To Whom it may concern:

Several people on this forum work for the Nuclear Power Industry and become very concerned when anyone says anything distressing about nukes and y2k. Out of consideration for these parties, I will refrain from naming them. Some of these gentleman share information which is objective and provable. Unfortunately, several post statements which are wrong to the core. These wild comments, which have no basis in reality, occur either because these people are in denial about the imminent possibility of losing their jobs and having no where to go with their obscure computer science degrees, or they are simply afraid of losing their jobs, and NOT in denial. Either way, one must not be deluded by their irrational denial of reality.

Thank you, George

-- George W. McDanielson (truth@freeusa.com), March 08, 1999

Answers

Joe McCarthy is alive and well on Ed Yourdon's forum. "I have a list!"

You wouldn't mind sharing with us yokels precisely which "Unfortunately, several post statements which are wrong to the core. These wild comments, which have no basis in reality," are true and which are false?

It serves no educational purpose to state that some of the previous items are false and some are true, without denoting which is which. After all, the entire purpose of this forum is education. Now whether it is being used for that purpose is another question all together.

As to "outing" who works in the nuclear power industry, or as you phrase it the Nuclear Power Industry, don't you think that the level of melodrama is getting a bit thick enough? What possilbe harm could come of stating that a person works in that industry?

"I have a list!"

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 08, 1999.

Joe McCarthy is alive and well on Ed Yourdon's forum. "I have a list!"

Never-the-less Joe McCarthy was right on target!

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), March 08, 1999.

Ditto re: McCarthy, Mark. Notice how Ken fails to respond to the message, but instead attacks the messenger, EXACTLY as the communists in the government did to Sen. McCarthy.

Interesting.

-- e (a@,.,), March 08, 1999.

If this thread is going to be about the nuclear power industry, then I'd like to enter this article from January 12, 1999 into the official record:

http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/124358.html

[For educational purposes only]

Nuclear Power Plants Still Assessing Y2K Problems

12 Jan 1999, 2:43 PM CST

By Robert MacMillan, Newsbytes.

WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A.,

After releasing a report on the state of the electricity industry's preparations for the Year 2000 problem (see related Newsbytes article earlier Tuesday), the North American Electricity Reliability Council (NERC) is backing up the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) claims that the nuclear power plants of the US are by and large ready to cope with the Year 2000 bug.

However, an NEI statement said the "majority of America's 103 nuclear power plants" still have not finished the assessment stage to determine which of their computer systems will be affected by the Year 2000 problem.

Specifically, NEI said most of the plants "have nearly completed the detailed assessments needed to pinpoint computer systems that might be affected by Y2K issues."

"Plants that have not completed this work have been asked to increase their efforts so that the industry can report on the Y2K status of all plants to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the agency's July 1, 1999, deadline," the NEI statement said.

NERC said the nuclear industry has found that only 10 percent of the plant safety and operating systems that have been analyzed so far need to be "remeditated." In addition, NERC said that nuclear plants that have started working on Year 2000 compliance have fixed more than 30 percent of the necessary replacements.

Safety systems apparently are ready for the date change, however.

The NEI is the lobbying arm of the nuclear power plant industry.

Supporting the NEI statement on nuclear power readiness to cope with the date problem, NERC said, "No (nuclear) facility has found a Y2K problem that would have prevented safety systems from shutting down a plant if conditions required after the turn of the century. Thus, Y2K problems in nuclear facilities do not represent a public health or safety issue."

NEI Director of Operations Jim Davis said in a statement that "Progress over the past six months indicates that nuclear plants are on track to achieve Y2K readiness." He added that nuclear plant safety systems do not rely on date clocks to function.

"All nuclear generation facilities are following a standard industry program to achieve Year 2000 readiness," Davis said. "The nuclear industry established an ambitious goal for readiness that goes well beyond the systems needed for plant operation or to meet regulatory requirements."

Reported by Newsbytes News Network, http://www.newsbytes.com .

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

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 08, 1999.

"I have a list!"

Of who's naughty and nice!

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 08, 1999.

