This does not inspire a great deal of confidence...

*********************************************************************************

www.tmia.com/EDGs.html

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), July 27, 1999

Answers

Don't play with the atom.

-- Ur asking for it (b@bb.com), July 27, 1999.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't merited dozens of posts. Whattsamatta you guys/gals? Everybody on Prozac or something??

How come Cowles and others haven't reported on this? Not even Gary North, or Milne for that matter???

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

George - I'm suprised too.

Moving to the top in hopes of some responses!

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), July 27, 1999.

Now I get it...CNN is reporting far more interesting news today:

******************************************************************************

Crayola replaces 'indian red' with 'chestnut'

July 27, 1999 Web posted at: 9:22 AM EDT (1322 GMT)

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Indian Red is out. Chestnut is in.

After sifting through more than 250,000 suggested names, Crayola has renamed its reddish-brown crayon to avoid misunderstandings over the color's origin.

The color indian red, which Crayola said was based on a reddish-brown pigment commonly found near India, was dropped because teachers complained students thought it described the skin color of American Indians.

The new name will appear on 15 million crayons each year beginning in September. It is only the third time in the company's 96-year history that a color has been changed.

"We were looking for a name that would be helpful to teachers working in the classroom, and we thought chestnut was appropriate," company spokeswoman Stacy Gabrielle said Monday.

Nearly 100,000 people from age 3 to 90 submitted names, including 155 people who suggested chestnut. Other popular suggestions included red clay, clay red and Mars red.

Other rejected names included ginger spice, crab claw red, old penny and baseball mitt. One person even suggested "the crayon formerly known as indian red," in honor of the rock musician formerly known as Prince.

The 155 people who suggested the winning name will be awarded a Certificate of Crayon Authorship and a 64-color crayon box containing the renamed crayon.

Crayola has renamed only two other colors. In 1958, Prussian blue was renamed midnight blue because children could no longer relate to Prussian history, according to teachers. In 1962, flesh was renamed peach to recognize that not everyone's skin is the same shade.

Indian red -- with a lower-case "i" -- debuted in the Crayola lineup in 1958, when the 64-crayon box was introduced.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), July 27, 1999.

Wow.........Thanks for the post. Keeping the grid up is "the" main concern. Hope this doen't end up being another lesson learned.

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), July 27, 1999.

OK...I give up.

Doesn't ANYONE care to comment on this information? I would post it on Rick Cowles' site if I had a password... Sheesh, the Woodstock thread got 19 responses!!!!

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), July 27, 1999.

Roland,

These failures should be reported by the media, et, all. But since the companies were not doing Y2K testing at the time, they got ignored.

Of course, who needs to worry about a backup cooling system when the main reactor won't be functioning anyway?

DJ

-- DJ (reality@check.com), July 27, 1999.

It is on Rick's site and is being discussed.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), July 27, 1999.

I can't get in over there due to his stellar security measures! :-)

If someone could do a cut and paste, I am most interested in reading what's being discussed.

Thanks.

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nohwere.com), July 28, 1999.

Just for you Roland (e-mail Rick and he'll send you the password): <:)=

Emergency Diesel Generator Defects at Nuclear Plants

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

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

This link lists off the problems that Nuke sites have had with the emergency Diesel Generators since Jan.1 1999. A little disconcerting.

http://www.tmia.com/EDGs.html

-- Sean Quinn (sean@van.gbmicro.com), July 27, 1999

Answers

It has come to my attention that this post might be removed because it can be anti-nuclear in interpretation. I'd just like to quickly defend it, in saying that I am not trying to push for nuclear shutdowns, nor am I against it. There are potentially huge problems that can occur through either decision, and I'm glad that I don't have to make that decision. I just posted the above because I think that it is important to keep the information flowing, and hopefully the problems that are being found will be fixed, rather than ignored. I believe that is why this forum was originally created, and I'm grateful that it continues to do so.

-- Sean Quinn (sean@van.gbmicro.com), July 27, 1999.

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

I'll reiterate once again - this is not a pro or anti nuke forum. This is a Y2k forum. I will never remove a post, anti-nuke or otherwise, that has a definite Y2k angle for the electric industry. It does not matter whether I agree with the post or not. "On topic" is the only consideration.

This particular link has a Y2k angle, and my apologies to marianne for removing the earlier post without following the link. I would ask, however, that the Y2k connection be clearly identified in the post. For instance, this particular link could have been originally described as relating to the Y2k petitions that NIRS currently has before the NRC regarding emergency diesel generators.

Again, if a connection to Y2k and the electric industry is defined in any post, the post stays. If there's no connection identified, the post goes. That seems pretty simple. ;-)

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles.remove@waterw.com), July 27, 1999.

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

What about the compliancy of the EDG systems themselves? My understanding is these are large generators in the megawatt range and, as frequently noted in the incident reports, important safety systems as relates to the electrical grid. They are more complex then elevators, prison doors or for that matter radar ranges. Would suspect its being addressed but I haven't heard much discussion on it. And I know, I know, no one would ever use other then absolute time interval comparisons in an algorhithm to decide if an EDG system should kick in.

-- Paul Maher (PaulDMaher@worldnet.att.com), July 27, 1999.

