Marianne: A while back I requested that you stop posting about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, because they have very little to do with Y2k. I see that you have not heeded my request. Your most recent post links to the NIRS. When I went to their main web site, in their purpose statement is the phrase "...to help create a nuclear free future." This organization will stop at nothing less than the complete shut down of all nuclear plants. I see that Billy Joel and his ex-wife Christie Brinkley made the news protesting a nuclear plant in New York. Is that going to be the next post?

The recent NRC statement about the readiness of nukes contains a very powerful statement: "...there are no Y2k related problems which directly affect the performance of safety systems."

The NRC statement clearly negates any direct link between Y2k and nuclear plant safety. To me, then, all this discussion about potassium iodide and TMI and Chernobyl is irrelevant to Y2k.

So I again make the request: Please stop discussing nuclear meltdowns and similar items, because they have little if nothing to do with Y2k. This is not a personal attack, just a request to stop posting these items.

Now, if you can demonstrate a direct link between the two, then it is an item to discuss. Do you have information as to the lack of Y2k readiness that would lead to a meltdown? If so, what is it?

Thank you.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 1999

Answers

Dan,

You just don't get it. I don't believe you. I don't believe John Koskinen and I certainly don't believe Nerc or the NRC for that matter. Yes I think a lot of people are full of crap. I think some are absolutely lying to preserve national security. You're quite naive if you think they're not.

It has everything to do with Y2K. You don't know how it's going to turn out do you? If so tell us so that we can all calm down a little. If you're so gung ho about TMI why don't you go there and spend New Years all cozied up to the cooling tower?

-- Anonymous, July 12, 1999

"Your most recent post links to the NIRS. When I went to their main web site, in their purpose statement is the phrase "...to help create anuclear free future." This organization will stop at nothing less than the complete shut down of all nuclear plants."

Excellent point. Good to know when reading the NIRS statement.

"Do you have information as to the lack of Y2k readiness that would lead to a meltdown? If so, what is it?"

Rediculous question. Obviously, the late start in remediation discussed ad nauseum *could* (not would) lead to meltdown.

By the way, don't you worry about other countries that have started very late in the game? If you feel the likelihood of meltdown is negligable in the USA, that in itself doesn't mean it has nothing to do with Y2k. There are people from other countries following this forum with interest.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 1999

I have noticed lately that some persons (I'm not talking about any of the regular posters to the forum) have seemed to take up the possibility of Y2K safety failures as a pretext for, first, shutting down the nukes and, then, keeping them shut down. For, if there is some cause for concern to shut them down before/upon rollover, they can argue that the same concerns exist perpetually and we can't take the chance. That strategy is disingenuous.

Dan, your post has three big chinks in it WRT to those who have concerns about the nukes apart from a political agenda: it has "directly" once and "direct" twice. Their concerns are about "indirect" affects as well as direct. Even if they granted that there are no "direct" effects, they would still worry about what indirect effects might arise.

You probably won't like me bringing this up :-) but I doubt that anybody would have argued that a database failure in SCADA could incinerate two young boys in Bellingham, Washington; but when the SCADA was rendered less than optimal because of that, at precisely the time when corrosion caused a breach in a 16-inch pipeline that spilled 277,000 gallons of gasoline into a creekbed alongside which the boys were playing with a butane lighter... well, I think I've made the point.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 1999

are you now or have you ever been a member of an anti-y2k nuclear philosophy party?

oh, no mr. mccarthy... i'm a good american. i am not working against the good of the common weal. i am just greatly concerned that the failure of one nuclear plant to remain stable during the rollover will endanger the earth, the air, the water, the lives and property of our citizens.

why do you consistently or occasionally refer to tmi and chernobyl in your posts to the euy2k forum?

i am so sorry mr. mccarthy... i had no idea that it was antiamerican, could you please explain to me why this would be so? why is it so upsetting that i mention the precedents for a nuclear catastrophe? what have i done wrong?

a great philosopher once stated:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- Philosopher George Santayana

i have always taken this to mean it is necessary to study probable scenarios by taking note of similar events that have preceded this moment in time.

why do you feel it necessary to mention the achilles heal of the power industry and incessantly harp on the worst possible case scenarios? why must you constantly whine about safety issues? you know nothing of nuclear plants... you are not an engineer.

i meant no harm mr. mccarthy... i am greatly concerned. the nrc has consistently stated over the years that the electrical grid must remain stable for the safe operation of the nuclear plants and now they have reversed their position and are saying the opposite is true.

other informed specialists have commented on this also.

