"Are we finding anything that would affect our ability to shut down a plant safely? No," responded [Ralph] Beedle [SVP]. "Are we finding anything that would affect power continuity? Yes."

"Safety is not the issue at this point," [Jim] Davis [DOO] added. "Everything we are addressing has to do with power continuity."

Nuclear plants race to meet Y2K deadline

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

Answers

There are various levels of confidence you can place in the accuracy of any news report. Drew might help out here philosophically. IMO, hearing and seeing a speaker yields the most truth, then reading a full transcript of the comments - here you miss facial expressions and body language.

Then reading as reported in media, further removed from full truth due to any (intended or unintended) bias of the reporter, limited time and space, and necessity to focus on the sensational aspects to please the audience and gain market share. Listen to a political speech on CSPAN and then read the news articles, or look at Woodward's book and see what was know about Clinton vs. what was reported. Second hand, filtered information.

Then you have third hand reports from acquaintences who read news articles and pass them on by word of mouth. Story changes greatly each time it gets passed on. Least reliable.

Then you have those who cut selected information and reassemble out of context to intentionally rape the truth. This is sheer evil, especially when honest folks are struggling to decide what is best for their families, they need truth.

Now, look at the imposing message portrayed by this thread, all with seemingly credible information. A reasonable person could infer that nuclear stations will be tripping off line and triggering a cascading outage of huge proportions.

Now read the information not provided:

.."work not expected to be completed by July 1 could have an impact on power generation, but not on safety."

NOW THE MISSING PART: "And, it adds, all those problems will be fixed well before Jan. 1, 2000."

SOME MORE: "Safety is our number one consideration," Davis said, "and we're satisfied we can shut down any plant safely if necessary." Having taken care of the safety issue, he added, "the broader issue is our continued ability to generate power, and we've spent more time on this." In other words, having finished safety issues, they are now going further and addressing reliability of generation.

NEXT: > Davis explained that the July 1 reports will cover the Y2K- readiness of "critical systems -- those needed for safety and power generation -- as well as important systems which, while not critical, impact the facility as a whole." Payroll systems, for example, are very important for business continuity but do not have a direct impact on safety or power generation. > In other words, critical AND important systems (including business systems) will be addressed.

AND REGARDING PROGRESS AND FINAL PROGNOSIS: >In March 1999, NEI had identified 62 "open items" at 20 facilities. He wouldn't speculate on how many of those are now remediated, but did give some examples of the kinds of problems still to be fixed.

"Four plants have had problems with feedwater regulation," Davis said. "This is not critical," he explained, but you have to close down the plant for five days to fix the problem, "and it's appropriate to do this in the fall rather than during the peak summer season. Also, in each case the facility has experience doing this. Three of the four have already scheduled their maintenance outage." >

In other words, some items (less than 62 total) may not be remediated until the cool weather of the fall. ALL systems, critical and important will be remediated by winter, after the fall outage cycles.

This is not new, it is not scary, it is EXACTLY what has been reported by NERC and here on this forum many times. Always seek as close to the primary source as possible (Bonnie is the model of this).

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

Now read the information not provided....

That's why I included the link, thank you very much.

Aren't you the fellow who repeatedly asserts that nobody has ever at any time found anything that in any way would fail because of Y2K in any way that would affect power production?

Aren't you?

Why are they even mentioning "power continuity" then? Why? Explain it to me.

Don't you see the ENORMOUS CONTRADICTIONS between what YOU TELL US IN THIS FORUM and WHAT NRC AND NEI TELL US THROUGH OTHER MEANS?

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

If you aren't, please accept my apologies.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

Sir,

Drive to a nuclear station near you. Look at the concrete domes, towers, and big buildings. This is where we MAKE electricity, this is what we call GENERATION.

Now, look at the big wires coming out of the station. Follow these to the big fenced in area with funny looking boxes, and steel structure with the big wires connected to it. Follow the wires out of the substation and go home. See the smaller overhead wires? No? Then look for a big box in your yard or a neighbors yard. The box will be making a soft humming noise. There are wires that are connected (eventually)to the big wires you saw coming out of the fenced substation. This box in the yard also has little wires that go into your house. Now go in your house and look at the plug going from your computer into the wall socket. This is the T&D system. T&D stands for Transmission and Distribution. We call it this because this system Transmits the electricity (from the building next to the concrete stacks where the electricity is Generated) to all the places where people need the electricity. This system then Distributes the electricity to all the houses where the people who need the electricity live.

