RE: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/COMS/com1998-036/y2kcplan.html

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

RE: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/COMS/com1998-036/y2kcplan.html

To re-state & simplify (my) Questions regarding the above document:

1) How problematic is the GPS rollover on Aug. 22?

2) Are the NRC & other bodies concerned about (the Utilities & Nukes) being dependant upon guarantees from the telecommunications industry, that: the power plants will *not* be operationally threatoned??

3) If so - Will the telecommunications industry be able to make those guarantees???

I'm confused. Documents like the above - are intellectually challenging for a layperson - such as myself. Can anyone please translate this document & explain that it is really not as bad as it sounds?



-- Anonymous, February 10, 1999

Answers

I don't have an answer to your question, but I did notice something interesting in the report. I heard a couple of weeks ago that nuclear power plants don't have a problem because safety systems are analog (not computerized). This report says it much more understandable way:
"Safety-related instrumentation and control systems that perform safety function actuations do not present a Y2K issue because, in the vast majority of NPPs, these systems are analog hardwired and therefore do not rely on software that may be subject to the Y2K issue. In those few cases in which such systems are computer based, the software does not have date-driven functions that may be affected by the Y2K issue. However, there remains some risk that plants could still be subject to a Y2K-induced event that has an effect on facility operations. Examples of such internal facility risks at NPPs are computer-based control systems for feedwater control, turbine control, and generator voltage regulator control; plant process computer; control rod position information system; security computer system; and area radiation monitoring systems."

I assume that it is important that these other risks be mitigated in order to keep NPP's running. At this point I am assuming that some if not all of these systems are mission-critical to the delivery of power from a nuclear power plant. My assumptions are based on the idea that we need the turbine (this is where the power is generated I assume) and radiation monitoring systems (which I assume would tell us if radiation levels were too high or low) and water (which I believe keeps the plant cool), and so on.

I would like to know if my assumptions are incorrect.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 1999


Diane,

(1) The GPS rollover for the electric utility industry is no longer regarded as a major problem by either Rick Cowles, Dick Mills, or Jim Lord. A search for "GPS" on this site will provide much information and other links in that regard. The basic concensus is that the utilities are aware of the GPS problem and have already, or will be, ensuring their ground based receivers are operable.

(2) *Everyone* is concerned about the reliability of the telecommunications companies, including the electric utilities. The NERC drill in April is practice for handling possible telecom outages. From the URL you gave: "The PSN (Public Switched Network) is so vast and complex that it is impractical to perform a rigorous quantitative reliability analysis. Despite the fact that recent studies conclude that the probability of a widespread outage is low, there have been two widespread outages within the last year caused by network signaling software problems. Both of these outages were attributed to a company that provides network signaling capability to small telephone companies."

(3) NO industry, business, or government agency is making "guarantees" that they won't experience Year 2000 problems. There are no guarantees, period. There is "confidence" that some areas have been or will be remediated, and there are drills and contingency plans which can be put in place to help deal with possible failures, but that's it. The contingency plan document sounds bad because by it's very nature a contingency plan addresses possible negative scenarios. This does not mean that all of these scenarios will come to pass -- just that there is a possibility for these disruptions. Individuals who have bought a generator or wood stove, etc., have enacted "contingency plans". There's no guarantee they'll be needed, and there's no guarantee they won't be needed. There are only possibilities. NERC is making contingency plans in the same way.

Troy, I'd say your assumptions are correct. No Year 2000 problems involving a safe facility shutdown does *not* equal no Y2K problems which might impact the power generation, or other systems necessary for running a nuclear facility.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