Thursday December 10 4:48 PM ET

Group Says Unplug N-Plants Not Set For Y2K

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An environmental group Thursday submitted a petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking that nuclear power plants be shut down if they cannot prove themselves free of Year 2000 computer bugs.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service officials said if the nation's 104 commercial nuclear power plants are not properly tested and declared free of the Y2K threat, there could be "severe safety and environmental problems'' caused by date-sensitive electronic systems failing when 2000 starts.

"The Y2K computer problem is greater than most people imagined even a year ago, and it is becoming clear that not every nuclear utility will be Y2K compliant in time for the millennium,'' said Michael Mariotte, NIRS executive director.

The so-called Y2K problem has developed as a result of computer systems recognizing years by their last two digits, reading 1999 for example as "99.'' When the new millennium begins, computers will misread the year 2000 for 1900, and if not corrected, could cause system-wide malfunctions.

The first petition by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service would require the NRC to close by Dec. 1, 1999, any reactor that cannot prove, through full testing, that it is Y2K compliant.

A second NIRS petition would mandate that nuclear utilities install additional backup power units to ensure steady supply of electricity to reactors. A third and last petition requires each utility to engage in a full-scale emergency response exercise during 1999 for testing plant personnel.

"The nuclear industry and the NRC are working diligently to resolve the Y2K problem, and we believe them. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the problem is so large that not every nuclear utility is likely to complete their work in time,'' Mariotte said.

NIRS said the possibility of electrical grid instability and local and regional blackouts cannot be ruled out as a result of possible computer malfunctions. The group noted that few utilities have actually tested emergency plans to cope with potential difficulties.

In a statement, the Nuclear Energy Institute said the industry had thus far found Y2K issues a challenge, but manageable. The industry group noted that systems needed to safely shut down nuclear plants respond to plant conditions and operator commands, not to date-driven data bases, prone to Y2K or millennium bugs.

"The NRC stated in 1997 that safety-related shutdown systems are not subject to the Year 2000 concern,'' according to the NEI statement.

The environmentalist group asked the NRC to consider their petitions on an expedited basis, and allow outside verification of nuclear plant Y2K testing and compliance.

(Reuters/Wired)

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), December 11, 1998

Answers

Several poeople warned of this over a month ago. basically, these are folks (being polite) who have never seen a nucleus they could like, firmly believe that the nuclear plants are repeats of Hiroshima and Nagasaki just anxiously waiting for a time to happen, and will accept NO alternatives to their views. Many of these "folks", while meaning well, are seriously science challenged (how did some become MD's? Truly a conundrum.), so that the scientific basis for safety that someone like the apparently temporarily absent Robert Cook could provide, would not be comprehended.

What is most frightening to me is the distinct possibility that they may prevail, and we may enter a difficult time with a large portion of our power generating capacity unnecessarily shut down, because a group can shout loud enough.

Maybe if we get them to shout loud enough about the danger to all of us from the governmental public inaction and apathy, we'll get some further awareness.

Probably not in this millenium.

Chuck

-- Chuck a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 11, 1998.

Chuck: I'm basically in agreement with you here except for one thing.

I happen to live VERY close to one of these plants. We've lived here for 10 years and while I've never been overly concerned about meltdown scenario, part of my confidence is based on the large number of safety regulations that such plants are required to adhere to. With such regulations in place, accidents are fairly rare and usually not serious. We believe such regulations to be an esssential part of the operation of such facilities. We do not think them to be 'unnecessary red tape'.

Should the NRC want to relax safety regulations at the plants during Y2K to allow them to keep them operating, I would not be very open to the idea.

After all, Chuck, why should my property, myself and my family be exposed to increased risk simply because plant operators were negligent in addressing Y2K and communities and individuals refused to prepare to live without electricity for a bit?

My family and I are prepared to live without electricty for a period. At this point, it is clear that others should be to. We would rather see the plant by us shut down for a bit than operated without those safety regulations in place.

A large portion of our decision to buy the property here and live so close to the plant was based on those safety regulations and oversight.

On the other hand, I'd be willing to negotiate - say the power company buys my property giving us a fairly market price and pays our relocation costs... No? Well then, we've got a problem.

-Arnie

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), December 11, 1998.

Lets blame all our problems on the Tree Huggers now.

Arnie, maybe Chuck would be interested in your property.

-- Anti-Chainsaw (Tree@hugger.com), December 11, 1998.

Nabi,

Lots of Y2K aware people, tree-huggers included, are very concerned about the true state of our nuclear power plants and their interdependency issues. Our government included.

Please dont slam the tree-huggers, as being the problem here. Possibly, they could be part of the solution, IF there are no other reliable options, other than total plant shutdown. Thats a better option, than a potential meltdown, IMHO.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 11, 1998.

Are they "tree huggers" or possibly "human huggers"?

Reminds me of "The Sheeple."

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 11, 1998.

No ill-will was meant toward the "tree huggers" by my title:-)...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), December 11, 1998.

They will not be shut down. The safety systems are generally sets of transmitters and compairitor cards, with relays. No date is even thought of. They don't care about the date in the safety systems. You must realize that safety systems and normal control systems are two different things. I'm not saying that some won't shutdown, I'm saying the safety systems are not date sensitive and don't give a s#@t about Y2K. Safety systems will shut the units down if the normal control systems go off line. They don't care about the shutdown,the safety systems care about a meltdown, and will work what ever the date is.

-- flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), December 11, 1998.

I heard that it takes six months to cool the reactors. With that in mind, there better be some serious reporting by NRC. Disinformation will prolong the crisis. If politics plays above principle until the period of uncertainty-January 1, 2000, and the nukes are not prepared for the cooling period, let alone compliance then what? There are dangerous variables to contend with.

Cheers

-MC

-- MC Davey (UFOSKYBLUE@aol.com), December 11, 1998.

The six month number is oft-repeated, but flatly untrue. The water, fuel, core, and all nuclear systems can be cooled to room temperature in less three days. Some residual heat is still being generated, but not enough to raise the fuel pool/refueling pool water temperature noticeably.

See other tech. comments in the related "nuclear" threads. This is not a technically viable solution, it is based on exagerated fears rather than actual problems; and actually threatens the design safety of the units, rather rather than enhance the design safety.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 13, 1998.

Good then. If what you're saying is true then there will be no reason whatsoever to modify safety/operating procedures to cope with Y2K. Apparently the rumors to this effect are inaccurate then.

Works for me. As long as there's no need to modify the regulations and operating procedures, I have only the same minimal concerns I've always had.

-Arnie

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), December 14, 1998.

Here's a good discussion on euy2k:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000InK

-- Lisa (hi@yall.com), December 14, 1998.