I live 10 miles from TMI and in close proximity to Limmerick and Peachbottom. I am assuming that I am in a section of the country where the preponderance of the electricity generated is through the nuclear facilities. I realize that this assumption may be incorrect due to the way the energy is shared and/or distributed but I am not able to make that determination.

I have several concerns. First, will the nukes stay online, and secondly, if so, will they be safe, and third,if not, what are our chances of having any electricity at all.

I am an administrator for an orthopedic surgeon and called GPU in that capacity...they have not returned any of my calls. I called four times and each time spoke to someone who was barely aware of Y2K. With much persistence on my part it was determined that yes, there is a department that is currently working on that problem but they are *very* busy. I was told someone would return my calls but at this point they have yet to do so.

On a personal level I have purchased a wood stove insert, many cords of wood, a large amount of food and miscellaneous supplies. My main concern is the safety of the nuclear plants.

Anyone have any information/ideas?

Marianne

-- Anonymous, January 08, 1999

Answers

Marianne,

In Southeastern Pa., a majority of your electricity comes from nuclear engergy. In your neck of the woods, TMI, Susqehana, Limerick, Salem, Hope Creek, and Peach Bottom nuclear plants account for a vast majority of the electricity that come through your wall outlets.

Look through this forum (particularly under the heading "NUCLEAR" in the forum index for more discussion and information on nuclear power and whether or not it will be shut down. There is a specific thread from just the other day regarding the NRC's audit of the Limerick nuclear facility.

Also, be advised that GPU is selling off all of their generating assets. You can get some details on GPU's Y2k program by reviewing their SEC 10Q filing from November, which I'm sure someone in the forum can point you toward if you can't find it by using the EDGAR search form on the SEC's website (www.sec.gov).

-- Anonymous, January 09, 1999

Hi Marianne, here are a few stats from the most recent SEC Year 2000 statement by GPU, Inc. (GPU includes Jersey Central Power & Light, Metropolitan Edison, and Pennsylvania Electric.)

As of Sept. 30, 1998, their inventory of critical systems and components was "essentially complete", which translates to "not completely finished". They estimate they had spent $10.6 million out of a total estimate of $26.5 million for year 2000 projects for their energy companies.

Modifications (fixes) and testing for three generating units with outages scheduled for the fall of 1999 will not be completed until mid-November, 1999. Modifications for some components at TMI -1, which is scheduled for a refueling outage in September, 1999, are not expected to be completed until late October, 1999.

In regards to contingency planning, they also state they have sent questionnaires to approximately 160 organizations with which they exchange electronic data or conduct electronic funds transfers with and "GPU has currently received responses from only a few of these organizations." GPU also stated that part of their Year 2000 precautions will be placing troubleshooting teams at sites where critical components are located.

You asked, "Will nukes stay online?" That's something we all wish we had the answer to, but it's unknown at this time.

"Will they be safe?" If they are taken offline, absolutely. If not and they experience problems, the safety shutdown systems (according to everything I've read) are not dependent on digital technology and should accomplish a safe shutdown.

"What are our chances of having any electricity at all?" Because of the grid transmision interconnections, and the thousands of variables, nobody can really make any concrete predictions. I'd say you've done the prudent thing in preparing for possible outages, however, since the utility industry as a whole is not far enough along with their fixes yet to instill a lot of confidence.

Keep in mind that those who run and work at nuclear facilities are just as concerned (if not more so) as you are that their plants operate without any incidents. I personally believe they will not take any chances in that regard, but being offline and/or safely shutdown still equals no electric generation. We should know more later this year.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 1999

Bonnie -- "the safety shutdown systems (according to everything I've read) are not dependent on digital technology and should accomplish a safe shutdown."

I can see that the mechanical means to accomplish shutdown would not depend on digital tech. But some system must interface between the events being monitored and the mechanical systems.

Wouldn't such a system need to be able to compare sensed data with established parameters? And to measure the duration of any excursion outside those parameters? Could any system making these decisions (if only to sound an alarm for the operators) be constructed without using digital technology? Which, if present, implies the presence of embedded processors of unknown compliance status.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 1999

Regarding nuke-plant safety shut-down systems, Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com) asked:

"Wouldn't such a system need to be able to compare sensed data with established parameters? And to measure the duration of any excursion outside those parameters?"

Yes, in a manner of speaking.

"Could any system making these decisions (if only to sound an alarm for the operators) be constructed without using digital technology?"

Yes, absolutely. Such a system can be built without *any* "digital technology". You could implement such a system with cams and gears if you really wanted to. Analog electronics can do it too. "[Digital technology] if present, implies the presence of embedded processors of unknown compliance status."

No. Digital technology was used in inductrial automation long before there were any embedded microprocessors. A microprocessor is a very complicated piece of digital technology.

Microprocessors have only been around since the 1970's, and did not come into widespread use until approximately 1980. I don't know which nuke plant in the US is the "newest", but do seem to remember than no new ones were ordered since the TMI fiasco in 1978. So I believe that the design of each and everyone of them pre-dates the use of microprocessors in industrial automation.

Note that I'm not saying that they're Y2K compliant. Newer controls have surely been retrofitted im places.

And speaking of the TMI fiasco, I am more worried about the human element than the systems. TMI proved one thing in my mind: The systems work, but if the people running them screw up badly enough, it's possible you might have a problem...

-Uwe-

-- Anonymous, January 11, 1999

Uwe-- "I am more worried about the human element than the systems."

Point taken. Chernobyl Unit 4 provided another example of human error, conpounded by design deficiencies.

"So I believe that the design of each and everyone of them pre-dates the use of microprocessors in industrial automation."

Hope you're right! I've no knowledge of how the systems in use actually work. I guess I was unconsciously assuming that the most efficient method to stay ahead of any developing problem in a nuclear generating plant would be to measure rates of change, of temperature, radiation level, fluid flow, pressure, etc., i.e., integrating over time.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 1999