Whether George posts anything beyond what he already knows, the nuclear industry will take it's course. For me, it really doesn't matter what "news" the NRC, NPI, etc releases to the media. It's all a brainwashing game to manipulate our thought process to go in different directions. We wouldn't be here disucssing this if we had the facts. If you think about it objectively, why would any nuclear regulatory agency or power company release any damaging information regarding their Y2K remediation? Public panic and withdrawal of company stock is clearly the reason why...just follow the money trail.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), March 08, 1999.

"Notice how Ken fails to respond to the message, but instead attacks the messenger, EXACTLY as the communists in the government did to Sen. McCarthy."

What message? Or which messages? I would like G.W.McD. to state which statements about nuclear power are false and which are true. If that request is percieved as "an attack", would you do me the favor of telling me how that can be restated so that asking for clarification is not percieved as being "an attack". I would be interested in knowing who these infiltrators are that he refers to, though that really isn't totally needed.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 08, 1999.

George,

You said, "Unfortunately, several post statements which are wrong to the core. These wild comments, which have no basis in reality, occur either because these people are in denial about the imminent possibility of losing their jobs and having no where to go with their obscure computer science degrees, or they are simply afraid of losing their jobs, and NOT in denial. Either way, one must not be deluded by their irrational denial of reality."

Ahhh, since you obviously know which statements are wrong and have no basis in reality, why don't you post the facts and demonstrate your expertise. Put up or shut up!

Personally, I greatly appreciate the expertise that Robert, Ken and other experts contribute here!! It far outweighs the fearful ramblings of the ignorant and inexperienced.

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), March 08, 1999.

Ken, the point is that nobody in their right mind would believe ANYTHING the nuclear power industry says. If it was noon on a clear day, and they told me the sun was shining, I'd look up to make sure.

Nuclear power is a dinosaur, a legacy (and a lasting one, isn't it - just where ARE we going to keep those spent fuel rods safe for the next 100,000 years, hmmm?)from a dying technocracy whose aim is to consolidate as much power in as few hands as possible. As someone else posted, it's also a dangerous and stupid way to boil water.

As far as the George naming names, maybe he knmows what happened to Karen Silkwood, and wishes to remain plutonium-free.

-- e (a@,.,), March 08, 1999.

Please note that the only reason that I am continuing is that I think this is a fabulous demonstration of known risks versus perceived risks.

"Nuclear power is a dinosaur, a legacy (and a lasting one, isn't it - just where ARE we going to keep those spent fuel rods safe for the next 100,000 years, hmmm?)" Okay, how do you suggest we boil water? Coal? Can't do that - too much radioactivity in the fly ash - much more curies/megawatt than nuclear plants. How about photoelectric? Nope, too many permanantly toxic by products from cell fabrication. We could always try to kill some birds with those big windmills, if we can get tax credits for them.

Q: Given two radiation sources, both with identical curies over say 100,000,000 years, which is more hazardous the one with a 5 year half life or one with a 100,000 year half life?

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 08, 1999.

George could find a computer where no way in hell he could be traced, and spill his guts. But then again, how could you prove what he is saying is true and accurate? We rely on each other on this BB for honesty and integrity, and when it comes to government facts, there's no way you are going to confirm it. Even if you posted something from the news media, how accurate and truthful is that? I am planning accordingly and any "information" coming forth from George is not going to alter my plans. I am in for the long haul, I'm in line and I'm taking a chance....what do I have to lose?.....Bardou

-- bardou (Bardou@baloney.com), March 08, 1999.

Wow - we're being infiltrated!

Way Cool.

By who? I'd like any information they've got, as fast as they've got it - damn I'm misspellin' as fast as I can - and the other guys spreading hate and fear and lies about stuff they don't know anything about are typing faster.....

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

Speaking of which - I'd love to address the message, but there isn't one here. No messenger either.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

My Ph.D is in Nuclear Engineering and I am proud of it. I've been a GI for over a year, and have been active in getting our neighborhood prepared. I live in a passive solar, superinsulated house, with solar hot water, water harvesting into a pond, and 2 KW of photovoltaics.