I work for a big company that generates and distributes electricity to lots of people in several states. I work for the part of the company that Transmits & Distributes the electricity. The NRC works with my friends who work for the part of the company that Generate electricity in the building next to the concrete stacks. My friends have found devices that must be fixed before Y2K comes. Some of the things my friend found would hurt the Generation of electricity if they are not fixed before January 1. They are fixing them. My friends are supposed to be done by July 1st, but some of the buildings where the electricity is Generated will be very busy making electricity for people's air conditioners, so they won't have time to fix the Y2K items. In the fall, when the leaves turn colors, people will turn their air conditioners off and my friends will have time to fix the bad Y2K items.

I have been working on some devices that protect the Transmission and Distribution system. Sometimes we call this T&D for short. I haven't found anything that I must fix before January 1st. Some things must be fixed, and have been fixed. I try to fix the important things first. These are done. Some things need fixed but are not important so I am fixing these when it costs my company the least amount of money. Some of these things are so little that I can even wait until after Year 2000.

Hope this helps.

(Apologies to all others, but this one had it coming. Try to read entire posts. If you are new, then use the search engine and look up all my past posts as well as Bonnie,Dan, Engineer, Factfinder, Menlo, Art,A.J. and you will learn a lot and look less the idiot.)

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

The statement is accurate but does not mean we don't care about safety. It means that we are confident that safety will be maintained. We are now making efforts to provide grid stability by being sure their are no nuclear plant interuptions.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

At least we now know that we may safely freeze to death.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

Stand alone ad hominem attacks are not tolerated in this forum, and will be immediately removed.

Challenge the idea, not the person.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

.."work not expected to be completed by July 1 could have an impact on power generation, but not on safety."

Speaking of ideas, does anyone remember the Peachbottom Nuke problem? Has anyone read Markey's letters on diesel generation for cooling? Has anyone considered that the NRC is going to allow discretionary enforcement and somehow maintain that it will not affect safety? How is that possible?

I told a friend of mine about the NRC discretionary developement recently. He is a chemical engineer who's worked previously in some pretty scary places in big refineries. His comment was this: "Don't worry about this developement, because it has no teeth." he continued "Do you think for a second that anyone sitting in a plant with a real safety concern is gonna allow some goober (his words not mine) with the NRC to make a call on his situation from some control center which he may or may not be able to reach at all? No. He's not."

That resonated common sense for me. Given the insanity we are witnessing here and the gamble being taken, it was a piece of information I thought I could trust. The idea of compromising nuclear safety for any reason is exceeding dangerous. The procedures are there for a reason. I maintain that shortcuts can and do kill people every day.

As one of my favorite authors Richard Marcinko, Navy Seal Team Leader extrordinaire says "Verily, if thou hurteth in thy efforts and thou suffer painful dings, then thou art DOING IT RIGHT".

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

We see now that Rick Cowles is a welcome model of alacrity and brevity:

I'm not defending CL's position. That's up to CL. But CL is talking about power transmission and distribution. You're talking about power generating facilities (nuclear, in particular). These are two completely separate and distinct segments of a power delivery system. The NRC's comments, in this case, are not applicable to the T&D world. (Why are those in the trenches saying "all is well")

To which I was quite happy to reply: "Thanks, Rick. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. If that's what I've done...."

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999

CL has written on this site ...

>>1. No mission critical Y2K devices failed in a manner that would in >>any way jeopardize power transmission and distribution. These >>results I have in my posession and have seen and heard from >>countless utilities that have independently tested with the same >>results. 2. We can operate the system manually. We do it to a large >>extent now, as so ably noted by Dan, Engineer etc. We have drilled >>operating with a failure of an external provider (telecom) that >>would defeat SCADA. The drill proved that this can be done. We are >>ready to operate this way. Name the system that will failed (based >>on testing) to cause us have to operate this way. Describe the >>sequence of events that will lead to you cranking your high dollar >>toys. This challenge has been put forth before. Describe your >>scenario and name the faulty devices and their failure modes. ...

