Scared Of Y2k? Head For A Nuclear Reactor Full Coverage Year 2000 Problem By Matthew Green

LONDON (Reuters) - Deadly radiation, complex computers and the year 2000 bug sound like an apocalyptic mix, but watchdogs say nuclear power plants will be as safe a place as any to greet the new year.

In Western Europe, technicians have been combing bugs from reactor systems and making contingency plans to cope with malfunctions for years. Eastern Europe lags behind, but the International Atomic Energy Agency says it sees only a remote chance of catastrophe.

``One can never rule out some difficulties but what I expect is that there won't be problems of a nuclear safety nature,'' said Zig Domaratzki, head of the Department of Nuclear Safety at the IAEA in Vienna.

He said the bug might cause faults but only as trivial as those you would tolerate in a new car. ``There may be little glitches that show up here and there, but I'll make sure the brakes work and I can turn off the ignition.''

Engineers say that even if computer systems freeze as the clock ticks midnight on New Year's Eve, reactor operators can simply throw a switch to shut them down.

PROBLEMS? JUST THROW A SWITCH

They say safety circuitry has none of the software prone to the millennium bug, which can paralyze computers not adapted to handle the change to 2000 and certain other dates.

``Our protection systems are not date-sensitive, they don't know whether it's 1066 or the year 2000,'' David Hunns, superintending inspector of the British government's Nuclear Safety Directorate, said.

But even if the big, red ``shutdown'' buttons are bug-proof, more mundane malfunctions could spring nasty surprises. Plants should wedge doors open at the New Year to guard against errant security systems, said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.

``We think that the emergency systems these plants have are pretty much invulnerable,'' he said. ``It is the support systems that are more susceptible.''

Nuclear engineers admit danger can also lurk beyond reactor walls. A bug-induced failure in the electricity grid could cut a plant's outlet for the power it generates, forcing operators to turn it off to prevent overheating.

Unplanned shutdowns set controllers' adrenaline pumping, increasing the margin for error and piling stress on plants.Reactors then depend on diesel to fuel coolers to prevent them from melting down, supplies of which could be disrupted if the bug hits transportation networks.

Western European grids are working to ensure they do not fizzle out over New Year, updating computers that use only the last two digits of the year and could confuse 2000 with 1900.

``The focus is now turning to Eastern Europe,'' said Howard Ramsden of Unipede-Eurelectric, which groups international power producers and distributors.

ECHOES OF CHERNOBYL

Ever since the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine exploded in April 1986, wafting a radioactive cloud across Europe, millennium doomsayers have portrayed reactors in the former Eastern bloc as the most accident-prone. A lack of Year 2000 compliance data from more than 60 aging plants across Russia and Eastern Europe makes risk assessment tricky.

``They think that they can get by without a problem, but we're not entirely convinced that that's the case,'' said IAEA spokesman David Kyd.

Chernobyl's operators say the plant is too obsolete to suffer serious year 2000 problems and the IAEA said it agrees. But former Chernobyl director Serhiy Parashin told reporters in March that Ukrainian officials misunderstood the bug and it could paralyze the country's five nuclear power plants.

To nuclear energy's opponents, the Chernobyl disaster showed that the consequences of a millennial meltdown make even the tiniest chance of an accident unacceptable.

``The very term 'risk' implies some possibility of elimination, but when you look at Chernobyl you see that the worst can always happen,'' said Dominic Jenkins, nuclear campaigner for environmental group Friends of the Earth.

Meanwhile, in Britain, as much of the nation prepares to party over the New Year, government engineers plan to hunker down in an emergency room -- just in case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- justme (justme@justme.net), July 12, 1999

Answers

That didn't take long. I knew that after the NRC came out with a report that a third of the U.S. plants wouldn't be "ready" - didn't EXPECT to be ready - until as late as Dec. 15 - 16th, and after the GAO and the NCS came out critisizing regulation of nuclear plants, it couldn't be too long before another allay, allay, don't-worry-be-happy report came out. Here's the link for the above story. Link

This article sounds like the stories we were hearing last year and until a few months or weeks ago. Hey, no Y2K problem at nuke plants 'cause its all analog. Well then, why aren't the plants Y2K COMPLIANT?

``We THINK that the emergency systems these plants have are PRETTY MUCH invulnerable,'' he said. ``It is the support systems that are more susceptible.''

There's a statement to allay fears.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), July 12, 1999.

I ain't afraid of no sinkin' plutonium. Let me at it.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), July 12, 1999.

Funny thing is - all these "little" support system failures - which in nuclear plants have been looked at and fixed and inspected independently, are the very same ones that in conventional fossil plants, are NOT being looked at adequately, and (in many cases) are NOT being reported fixed, and (in many cases) are NOT even being fixed, and have NOT (in any cases) been independently audited.

But the "magic" threat implied in a nuclear plant "label" means that the same problems that have been remediated in most nuclear plants (and are scheduled to be fixed the remaining nuclear plants) are somehow perceived to be a valid, legitimate threat; while the unremediated problems that will cause a conventional plant to shutdown are ignored.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 12, 1999.

from euy2k forum:

Scared Of Y2k? Head For A Nuclear Reactor - Reuters (07/09/99)

When I saw this headline, I simply couldn't believe the stupidity of the statement. Why would anyone in their right mind want to compound their risk level by heading toward a nuclear power plant? Here are some headlines I think would be a good parallel: "Scared of Earthquakes? Why not hike the San Andreas Faultline?" "Scared of Volcanos? Join us for a walk up scenic Mt. Pinatubo" "Scared of Bear Attacks? Why not hike through the woods with a jar of honey on your head?"

The article itself wasn't all that bad, but as I've said before, most people don't get past the headline, or at most the first paragraph. It's either unbelievably stupid journalism or propaganda. Do the math.

PS- I was in big unamed department store chain yesterday (buying gas cans 5-gal for $4.99!) when I noticed a shirt for sale which said "Y2K, Who's Ready - Who's Toast!" Another sign that bubba is getting some gentle wake up calls on this issue.

-- Jim Smith (cyberax@ix.netcom.com), July 10, 1999.

-- a (a@a.a), July 12, 1999.

Yes but -

If I were in CA, and had no reasonable chance to leave, I'd much rather live right in the Central Valley, in the middle of the San Andreas fault true - but in the exact middle where numerous very small earthquakes occur regularly (so NO major, life-threatening energy is being built up to be released in a single major quake.)

Same thing applies to the US and Canadian nuclear plants - the fact that they are being remediated, that they do regular emergency drills, that they are being independently audited adn have good documentation so that hte audits can be properly done, so that they have qualified parts lists and qualified suppliers using a common database all help to minimize the effect of y2k on their systems.

To continue the analogy, it is in the places like Los Angelos and San Francisco and Oakland - where there are built up areas and concentrations of people, but on a fault line that only irregularly breaks loose and moves - that the extreme dangers lie. Like the Central Valley fault line - where a slow constant gradual movement relieves strain and energy - the nuclear plant - by operating regularly and being regularly inspected - becomes more reliable under programming errors typified by y2k failures.

A catastrophic failure is only a problem in places where people are unprepared for the potential failure. An nuclear plants are more "rugged" in that aspect than fossil plants.

____

As a side note - I have used the nuclear reactor shielding for protection from incidental radiation exposure during construction and repairs - for example, when they need to x-ray a pipe weld or containment steel weld - often you can receive less exposure by going behind the reactor shielding than by remaining outside near the pipe.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 12, 1999.