I really hate to be the downer, but I have reading the messages on this site for about 3 weeks now, and I've become perplexed with a few things. First some background- I've been an employee at a nuclear facility for 9 years as system engineer for the turbine/ generator and auxilliary secondary side equipment. If you've worked in a plant, you'll know you learn alot about how the rest of the plant works from interactions with your equipment, training and a general questioning attitude. I recently joined our Y2k effort in December on the embedded side of the house. Now I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I have been around the block and know enough to tell the Representitive from Georgia to keep his trap shut, and that there are NO guarantees. That being said...

I notice there are alot of great questions being thrown around, (Bonnie and marianne) with alot of answers. Most answers are in the ballpark, but not over the plate. My point being, if you want answers, every Nuclear plant has what is called a Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) submitted to the NRC. This is the unit license, and to ensure the UFSAR assumtions are correct about unit conditions, each unit has what is called a Technical Specification Manual (Tech Specs). Both of these documents are public documents, which should be available from the NRC, if requested under the Freedom of Information Act. That SHOULD give you answers to about anything you could ask, except for security, for obvious reasons. All accident scenarios, what is required and for how long, etc...

My other point I would like to share is, don't believe anything you read in public net sites. Everyone has their own angle. Even Mr. Cowles has a book he'd like to sell you. Senators have money to make, funnel into other pockets, and scientists don't get funding if the public isn't scared enough to get the politians to fund it. Even I have a job to protect, and I'm not in the mood to work on 1/1/2000. Just remember, if you don't verify an answer with a fact (and repeating the story over and over doesn't make it fact) your shortchanging yourself.

OK, soapbox is gone. I look forward to reading other opinions on this site, which is why I love a free country.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 1999

Answers

Terry, thanks for checking in.

I feel the need to explain something here once and for all about the book, "Electric Utilities and Y2K", to dispel some misconceptions. I did not write the book to make money, and it's a good thing, because it's cost me a lot more out of my pocket than was ever returned on sales of the book.

The book was put together for two reasons:

1. Back in 1997, when no one was taking this problem seriously, I figured that if industry managers who could make a difference got pointed to this website, they would take euy2k.com with a grain of salt simply because it's "on the internet". But, if someone laid a book on their desk, it would have more impact and credibility.

2. There's a lot of people who don't have access to the internet, and particularly folks who are in an "older" demographic, who again would gain something from a book format, rather than something their kid printed out on the old HP LaserJet.

Guess what? It worked. The book sold a bit more than 2000 copies, and the vast majority of the copies landed in corporate Y2k offices. I know where every one of them went, with the exception of those sold via amazon.com. The comments I recieved from literally *every* person in the electric industry who read the book in 1998 was positive; in fact, one electric company Y2K program manager came back and bought 10 extra copies of the book to distribute within his organization. The people who contributed to the book, including those Y2K program managers from within the electric industry, received no compensation. Again, I spent much more money and time in printing and distributing the book than was ever returned in sales.

(Oh, BTW, the book is officially out of print as of June 1, and I'll be revising the euy2k.com website to reflect that in the next few days.)

Please understand that I'm not trying to defend myself here - I really don't care (I *really* don't) about what the ankle biters of Y2k say about euy2k or myself; the misquoting, mischaracterizing (for character assasination purposes) etc. etc. - the ultimate guage of the worthiness of this site is summed up quite nicely simply by the participation in this forum by folks such as yourself.

I hope you'll consider hanging around and contributing to a better level of understanding of the Y2k issue, particularly in the nuclear end of industry.

Regards,

Rick

-- Anonymous, June 02, 1999

Ok buddy here's the old pitch. I'm gonna throw you a soft one right over the plate. Feel free to knock it out. "Is your facility using vendor statements as proof of compliance?"

Go ahead, I dare ya, knock it out of the park.

Here's another one in case you whiffed on that one. "How much diesel are you storing to run generators in case you need'em to cool the cores?"

Ok, one last pitch and then I'm afraid you're out. "When's the last time the generators were tested and have they ever failed?"

Good luck on Y2K remediation. We're counting on you to get it right. Really. Our lives are in your hands and it doesn't have squat to do with selling books.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 1999

Rick,

I apologize for the implied slam. The point wasn't that you're greedy, but I just want people to understand there's less information out there and more Dis-information, if you're not careful, you get sucked in.

Jim,

Answers, in order-

Of course, just like everyone else, limited resources will lead to that. But integrated testing of items we feel are critical rolls the clock and we watch what happens. Most of the safety stuff is relays and hand switches (contact closures) and hardwired anyway. Remember, the plants were designed in the 60's and 70's.

How much diesel? Don't know yet, but we'll see. If I can cool the reactor enough to pull all the fuel out, stick it in the spent fuel pool, do maintenance in the plant, put the all the fuel back in, then restart the plant in 17-28 days, how much do you think I need? Welcome to an outage. These occur every 18 months.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 1999

Whoops, almost forgot the last question-

The diesels, of which there are generally 2 per unit (not site), only 1 required for safe shut down and cooling of the plant, are tested on a monthly basis. When one fails, you have 72 hours to fix it, and test it, or shut down the unit.

Failure rates- We tested four a month, and I think, can't remember percisely, in my 9 years, we had 3 fail for various reasons, but I think only 1 failed to start.

This information is available to you from the NRC if you would like to look.

Now one for you-

Ever been to a nuke plant? Any idea how one works?

Just asking (and not to be a jerk).

-- Anonymous, June 03, 1999

(Confidential to Terry - I wasn't suggesting that you were one of the ankle biters.)

My response was intended to be generic in nature.

