 
'proof' of too little of a safety margin in-place...

>NRC said there are no requirements that plants have a 30-45 day 
>supply of emergency diesel generator fuel, nor do they believe 
>additional supplies are necessary.  
>
>The agency based its assumptions on the reliability of the power 
>grid and past successes at sustaining safety systems during events 
>such as hurricanes, that typically demand a six to seven day 
>supply of diesel fuel.  

Radsafers, I have neither the credentials, nor the expertise, 
to 'wade in swinging' on either side of the debate above, and 
would feel comfortable only offering this single observation 
of my own...
 
Any radsafers that are interested in raising this industriess' 
public respectability level will counter the anti-nuke crowds 
assertions with prepared facts specifically addressing the above 
concerns they are currently touting. (While avoiding simply 
pointing to the source as biased, which is also this industries  
frustrating complaint in regards to their own media coverage, too.)
And, if you discover that there is any legitimate room for 
additional safety margin improvements, regardless of who pointed 
them out, they should be as eagerly embraced, too. 
That combined approach to the issue will engender the highest 
respectability return, IMO.

Shane Connor
mailto:webmaster@ki4u.com 
http://www.ki4u.com/

At 09:22 AM 11/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Wednesday November 17 4:32 AM ET 
>
>Nuclear Agency Maintains All Plants Y2K Clear  
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
>reassured concerned lawmakers Tuesday that the nation's 103 nuclear 
>power plants will see no disruptions as a result of the millennium 
>rollover.  
>
>NRC stressed in a letter to Utah Republican Sen. Robert Bennett, 
>chairman of a Senate Y2K select panel, that since Nov. 4, all 
>commercial reactor sites have been completely prepared for the 
>potential Year 2000 computer bug known as Y2K.  
>
>``The commission is confident...that the potential for Y2K-related 
>disruptions have been addressed by NRC licensees,'' the NRC said in 
>the letter.  
>
>On Nov. 1, Bennett's Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 
>Technology Problem, wrote to NRC Chairman Greta Joy Dicus, asking 
>nuclear regulators to provide better information on reactor safety 
>and contingency plans before the new year.  
>
>Computer systems which read only the last two digits of a year may 
>experience faults on Jan. 1, 2000, reading the new year as 1900 
>instead of 2000. Experts fear massive problems when the new year 
>begins if systems are not fixed.  
>
>Bennett, in a statement, said he was pleased with the agency's 
>response to the committee's questions.  
>
>``The NRC has responded to our concerns in a detailed and candid 
>fashion, and I am increasingly confident that plants will be safe,'' 
>Bennett said.  
>
>``Voluntary measures by the industry, such as increased emergency 
>fuel supply and additional staffing, will provide an additional level 
>of assurance.''  
>
>NRC was asked to inform the committee on the process it took to 
>independently validate plant Y2K readiness, the availability of 
>emergency fuel supplies, plant shut-down criteria and minimum safety 
>standards.  
>
>NRC said there are no requirements that plants have a 30-45 day 
>supply of emergency diesel generator fuel, nor do they believe 
>additional supplies are necessary.  
>
>The agency based its assumptions on the reliability of the power grid 
>and past successes at sustaining safety systems during events such as 
>hurricanes, that typically demand a six to seven day supply of diesel 
>fuel.  
>
>Some plants are undertaking voluntary efforts to ``top off'' 
>supplies, increase staffing and conduct additional monitoring and 
>inspection.  
>
>Under the existing regulatory framework, the NRC will not shut down 
>any plants unless specific criteria are met, which may include 
>situations in which ``systems or components are inoperable due to a 
>Y2K deficiency.''  
>
>NRC also said it plans no suspension of technical regulations during 
>the millennium rollover, the panel said.  
>
>``The nuclear power industry, like many others well-prepared for Y2K, 
>is a closely regulated and highly monitored industry that is 
>intimately familiar with the danger of failure and the safety risks 
>involved,'' said Bennett.  
>
>NRC went to great lengths to demonstrate each reactor's Y2K 
>compliance was reviewed by an independent industry source.  
>
>``Industry audits included 56 audits by utility quality assurance 
>departments, 36 cross-utility audits and 46 third-party industry 
>audits,'' NRC told the Senate panel.  
>
>``In short, all reactor sites have received at least one independent 
>industry audit of their Y2K program.''  
>
>Anti-nuclear groups have said repeatedly that industry preparedness 
>was tainted by the lack of outside reviews.  
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sander C. Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	
>Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division		Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                   		    
>ICN Biomedicals, Inc.				E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 				                           
>ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com          	          
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
>Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/scperle
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html