The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article about the Y2K testing at Peach Bottom nuclear power plant. It's at:

http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/99/Mar/09/sj/JNUKE09.htm

Here is an excerpt of the Inquirer's description of what happened:

"Peco had replaced the rod worth minimizer earlier that day because it found it was not ready for Y2K, the programming glitch that may cause some computers to confuse 2000 with 1900. To test the replacement system for Y2K, plant engineers were supposed to connect it to an external clock and set that clock ahead to Jan. 1, 2000. They had done this successfully in a simulator. But in the real control room, instead of using an external clock, a engineer changed the time on a backup monitoring system computer that was off-line at the time."

"The backup computer locked up due to the date change, and the system automatically transferred to the primary, online PMS computer," the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a notice. The engineers re-entered the date command "contrary to procedure," the NRC said, and the primary computer also crashed."

Rick Cowles is also quoted in this article, as well as Peco spokespersons. The entire piece is well worth reading.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 1999

Answers

The Wasington Post says:

"To simulate Jan. 1, the technicians had intended to connect the Rodworth to another computer that would serve as a clock. But instead of connecting the unit to the external clock, a programmer inadvertently reset the date on the backup and primary operations monitoring systems, which are not yet Y2K compliant, said Joseph Clepp, an information systems manager at Peco Energy Co., the Philadelphia-based utility that runs Peach Bottom.

As soon as the date was reset, the screens in the control room went blank."

-- Anonymous, March 09, 1999

A couple things I found interesting. First, they were Y2K testing the Rodworth and NOT the PMS system. It begs the question (Rick?) of what electronics are in the Rodworth. Second, towards the end of the article an official said this was NOT Y2k related. How stupid do they think we are?

-- Anonymous, March 09, 1999

It's interesting that there are slight variations in the various articles reporting on this incident, but that's probably to be expected. The earliest report was the original Event Report made by Peach Bottom while the incident was in progress. This states the date as 02/08/1999 and the time of the event report as 17:00 (EST). I believe it was the Washington Post article which stated, "the problem began just after lunch on Feb. 8, when a group of technicians tested a computer called the "Rodworth Minimizer." It would seem there was a few hours after the test start and before the problems arose.

The 17:00 (5 o'clock P.M) event report has this in the "Event Text":

"--Safety Parameter Display System Inoperable Due To A Failed Computer --

During computer testing, the Unit 2 plant monitoring system failed, rendering the Unit 2 safety parameter display system inoperable. Plant technicians are restoring the failed computer. The licensee will inform the NRC Resident Inspector.

* * * Update at 2213 on 02/08/99 from JIm Rovalchick to Jolliffe * * *

At 2157, the licensee restored the Unit 2 sarety parameter display system to operable status. The licensee informed the NRC Resident Inspector. The NRC operations officer notified R1DO (Laurie Peluso)."

The Event Report also listed the "Emergency Class" of the report as:

10 CFR Section: AARC 50.72 (b) (1) (v)

For anyone interested, this is the description of that section:

'50.72(b)(1)(v)

Licensees shall report: "Any event that results in a major loss of emergency assessment capability, offsite response capability, or communications capability (e.g., significant portion of control room indication, Emergency Notification System, or offsite notification system)."

"This reporting requirement pertains to events that would impair a licensee's ability to deal with an accident or emergency. Notifying the NRC of these events may permit the NRC to take some compensating measures and to more completely assess the consequences of such a loss should it occur during an accident or emergency."

-- Anonymous, March 09, 1999