The NRC considers nuclear plant contribution to grid stability more important than Y2k readiness or compliance. It's strange to me how the NRC can have this mindset, when they have quite a few studies (www.nrc.gov)that express concern about operating nuclear plants in the presence of potential grid instabilities.

i feel danger from outside and inside the nuclear industry itself... the telecommunications industry, the instability of the grid, the need to resort to manual which is always rife with the possibility of human error... after all mr. mcarthy... we are only human after all is said and done.

why have you brought up the nirs?

i am so sorry mr. mccarthy... i didn't know that was on your list too.

wait, wait, where are you taking me? what have i done wrong? this is isn't fair... i've done nothing wrong but cared for my fellow man. help!! someone help me. pleeeeaaaaasssssseeeeee

this is still america... isn't it?

-- Anonymous, July 12, 1999

It does seem very odd that Dan the Power Man gets so upset about mention of Three Mile Island. Not the cool, calm, rational response of someone who knows better than to get upset over Y2K.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 1999

There is another way of assessing any postulation of Y2K failures, other than a can't-happen, will-happen debate. Since all people are different and those who are Y2K aware put different levels of probability on types of potential failures, one question I always ask myself is "What can I do about this problem? Are there any effective and reasonable ways of dealing with this information which are to my benefit and within my power to accomplish?" In other words, does having this information help me in some way or just worry me?

In the case of concerns over a nuclear meltdown, what are the options and answers to those questions? At this point in time I think it's quite clear that the nuclear plants (for sure the majority of them) are going to stay online over the rollover. So any further protests or letters to the NRC about shutting them down are a waste of energy. I suppose being on record with a warning would allow an organization to do an "I told you so," if they turn out to be right, but there's no help for the individual there. That leaves the option of hoping we _only_ have a TMI limited release scenario (assuming a crisis just for the intellectual purposes of answering what-to-do questions) and not a Chernobyl or worse. Other than obtaining a supply of KI, the benefit of which is limited, and presumes there will be public awareness of a radiation release before it's already upon you -- and also presumes a radiation release level which is not fatal, the only preventive option is to move to an area a few hundred miles away from any nuclear plant. And then hope the prevailing winds aren't carrying any radiation release your way.

Just getting a good distance temporarily between you and any nuclear plant at the time of the rollover, rather than moving, isn't really a good option because if the plant(s) near where you live do go TMI to Chernobyl, then unless you've taken what you own with you, you still either live as a refugee, go back to some level of irradiated surroundings or you can't ever go back at all.

So it's either stay put and concentrate on whatever things are in your control, or move to where you feel safe and have done with it. Unless I've missed something, there are no other effective ways of dealing with a nuclear accident scenario, Y2K induced or otherwise. All the pro and con arguments do not change these options. An individual must deal with the options as they are, decide which one is right for him or her, and act on that decision. Not making a decision does put the information in a "just worry me" category, since living in a state of fear is debilitating and counter-productive. I consider consistent fear and worry to be a kind of disaster to the spirit and the body, and it's one disaster which _can_ be prevented if we choose to do so.

There's a Mother Goose rhyme that isn't very well known, although I think it should be.

"For every ailment under the sun, there is a remedy, or there is none; If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it."

Bottom line is that with information and awareness comes the responsibility to consider the practical options. Make your decisions, act on them, then let fear and worry go. If I place myself in shackles of fear to no positive purpose, then I rob myself of joy today and make worry my master. I don't want to be a slave to anything - least of all fear of the future.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

Dan The Power Man,

You seem really concerned about Marianne bringing up TMI, however, I asked for some intelligent response on the Ohio tornado and near melt down. You never responded.

Here is the link.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000zx5

It would be appreciated if you would respond to this instead of hopping on Marianne about no nuclear problem.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

Dan,

I must say I am very puzzled by you starting this thread the way you did. It seems to be your wish that there be no further talk about the possible dangers of a Y2k induced loss of control of a nuclear plant. You mention the NRC statement that all safety shut downs systems are compliant, but that says nothing about the secondary issues of trying to run the plant manually and then losing control due to loss of grid power and EDG failures. Anyway, you seem to want to avoid any talk of possible catastrophic failure, and resent the mention of the very embarrassing TMI operator errors, or Chernobyl runaway system.

