A Different View - Internal Y2K Risks higher at Hydro plants than Nuclear

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

I appreciate the opportunity to read many of the messages posted here, and would like to share a view that many of you may disagree with, but based on my experiences would like to share with you anyway in the hope that you will welcome input here from someone directly working on the Y2K issue in the nuclear power industry.

I have also worked in the past on fossil (coal) and hydro units. The internal Y2K risks to the operation of any given power generating unit is proportional to the number and types of digital control systems/devices containing date functions/real time clocks (i.e., embedded systems), with the high level distributed control systems being of the most concern. With that said, my experience leads me to believe that the internal Y2K risks to the various types of the most common types of generating units is in the following order (the highest risk at the top):

1. Oil/Gas fired combustion turbines - these are more likely to be newer plants than other types, and commonly have a DCS, PLCs, etc. 2. Fossil Plants (primarily coal) - many older plants have been upgraded and now have DCS and PLCs. 3. Hydro Plants - believe it or not, many hydro plants have been upgraded and are more automated than any other generating unit, often operated remotely by computer interface. 3. Nuclear Plants - As far as internal Y2K problems, nuclear plants are at the least risk. The vast majority use old analog controls for the primary side control (no Y2K issues here), and the DCS and few PLCs used for some secondary system controls are being found to have only minor Y2K problems that don't affect control of the plant (but will be fixed anyway so that date logs, trend screens, etc. will function properly).

Now, having said all of that, when assessing the risks of internal Y2K problems to the a generating plant, one has to know a little more about the types of problems being found with DCS, PLCs, and other embedded systems. The recent NERC report sums this up, but doesn't provide a lot of specifics. More about this later.

Thanks for the opportunity to present a different view!

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

Answers

So, there is no chance of having a nuclear plant failure as a result of Y2K?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

If you look at the Seabrook audit done by the NRC, you will see that they have Y2K issues that directly affect both safety systems and generation capabilities. I don't know if their plant is atypical or not, but you can't dismiss nuclear plants as being problem free that easily.

Jon

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999


David,

Thanks for your input. Every little bit adds to our body of knowledge on Y2K. Do you have any knowledge of embedded chip remediation progress on the coal, oil fired, and hydro plants?

Bill Watt

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999


The problem with the nuclear risk is the magnitude, or at least the perceived magnitude. Nuclear plants that fail have the potential to be very bad neighbors. Oil/Gas/Coal plants just become dark buildings. The irony of this is that I am pro-nuke and have been for a long time. Coal stacks emit more radiation that nukes do. Even though the Jane Fonda public thinks that nukes can blow, they are very safe. If we could spend as much money on nuke R&D as we spend proving that we follow government guildines, Y2K would have NO ZERO ZILCH affect on the nukes. Alas, the very technology that could have saved the day could very well be its undoing ... thanks to hyperregulation!

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

There is going to be a terrific battle between the greenies and the NRC. The greenies have it in their power to wipe us Easterners out, if they are not defeated.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999


having just awakened, this response to the previous post regarding the 'greenies' wiping us out is more of a visceral than intellectual excercise.

i was 10 miles away when TMI experienced world wide attention and i remember the incident quite vividly. i remember herbert dennenberg from the nrc standing in front of tv cameras in a state of obvious concern apprising us of the situation.

i remember the advice that women and children leave the immediate area, i remember being told to consider relocation, i remember the inability of anyone at the plant to determine how to solve the problem, and i remember the 'bubble' that just disappeared.

there was no y2k, there were no problems with other facilities, there was just the 'operator error' or a careless response to an event.

this problem, that was totally beyond 'anyone's control,' had the ability to decimate an area that included the state capitol, the susquehanna river, thousands of acres of farmland, and hundreds of thousands of people.

i live here. i know about the mutations of insects, animals, birth defects, spontaneous miscarrages.

there was no spin, there were no canned responses, this situation was unprecedented, dennenberg was not a sophisticated spin doctor, he was perceived as a good man in an untenable position trying to do the right thing-explain a very complex incident to the public and concern was heard in his voice and written on his face.

the 'bubble' disappeared, no one knows why, no one lied to us while it was happening-they were too scared themselves... the spin came later, the spontaneous abortions came later, the mutations came later, and the lawsuits won by the 'industry' came later.

you cannot understand this issue unless you lived through it.

an out of control nuke is a very dangerous thing to experience...

think twice before making comments about the 'greenies' wiping us out, the havoc they wreak is nothing compared to a meltdown.

nuclear may be a clean and inexpensive way to generate electricity but in many instances it is 'human error' that places us in jeopardy and 'thinking on your feet' in a y2k situation , with no room for error on the part of the operators is not a risk i'm willing to take.

nor should you.

as much as i fear and loathe the consequences of a y2k teotwawki situation...i fear the nuclear plants continued operation thoughout this crisis much, much more.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999


Nuclear power plants are my greatest y2k concern also. I live near both a coal fired and a nuclear power plant. One can plan on loss of electricity and try to compensate with generators, solar power, etc., but a TMI incident in the midst of a widespread y2k crisis, well that's a very sobering thought. Even if the plants are shut down and properily cooled down, they still need to be maintained. What if y2k turns out to be worse than anticapted?

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Three Mile Island occurred when everything else was functioning just fine. The word was spread by radio and telephone, television and radio warned the population in the affected area, traffic lights and gas stations were all in working order.

A comparable incident at a time when power is out, the phones don't work, traffic signals are dead, and gas punps won't pump, would be an elephant of another color. For openers, it would be hard to give any warnings.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