Nuclear Power and hydro may be the only power sources in the US after coal goes down the tubes due to a lack of diesal to fuel the trains. Nuclear power, hydro, solar and wind don't pollute the air with acid rain like coal. The folks in the NE United States may be thanking their lucky asses that they have nuclear powe

-- Bob Watson (janebob99@aol.com), March 08, 1999.

They may also be glowing in the dark, Bob. I'd take my chances with aladdin lamps, thank you.

Nuke proponents, answer one simple question - do the unknowns (and the known issues) of Y2K increase the probability of a design basis accident and/or decreased capability of emergency response at any nuclear plant? (Hint: the answer is YES.)

Any other discussion regarding continued operation of these plants absent demonstration of Y2K COMPLIANCE (not readiness) is moot.

'nuff said.

-- Jelly Bean (jelly@belly.com), March 08, 1999.

First, I'm not sure there is a we as opposed to them who is infiltrating some mythical us. But even if there is, so what. It would be more interesting to know what representations are true and which ones are false. . .a probably some basis whereby we might be able to determine that on our own. Anyway, if there are any Nuke spies amongst the mythical us, welcome aboard mates.

Second, with regard to the news report concerning the NEI or NES or whatever the agency is that is responsible for regulating nuclear reactors: If they plan only to be done with the assessment phase of their applications in July of 1999, then they will likely have another year to go before they complete the remediation and testing, nevermind integration testing of their applications. I know this because I have managed 12 Y2K efforts for nearly 24 Million lines of Code during the past three years. So, while they are telling the truth about where they are at, their attitude that everything is as it should be is misplaced. I do not know whether they are living in fantasy land, or whether they want you and I to live in fantasy land. If the news report is accurate, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that their critical systems will be complete on 12/31/99.

-- Mark Lurtsema (lurtsemgm@aol.com), March 08, 1999.

"Nuclear Power and hydro may be the only power sources in the US after coal goes down the tubes due to a lack of diesal to fuel the trains."

Aw come on Bob! Didn't you read Paul Davis's thread on how we were going to run the trains with peanut oil?

And heck--if that doesn't work, there's always rubber bands.

-- a (a@a.a), March 08, 1999.

Wow - we're being infiltrated! I hope so! Since this is a PUBLIC forum, maybe these guys will figure out what the PUBLIC thinks. Maybe they will figure out that the PUBLIC will be real ticked-off if they screw-up. Maybe they will figure out that the PUBLIC is looking for solid answers. I'm sure not going to hold my breath, but MAYBE... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999.

Hi Mr L.

No, the "assessment" phase isn't used by the NRC as it is elsewhere in Y2K remediation. The requirement is fully available elsewhere, I'll summary it inelegantly: by July, every power plant is to report on its completion status and all testing. Most began about two years ago, almost all are 3/4 through testing now. On that date, if any plant is not completely through remediation AND testing, it has to report its exact status of all systems for technical review, its specific schedule, and a "assessment" of what is left to do. (For example, one plant has an outage scheduled in October - it will replace a feedwater system then, based on successful feedwater replacement in a sister plant this month that was successful in remediating a specfic y2K problem. So that is in its "assessment" statement to the NRC.) The plant won't be "ready" in July - but can justify its position, and knows what is left to do.

Any plant that cannot do these steps before July, or doesn't submit adequate plans to the NRC for what they consider timely repairs and testing for any systems "leftover" past the July date - will be shutdown.

The nuclear industrial groups are cooperating to share information and reports among themselves - since most pants are relatively similar, and many share the same vendors but have only slightly different control settings, remediation is much simplified.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

Simple answer to my previous simple question, if you will, Robert - if you can answer it, we can all move on.

-- Jelly Bean (jelly@belly.com), March 08, 1999.

But you answered your own question - and clearly indicated you weren't interested in an actual reply based on actual engineering, design, or testing experience, so ......

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

Jelly Bean - sorta depends on whether you live upwind/stream or downwind/stream, don't it?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 09, 1999.

Robert: A concession on my part, yes, I did answer the question, and I hate when I do that. Now I'll pose the same question to you (without an answer; a simple yes or no on your part will suffice, with no technical or engineering explanation necessary):

In your humble opinion, do the unknowns (and the known issues) of Y2K increase the probability of a design basis accident and/or decreased capability of emergency response at any nuclear plant?

