It seems everything I read about the nuclear energy plants focuses on THE SAFETY of the plant. Whether or not the plants will actually, RELIABLY PRODUCE POWER after 1/1/2000 appears to be addressed as an insignificant side issue sometimes not even mentioned. IMHO we face as real a physical threat to our health and safety should those plants fail to provide their share of power to the grid, and without which the whole power grid comes much closer to collapse taking with it any real chance of a reasonably quick recovery. Am I missing some report that assesses the Y2K POWER PRODUCTION readiness of the Nuke plants?

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55b@prodigy.com), February 04, 1999

Answers

Ann, Have you been to www.euy2k.com?

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), February 04, 1999.

Not known conclusively yet - all are working very hard to remain online because no power -> no revenue.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 04, 1999.

To me, this is actually a non-question.

I don't want a power plant to effectively be producing power under "less than safe" conditions (example: Chernobyl).

Particularly concerning nuclear power generation. I'd rather burn woodstoves and oil lamps than have my flesh fall off my bones or die of a multitude of cancers and have my grandchildren born deformed while eating and drinking low-level radioactive food and water.

Safety is the ONLY issue in nuclear power. There are many alternatives to nuclear power generation. There is no alternative to nuclear accidents.

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 04, 1999.

Ann,

I have to agree with "Mr Kennedy" here, although your basic question is legitimate. I think the "Big Deal" part is applied to the wrong half of the question.

I would suggest that you simply ask yourself whether you would choose a total collapse of the grid due to non-functioning nuclear plants or taking the risk of an accident at just one of them in order to keep the grid up, if it was your call.

I do not mean to say that I know enough about the grid to believe that it would collapse without nukes. I believe that Robert Cook is far closer to being able to address that issue. Care to comment, Robert?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Read the NRC Contingency Plan, then go read the NRC audits. All are online, all urls have been posted here. These are very comprehensive docs and go a long way to answering questions.

According to audits, problems exist in some plants that will brownout the plant, some plants have problems that will shut down the plant, some plants have problems with their associated grids.

It seems that the primary safety systems are relatively OK, but some infrastructures that the safety systems use have problems.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), February 04, 1999.

Also according to the NRC, the plants are required to operate in a "safe environment". If local area alarm systems in the general area are not functional, if communications (such as 911) are dysfunctional, if access to rescue and fire-fighting facilities are disrupted, these constitute a condition that would require a nuclear facility to shut down. Safety issues are not totally dependent upon the nuclear facility or its operational status alone.

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 04, 1999.

Mr Kennedy, the NRC Contingency Plan makes it quite clear that some rules are going to get bent.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), February 04, 1999.

Why so, Mr. Barnes? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's job is not to produce power. It is their job to oversee the complete compliance of Nuclear facilities to strict guidelines, based on the safety structures they were created under. The NRC is not responsible for one watt of power. They are responsible for safety.

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 04, 1999.

Mr Kennedy,

In support of Mitchell's contention that "the rules will get bent", I offer the following quotes from Dick Mills' column, Mamma Mia, What do we do About the Nukes?

"I heard Mr. Jared Wermiel of NRC speak at the Infocast Y2K conference in Las Vegas last month. Mr. Wermiel is the NRC's point man for Y2K. What he said was astounding. NRC has been ordered to consider the lack of nuclear power production in 2000 as a threat to the nation, and therefore to work cooperatively with the nuclear plant owners to allow them to keep running.

It remains to be seen how effectively NRC can accomplish such an about face. Nevertheless, I wrote in, Disaster Preparedness - Let's Choose Light, that willingness to adopt special Y2K policies, different than business as usual, is one of the keys to survival. I'm therefore delighted to hear NRC state the intention to do exactly that."

"At the same conference Kathleen Hirning from FERC, (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), said that FERC had also been ordered to be cooperatvive."

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Mr. Kennedy the following quote is from the NRC Contingency Plan, section Contingency Plan, subsection Regulatory Response:

The task force recognizes that the nexus between maintaining a reliable electric power grid and public health and safety is less clear and less direct than that which has traditionally been associated with NRC's statutory requirements under the Atomic Energy Act. However, because the potential impact of the Year 2000 problem is so widespread, the task force believes that failure to provide electricity to customers at this critical time may have adverse public health and safety consequences.

~~~~~~~

Read the whole Contingency Plan, it is well written and contains a wealth of info.

For instance, under Fuel Cycle Facilities and risks, there can be exposure to employees, but not to public. Read the Flood/Loss of Heat Sink section.

Over and over throughout the CP there are grey areas re safety. Ranging from release of uranium hexafloride gas, to dangers brought about by civil disorder, weather, lack of consumable goods - any one of these potentially causing a condition in which under normal conditions would result in a safety violation condition - but depending upon the safety violation at y2k just might be ignored. Read the part where the CP talks about staffing high level liasons and officials at ALL plants - this is so firm decisions can be make on spot, on time.

If you read the NRC Audits you will immediately recognize several areas needing remediation which in and of themselves are not specifically safety related, but because of their chain of function, are safety related. The fact that some of these systems were still in inventory and assessment certainly must not have passed by the bright people who actually regulate the industry.

If more industries and corporations made public Contingency Plans as comprehensive as this offering from NRC I would immediately downgrade from an Infomagic 10 to an 8.

The only real fault I can find with the NRC Plan is that too little attention is paid to the facilities reactions to civil disorder as that might impact workers, workers families, the ability for workers to get to facility, and dealing with feeding and sheltering workers/ families - ie. if civil disorder is prolonged beyond a very few days - not necessarily endangering the facility but endangering the workforce. But the very scenario they use precludes that level of civil disorder....so...

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), February 04, 1999.

Thank you for the references Mitchell. I have more time this evening to devote to re-reading the contingency plans. I have read them before, but now feel I should give it a second (or more!) thorough reading, with emphasis on parts concerning staffing high level liasons and officials at all plants so firm decisions can be made on the spot, etc.

This has been a particular focus for our community, since we are 38 minutes from Sharon Harris Nuclear Facility in NC.

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 04, 1999.

A thorough article about this very topic: (I would have copied and pasted the article but I respected the "no reproduction" disclaimer and copyright notice)

Shutdown or Meltdown: Nuclear Power Plants and the Year 2000 Problem February 2, 1999

Written by: Michael P. Harden, Ph.D. is President and CEO of Century Technology Services, Inc., a company specializing in Y2K. Dr. Harden has over 24 years of experience in technology companies. He has testified before congressional committees about the Year 2000 Problem, met with business leaders in the US, Europe, and Asia to discuss their Y2K efforts, and is actively involved in major Year 2000 efforts in both the government and commercial sectors.

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 04, 1999.