Rick has made it clear that this is not to be an anti-nuke forum, and I do not see that Marianne's postings are that. Bonnie has postulated that the plants are going to stay up and running, mostly, during the rollover, and I agree with her assessments on that.

So, what are you fretting about? This forum isn't going to cause the NRC or higher government authority to change its mind about this matter. We may still be talking about it here, but we aren't changing anything. I doubt that even the NIRS can change anything at this late date. It seems pretty clear, at least to me, that it's a done deal. Are you just being overly sensitive about any negative discussion, or what? And lastly, I agree with the posting that there are other people, from other countries, who read this forum and who *may* get some ideas that they can pass along to those who have not yet made the hard decisions, regarding keeping the nukes online for the rollover.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

I have been following this forum for years now. On rare occasions I have contributed some info and asked some questions. I follow to get information about Y2k as it relates to the electric industry. I am working on Y2k for a major US firm and am priviledge to alot of inside information about the Utilities. Because of contractual obligations I can not share this information (sorry, wish I could). But I must say that following these postings I have noticed a clear message from marianne that seems to have a greater agenda than just Y2k. And yes it does smack of an anti-nuke agenda, which if that is her belief, is fine. But I do agree that this forum is not the place to push this. If you have clear evidence of electric industry authorities (NERC, NRC, etc.) lying please present that. And I do suggest you do some more research on how these plants are set up and what makes them run, as well as other aspects of the electric industry. It would help if your postings are less reactionary. I also ask that Rick get involved because it seems that this forum is starting to degrade from a true information sharing session and sliding into something less like some of the other forums out there. (By the way marianne, I do not believe we need Nukes to power this country, but I have not used this forum to push that agenda.)

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

ahhhh, yes... let's attack marianne and make this totally unpalatable subject go away.

i don't know if anyone else has noticed but i am not the only one that brings up tmi as an example. it is done in many newspaper articles, wire services. ezines, and by concerned citizens. the same applies to chernobyl.

as for studying the nuclear industry... one does not have to understand the exact underpinnings of the industry in order to perceive the threat of danger.

the ceo of an automobile plant need not understand the engineering principles of the automobile in order to make informed decisions nor does he have to have the ability to go out on the assembly lines and build them. engineers make decisions outside thier particular areas of expertise on a daily basis and this does not negate their ability to make correct and informed choices.

how is this managed?

it is called thinking, assimilating data from disparate and seemingly nonrelated information in order to put together the pieces and see the bigger picture... it is done everyday. the interdependecies of the power industry is an example. telecommunications, oil/coal supplies, transport, non compliant vendors...one does not need an engineering degree to put together the big picture.

now as for my agenda... it is for my family and i to survive this travesty relatively unscathed.

i do not have the energy nor the desire to pursue a campaign to to permanently remove the nukes from operating... that is for others with more drive, zeal, and tenacity than i happen to possess.

do i feel they are a danger... most certainly. do i feel that deregulation makes them less safe than they previously were... definitely. do i feel that y2k exacerbates an already shaky situation ... most assuredly.

i happen to live in close proximity to approximately 6 nuclear plants, these particular plants are not exactly shining examples of the nuclear industry. does that give me an inordinate desire to have them shut downfor the rollover... yes, and that is my only agenda. one thing that truly puzzles me... if what i say is so ludicrous, why does it bother dan the power man so? one would logically assume that my 'ignorance' would place him in good stead. it would be readily seen by all others and would make a better case for the engineers position in the long run.

is it difficult for me to be perceived in this fashion? yes, i am not made of stone. but, i will say this... it will not stop me from voicing my opinion.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

Dan the power man said:

The recent NRC statement about the readiness of nukes contains a very powerful statement: "...there are no Y2k related problems which directly affect the performance of safety systems."

[they also say: "None of the remaining work affects the ability of a plant to shut down safely, if needed."]

Now, if you can demonstrate a direct link between the two, then it is an item to discuss. Do you have information as to the lack of Y2k readiness that would lead to a meltdown? If so, what is it?