-- Jelly Bean (jelly@belly.com), March 09, 1999.

No - given that the plant is tested and operated per procedures. A nuclear plant is more likely to "get power out to the fences" than anything other than hydro early next year.

After it hits the grid - I'm very skeptical - because the "grid" isn't remediating its systems systematically, isn't testing it systems, is not honestly reporting about what they have repaired, is not subject to audit, is not audting systematically nor is it checking its integrated procedures (top-to-bottom testing), it is not regulated by engineers or technical reviews but by politically appointed and elected "public service commssions" via local electric companies, it is not designed in one package by one group with on-going documentation and technical review but is an ad hoc mess of conflicting old and new mixes of duct tape and baling wire, it is not subject to training or emergency procedures drills routinely, it is not following audtied procedures (form a design checked "book"), it is not subject to fines or civil penalties if irregularities were to be discovered, it is not subject to single point review, it is not subject to state or national design review before service start, it is not subject to periodic or anything but emergency maintenance, it is not staffed and manned by centrally trained workers who are rotuinely required to go through update reviews and testing, it has no formal outside audit or calibration requirements for equipment and uniform test gear, it is not subject to peer reviews (INPO or NEI), and it has never been "drilled" under emergency conditions - only during actual emergencies.

If it weren't for those "minor" things, sure the grid might be useable - might even be reliable - after the nukes and hydro's get it power - but they don't do any of the "minor" technical things that add together to give me confidence in the nuclear plants.

Nor do any of the thermo plants discussed publically.

For example, the single test discussed so far (Apr 9) appears to be a comm. drill only, conducted with the report "written" first to emphasize success. It has never been done before - ever. each company was to write its script first - to assure success, then plan the drill, and then check that it was drilling only systems that have been remediated.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 09, 1999.

Hi Jelly. Next time try asking Robert for a detailed explanation, instead of a simple yes/no answer. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 09, 1999.

"If it's upstream boogie down, if up-'hold on'!"

-- Outlander (godsgold@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

George W. McDanielson,

I missed reading this thread until just now.

>statements which are wrong to the core. These wild comments, which have no basis in reality

Will you please specify at least some of which statements are wrong to the core and which wild comments have no basis in reality?

I see that others have already asked this, but I also see that you have not answered yet.

Come on, George. This is a challenge. Are you qualified to make the statements you made at the top of this thread, or not? If you are, present some evidence. (If you aren't, it would be courteous and courageous of you to apologize.)

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 11, 1999.

NOW AERN'T Y'ALL JEST THOROUGHLY OVERJOYED THAT YO JEST WASTED A HUGE QTY OF EFFING BANDWIDTH ON A SUPERBLY SUCCESSFUL EFFING TROLL???????

THIMK!!!!!!!!

FRUSTRATED

-- EFFING PEOPLE (I@B.M), March 11, 1999.

Hey EFFING, wasting bandwidth is like wasting seawater: plenny to go 'round. Robert Cook certanly makes nuke plants sound better than I've previously heard them described by other experts with other biases, but he's a pretty convincing guy.

My pet peve with nuke plants, besides the waste, is that the building of them seemed to assume that the society in which they're built will last forever...that there will never be any disasters or upheavals that would render them very dangerous. But that is precisely what we face: if not in USA then certainly in many of the other countries that have nukes. The safety of Russian plants, for example, has plummetted since their economic collapse, it is only by the Grace of.....(insert favourite deity here) that they haven't had a chernobyl repeat. The same will be the case as y2k screws the economies and social fabric of all them other countries. Are you feeling confident about Indian nuclear plants? Iranian ones? Lithuanian ones? Bulgarian ones? If we have a serious TEOTWAWKI rather than a mild one then these plants promise us disease and death, even though they probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

-- humpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 12, 1999.

And here's a fun link that shows you where all the (civilian) n-plants are, fwiw.

http://www2.ijs.si/~icjt/npps/nppsgo.html

And oh yeah, infiltration schminfiltration. It's just people with different knowledge and perspectives and biases. Beat 'em with facts if you can.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 12, 1999.