The "profit motive" is usually the first thing that the leigon of internet Y2k pooh-pooher's trot out when questioning the credibility of some of the higher profile Y2k personalities (myself included). I just never addressed the issue before, and this seemed to be as good an opportunity as any to explain at least my own situation and motivations.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 1999

Man, it's getting late. One other thing I meant to address from Terry's original posting. All NRC required documentation for individual nuclear plants is available for public inspection at a public library in a town near the plant site. This includes UFSAR's and Tech Spec's. If you would like to know the location nearest you, you can contact the NRC Public Document Room at:

1-800-397-4209

The information available at the local library responsible for keeping these local files should include any Y2k submittals specific to that plant site.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 1999

Terry, part of the reason for people's concerns comes about when there are reports which indicate a difference between standard operating procedures and what actually transpires. For example, Seabrook Station spokesman David Barr was quoted in an AP story, giving the same reassurance about the power backup:

"Barr said Seabrook tests its two back-up diesel generators, each the size of a school bus, about once a month. He said they have never failed."

However, then we discover from the March 31, 1999 Daily Event Report (DER 35535) to the NRC that one of the two emergency diesel generators at Seabrook was inoperable, possibly since June, 1997, the date of their last refueling outage. The DER also notes that "it is possible that there were times when the A Train EDG was inoperable for maintenance or testing concurrent with the B Train EDG being inoperable."

Since I do believe the monthly tests are performed, as regs require, there has to be a difference between checking to see if the generators turn on and checking to see if they're actually able to provide emergency power to the plants. Otherwise Seabrook wouldn't have had to wait until a refueling outage to discover that the B Train EDG wasn't functional, and admit that it might not have been working for the last 21 months.

Looking at the individual plant books and specs can also have the double-edged consequence of raising concern as well as alleviating it. Most nuclear units do have two (or more) emergency generators, according the the NRC Plant Books, but some only have one, or they have none at all because other AC emergency power arrangements exist. The Oconee plants in South Carolina, for instance, have "N/A" after the plant book diesel generator info section. Upon reading the "See note" reference, you discover that the Oconee units depend on two Keowee Hydro Stations for back-up power:

"Class 1E emergency is supplied by two Keowee Hydro Stations rated at 87,500KVA, which generate at 13.8KV. Upon loss of power from the Oconee generating unit and 230KV switchyard, power is supplied from both Keowee units through two separate and independent routes."

Going straight to the source and reading the NRC daily incident and headquarters reports also can create or alleviate anxiety, depending on an individual's perspective. For instance, during the month of May this year, there were 8 automatic reactor trips and another 9 manual reactor scrams in 15 different plants. This means that about 15% of the 103 operating nuclear plants had an emergency shutdown in one month. (I was careful to distinguish between secondary reports of the same incident and unique incidents.)

On the alleviating-anxiety side, knowing that shutdowns are accomplished safely all the time is calming and encouraging. On the anxiety-creating side, it's disconcerting that emergency shutdowns occur that often, and one wonders about the odds of shutdown problems catching up with the industry.

The same see-saw phenomena applies when reading the incident reports about controlled substances found, alcohol and drug tests failed by employees, or controlled access security failures. A person can be very happy that the nuclear plants are continually working to discover these problems and taking "compensatory measures", but at the same time it doesn't give one a warm feeling that these things occur with regularity.

I agree that any website info needs to be checked out, not swallowed whole at first consumption. However, industry insiders should also realize that the facts to be found within the industry itself will not necessarily defuse concern among those who search them out. It can well be the case that the more facts one knows about the nuclear industry (from the NRC, not the net) the more one is reassured. It can also be the case that those same facts may still scare the britches off of people. It's really not surprising that the added uncertainty about various potential Y2K problems has raised some blood pressure levels.

The guy walking the steel beam 100 stories up does it every working day. He knows the proper precautions and has accepted the risks or he wouldn't be able to do his job. He thinks, "Nothing to it." The person on the ground looking up only thinks, "My God, that's dangerous!"

Well, the danger is there and is real. But one regularly experiences the control of that danger, and one only sees that something bad could happen any minute. Perhaps it will be of value if we realize that each viewpoint can supply something helpful to the other. The person only seeing the danger can help to prevent a critical secondary danger for the insider - that of complacency, which erodes safeguards over time. And the insider can affirm that the danger is under much more control than would appear to anyone just watching.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 1999

Rick, Let me get this straight -- its ok for Terry "to tell the Representitive from Georgia to keep his trap shut" but not okay for me to point out that China is a good place for Terry to live if he wants to silence people. I'll say it again, especially since Terry says he loves a free country: Terry is an arrogant ass.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 1999

Strike Number One......My question on the use of vendor compliance statements...

Terry says: "Of course, just like everyone else, limited resources will lead to that. But integrated testing of items we feel are critical rolls the clock and we watch what happens."

Terry how many of the chips you didn't test are actually compliant. What criteria did you use to determine their importance. This is a poor strategy at best.

Strike number two....My question was how much diesel are you going to stockpile for contingency purposes around Y2K.

Terry wrote: How much diesel? Don't know yet, but we'll see.

Pitch Number 3 Terry scores a single. Thanks for the answer. And thanks for participating in the forum and adding value. Despite my rather cynical sarcastic attitude, I do appreciate your responses and willingness to get specific.

I work in the oil refining business and I'm used to people sniping at my industry. I'm sure you can relate to that. Please remember, I'm certain that there are many like yourself who are conscientious and attentive to detail. I'm equally certain due to the laws of averages that there are a few on the other end of the bell curve.

Thanks again.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 1999