Can someone tell me how just having additional people at a nuclear power plant is someones idea of a "backup plan"?

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/990615/2l.html

WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - Fears that Year 2000 computer crashes may cripple nuclear power plants have led the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop backup plans for adding staff and ensuring communications when the new millennium starts.

In a statement from the NRC on Tuesday, the agency said the contingency plan calls for staffing its operations center in Rockville, Md., beginning at 12 p.m. EDT on December 31. Backup will be provided by NRC's regional office in Arlington, Texas.

``NRC staff will be stationed at each nuclear power plant site and uranium enrichment facility as well as in each NRC regional Independent Response Center in King of Prussia, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; and Lisle, Ill,'' the agency said.

Portable satellite telephones will also be provided as backup communications, if needed, at each pant and facility.

The Year 2000 bug, or Y2K, refers to the potential problem computers may have in recognizing dates beginning with January 1, 2000 and beyond. The default arises from computer programs that use two digits to represent a calendar year, like ``99.''

It is feared when the millennium rollover begins, computers will crash when reading ``00'' as ``1900'' instead of ``2000.''

The NRC and the nuclear industry have stressed that no tests to date have shown any safety-related problems related to Y2K. A final report on power industry Y2K compliance is due at the end of June, when the North American Electric Reliability Council files a report with the U.S. Department of Energy.

``Based on NRC's Y2K reviews and audits of nuclear power plants and other licensed facilities, all licensees are expected to be Y2K ready well before December 31, and the Y2K transition will not affect continued safe operation of their facilities,'' the NRC said.

Last month, Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey, a frequent critic of the NRC, said the agency had expressed Y2K-related concerns about backup generators at the Pilgrim nuclear station in his state. The Democratic lawmaker said while there were no general problems expected from Y2K, the NRC said some difficulties were experienced with plant monitoring systems and access controls.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999

Answers

Does anyone know if the NRC has enough qualified staff to do this?

There is some speculation on Rick Cowles' forum that the reason an inordinate number of non-nuke plants are being brought back into service this year is that the electric industry is concerned the NRC might really shut a critical number of the nukes down.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999.

The NRC and the nuclear industry have stressed that no tests to date have shown any safety-related problems related to Y2K.

-- So (wh@tsthe.problem?), June 16, 1999.

I just ran across minutes of a FIVE DAY meeting the NRC Potassium Iodide (KI) Core group held March 1 - 5, 1999 in Arizona. There is endless bla, bla, bla-ing, but the bottom line is that they are discussing when and how and to whom and how much KI to give people in case of an emergency. It is also mentioned that supplies of KI are very low!!! (got yours?) The timing of these meetings seems... INTERESTING.

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/Ki/19990301.html http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/Ki/19990302.html http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/Ki/19990303.html http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/Ki/19990304.html http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/Ki/19990305.html

--- snippet ---- The goal of the KI Core Group is to develop a revised draft new reg and an accompanying draft user friendly brochure to support emergency planning decisions on the role and use of KI in site specific emergency plans. The revised new reg will take into account the many useful public comments received and will discuss the factors that need to be weighed in state and local decisions on the role of KI under their specific local conditions. It will also discuss in some detail the various guidance on the issue in the World Health Organization, IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration documents and will include the discussion on how the practical problems in KI stockpiling, distribution and use are handled in the states and numerous nations which already plan to use KI as a supplemental protective action. The proposed user friendly brochure will provide an abbreviated discussion of the factors which need to be considered by emergency planning decision makers in recommending general public use of KI and practical solutions to potential problems with KI stockpiling, distribution and use. As a member of the KI Core Group, you are all asked to help us put those two documents together. In a broader perspective, in the area of a revision to the KI policy, there are four large projects that have impact on this thing taking place at the same time. Number 1, NRC has embarked in a rulemaking process, as you all are aware. Number 2, the FRPCC is involved in revising the federal policy on KI. Number 3, this document that you're working on which is the guidance document to be used by those states who ultimately are asked to consider whether or not KI should be added. This is that document that they will use to make that determination. And Number 4, the Federal Government has undertaken a very large project on preparing for nuclear biological and chemical threats and there has been discussions about whether or not KI ought to be added to that list, whether or not that should become recognized as part of the federal policy on our side of the world. All that is whether or not, so it's not given, it's not cast in concrete. We do know that the supplies are very extraordinarily limited as we speak right now, to the point that reliance on those may not be an effective thing to do as we stand today. Whether that's going to change in the future, we don't know. ------ and for more info on dealing with a "radiation incident"

http://www.beeline.ca/find/survival/misc/information.htm http://www.beeline.ca/find/survival/Books/Doomsday/default.htm

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), June 16, 1999.

I know the Cedar Rapids Gazette ran adds last month for Palo Nuclear Power plant to inform citizens that may need assistance in case of a nuclear accident to send in a form. The emergency form was to inform the "authorities" of special needs people that will need assistance in the event of a accident at the power plant. Anybody else living near a nuclear power plant see these types of advertisements?

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999.

The extra NRC people are there to improve communication between the different sites and the NRC regional offices. If a problem occurs, many plants use similar design - the NRC can then get word back to other places more readily. Makes sense.

The operators at each site ar the ones legally allowed to control the plant. The NRC is only regulatory and monitoring, but in this case, they can help communicate between sites.

Now that the nuclear plants have this (and other contingency plans) what about the other 80% of our capacity? Again - in the dark. Nuclear plants will (in my opinion) be the most reliable, followed by hydro. New coal, older coal, and gas turbine are the most likely fo have troubles.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 16, 1999.

Ignore Markey (Mass. activist) - he is prejudiced and has previously recommended actions that reduce design safety and operating margins. The people advising him are equally (if not more anti-technology) and don't understand the real effects of what they're doing.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 16, 1999.

I noticed that the sun, after staying up all day, could not continue and fell out of the sky, right around night time. The timing of these events seems... INTERESTING.

-- cd (artful@dodger.com), June 16, 1999.