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

I have worked with EDG control systems for many years, including design upgrades. Generally, EDG controls are not complex and use older technology, where things get a bit more complicated are in the load sequencers logic, but even here the logic is electrical timing relays (sometimes digital) that are not affected by y2k problems. Some plants have digital monitoring that is not required for operation of the EDGs. There may be a few plants that have digital control systems, but I have not been able to confirm this. In reviewing the industry information, I have seen no information indicating y2k problems in EDGs EXCEPT not long ago I saw a reference to EDGs at Pilgrim in regards to y2k - I can't remember where I saw this, and have not confirmed it, but I do remember seeing it - if anyone has any solid information on this I would appreciate it.

Typical EDG control devices/components are pressure switches, eletrical relays,mechanical overspeed trip devices, speed switches (electronic), solenoid valves, air start motors, air compressors/tanks, and various other analog process components with no potential for y2k problems.

To summarize, EDG controls are typically older technology provided by the engine vendors. Some plants may have upgraded to digital control systems, and Pilgrim MAY have reported a y2k problem related to EDGs (severity of problem unknown).

I do know that the FP&L Turkey Point plant installed a digital PLC based load sequencer some years ago, but have heard of no Y2K problems regarding this system - I don't know if this PLC is date aware (most are not). If it does have a RTC, it is almost certainly used only for logging functions, as the sequencing is based on the timing functions unrelated to calender dates (this much I DO remember about their system from past studies).

Having expertise in EDGs and also Y2K, I am confident that there are no signficant industry wide issues regarding y2k problems IN EDGs. As I have stated in this forum previously, I am NOT satisfied with EDG design reliability in general, and this has nothing to do with y2k.

I reviewed the http://www.tmia.com/EDGs.html reports, someone did a good job of putting this list together, I find it handy myself. I also reviewed other information at www.tmia.com website, and found a suprisingly good write up by the Union of Concerned Scientist regarding EDG issues - many facts, with a few major errors however. There is an agenda here though, and this should be taken into account. But when the agenda is safety, and the facts are present and valid (as a number are), I will not take issue with the fact that reliability of emergency power sources needs stronger industry and regulatory attention.

What I DO object to, is the false and unsupported claims that Y2K is a signficant challenge to nuclear safety (our findings show quite the opposite). I also object to the claims that Y2K problems in EDGs are a signficant threat - show me your evidence if you make such a claim. Finally I object to the use of the real and valid Y2K issue as a "means" of furthering anti-nuclear power agenda's by falsely claiming y2k problems are a serious threat to safety systems, including EDGs.

The link above is interesting and pertinent - to EDG reliability, butI cannot see the tie in to Y2K (there is no case for the grid to be unstable due to y2k based on my direct observations of the embedded systems y2k problems we found, and by review of industry findings). The site also has a Y2K section regarding nuclear power, and this link is fully of dated, one sided quotes and several errors of fact.

In short, I have yet to see one single example of a y2k problem that would have a direct effect on the ability of a nuclear safety related system (class 1E system) to function, including EDGs - I have asked for factual evidence before, and have yet to see it.

I have seen so very little evidence of DOCUMENTED y2k problems with power systems - the best documented problem systems are in the link I posted to the www.nei.org nuclear PDF report. I may post some factual y2k bugs problems here, complete with linked evidence to manufacturers/models, just so SOMEONE can proove there are real y2k problems...;)

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), July 27, 1999.

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

Good Factfinder. Why did the Electric Utilities not announce compliance last year?

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), July 27, 1999.

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

Factfinder,

Whether Y2K shuts down powerplants (through whatever means) or something else comes along that necessitates a shutdown, we are still depending on these EDGs to be capable of running in order to shutdown the plants. I've read numerous reports saying that all of the Emergency shutdown systems are Y2K Ready, but surely it is of prime concern to make sure that the shutdown equipment can still work on its own right, even if it does not use a date function.

-- Sean Quinn (sean@van.gbmicro.com), July 28, 1999.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

Apparently, no one realizes that the original source of this information is the nuke plants themselves. But they can't be trusted. Therefore the diesels really didn't fail. Therefore there really isn't a problem. Therefore they can be trusted. Therefore the diesels failed...

-- cd (artful@dodger.com), July 28, 1999.

This isn't good at all. I live within 50 miles of TMI, and Peach Bottom (upwind, normally, but still possible to be radiated).

-- Bill (billclo@msgbox.com), July 28, 1999.

Again - the NIRS is a biased, unreliable source. They have been trying to "leverage" this fear of the diesel generators into a "public outcry" by their press releases (immediately re-printed by their local Mass. Representative). The goal is to "force" Congress into legistlating the NRC into a massive "re-design" of the plant's emergency power systems.

Since these systems simply can't be re-designed, re-built, re-tested in the five months that remain, their (the NIRS) plan is to use this deadline to force the plants to shutdown.

It is a political gimmick to use fear (such as your own expressed above) rather than analysis. Re-read the "list" above of the supposed "dire threats" - then consider that NO fossil fueled plant has ANY backup at all.

Now, which do you trust to continue running in Jan 2000? A plant that has been remediated, audited, and has trained its operators in emergency procedures?

Or a plant that has no emergency procedures other than "If it breaks, shut it down?"

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 02, 1999.