Question CL, Does the NEI statement that they have found failure methods that could disrupt generation constitute a refutation of your statements here, or is the NEI on some hidden doomer agenda to scare us all and sell books?

Scott

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999

Scott.... Duck! :-)

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999

Scott,

If you read carefully each post in this thread you will find the answer. It was asked once on June 16 by Lane Core and answered the same day by Rick Cowles (there is a link provided above in this thread). It was asked again on June 17th by Lane Core, and a much simplier, easier to understand answer (albeit longer) than the one Rick provided is again above in this thread.

If you are new, there is a means to search archived threads using a search engine. You can use it to get a historical record of anyone's posts. It's a good way to come up to speed quickly.

Hope this meets your needs.

PS: For all participants,

Humans aren't objectively evil, they just have the awesome power of a free will to choose to do evil things.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999

Scott,

In the interest of alacrity and brevity the specific answers are NO, and NO.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999

CL,

Actually been around these boards for a long time and am quite how to review the thread. This is the first post to euy2k (participate on other forums under different handles) but I am not a "newbie." The questions were more rhetorical in nature as the latter part of your referenced post asked for someone to give you a failure mechanism since you seem to believe none exists. As far as I am concerned the NEI statement is an admission such failure mechanisms do exist despite your protests to the contrary. You can argue the semantics of your statements (T&D vs generation, etc) but the fact remains you are part of a "system", and that system has defined y2k vulnerabilities despite your attempts to paint a picture to the contrary.

Scott

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999

Scott,

Sorry, I could not discern from your post your experience. I meant no insult to your experience  honest mistake.

I take it your real question is Y2K real, or can utilities ignore it? The answer, to paraphrase NERC, is YES  Y2K is real. All utilities better test. All utilities better be prepared to remediate. AND THEY HAVE.

As to what you allege is semantics, or the study of word meanings  there is no confusion or interpretation problem between T&D system and Generation. This is no way related to the semantics of IS. They are distinct entities and I have always tried to make the distinction clear. Matter of fact, Bonnie lambasted me in one of my early appearances here precisely BECAUSE in her view I was attempting to extrapolate my experience in T&D with one company to project global, cross industry compliance.

Facts, and opinions/conclusions derived from them can be stated with varying degrees of certainty. I am certain of the things I tested and state my unequivocal opinion that my company will experience no Y2K failures that will in anyway degrade the operation of the T&D system.

My company generation plants (nuke and fossil) will not have any unit trips due to Y2K device failures. I have this second hand, so there is less confidence (if you want something done right do it yourself), but still very, very high. These folks are extremely competent, the best in the business (apologies to FF, Engineer, Menlo and others) and they have the same level of upper management scrutiny as I do. They have reported no exceptions, and will be fully remediated by the fall outage sequences. They did upgrade the various plants DCSs systems to achieve system wide uniformity in version. This decision was made early on, and I dont know if they found potential critical failures, if it was just a strategic proactive decision, or if they saw our upper management emphasis on Y2K as a budgetary manna from heaven opportunity to get the latest and greatest.

With only a very slightly lesser degree of certainty, I opine that NO problems with the T&D systems in this country exist because I network with other utilities via EPRI and NERC who use common equipment and are testing with the same vigor I have. They are intelligent, diligent, and have corroborated my test results independently. Some may have written some SCADA application codes that might need looked at, but for the most part this was a paper tiger.

With a somewhat larger incremental uncertainty, I believe that the nationwide generation units will not have any problems. I have heard EPRI presentations on testing progress and still seen nothing to indicate any utilities that will not remediate the problems, Some utilities found NO problems in their DCS code (someone perhaps FF, stated on this forum that they tested their DCS and found none?) Many plants have been rolled over and are now operating in Year 2000. Unit tests have even included chip level analysis during unit rollovers.

So, with a total lack of brevity, that is why I speak first and foremost on T&D. There are generation people who post here, and Im sure that as time permits they will add even more. (Or you could use your experience and skill to do some searching of the archives for generation and see what has already been deposited here).

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999