Perhaps it is "Station Blackout".

Otherwise could you please explain what type of an accident would cause these casualties:

The Brookhaven National Laboratory, in report released in August 1997 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, estimated an accident at a plant like Calvert Cliffs after being shut down for 3 = years could produce 29 fatalities within a year, 33,200 additional cancer deaths after one year, and cost $186 billion. Link

The NRC is very careful not to claim total compliance (or even readiness).. just that there is nothing that would interfere with *safe shutdown*.

But (assuming they are telling the truth about that) they are implying that once the plant is safely shut down there is no further worry. Clearly the Aug. '97 report from the NRC *suggests* that safe shutdown does not remove all risk.

Since we were told until recently that there were NO Y2K issues at nuclear plants, and now we find out that 1/3 of them don't even EXPECT to be READY until as late as Dec. 15 or 16th, I think discussing past safety issues is more than relevant. If you don't Dan.. just don't read them.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

I would like to backup Marianne just a little bit. For a long time now we have been talking about the "iron triangle." Electricity, Telecoms, Banking. These three things *must* work with only minor disruption at most, or our social system begins to collapse. Anything that could cause a major problem in the electric industry due to the Y2k situation is the basis of this forum. So far, I have seen virtually no admission of negative potentials from the "expert" posters on this site (excluding Rick and Bonnie) and I find it very disconcerting that we do not even have actual names and email addresses for most of them. Hidden people making broad brush industry wide statement are not comforting. I mentioned my own electric utility more than once, Conectiv. As of June 1999 they were reporting that out of 140 systems they had repaired less than 20 of them. And their 10Q reports show they mainly concentrated on the accounting area. So, where can *anyone* make a positive case for Conectiv on this matter? What were the other 120 systems doing that no longer need to be done in order to deliver dependable power? Conectiv doesn't say, nor do any of the expert posters tell us why so many previous systems can now be ignored. When I see things like this it makes me think of the banking sector or the telecom sector, both of which also publish only happy-face reports. For this reason, I believe anyone has the right to question the expert opinions being offered up for public consumption by the electric utilities. Furthermore, the current attitude of the NRC and NERC leaves a lot to be desired. I do not believe we are getting totally accurate and honest information from either of these organizations.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

This is MinnesotaSmith, author of the Y2K website www.y2ksafeminnesota.com, by way of introduction. Some thoughts:

1) There was a power plant a while back that had its in-house engineering staff do what they thought was a very thorough survey on their embedded microprocessors. A team of experts specializing in this sort of thing was later brought in and found TEN TIMES as many embeds as the in-house group did. Doesn't give much confidence when some utility says they have a handle on their Y2K problems, does it?

2) One of the 3 operational commercial nuke plants within 60 miles of Minneapolis, MN is in Monticello, MN. I had a conversation in Spring 1999 with a plant manager of one of the utility's (NSP) other (fossil) plants, who claimed that Monticello was totally electro- mechanical & had no embeds, and that all 3 (!) of their nuke plants would be running on 12/31/1999. Monticello has been mentioned in the news as having had critical replacement (compliant) chips on order for over a YEAR.

3) I am perfectly aware of how nuke plants do not worsen any possible greenhouse-gas problems (I have multiple geology degrees). I am also not ignorant that properly run nuke plants release far less radiation to the environment than do fossil-fuel power plants of the same electrical output. (For those who don't know: Carbon in the subsurface absorbs radionuclides that are mobile in groundwater, primarily Uranium radioactive series decay daughter products).

4) My grandfather was part of the Manhattan Project, and I am proud of what he did.

5) The nuke plants are all going to be COMPLIANT (p*ss on "ready", that doesn't mean anything when talking about safe fission pile operation and every technical person here knows it) the way WJC was never alone with that woman, the Federal budget is balanced, Social Security will be there for the under-40 taxpayers, this is the most ethical administration in U.S. history, etc., etc.

6) I will be a LONG way from any operational nuke plant by end of Nov. (1st possible embed failures?), and will have KI, Geiger, HEPA air filters for dwelling, and deep basement. Hope everyone here does as well.

www.y2ksasfeminnesota.com

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

Oh, I forgot: the nuke plant in Monticello, MN has two emergency diesel generators for backup power to supply the cooling systems during emergencies. BOTH must be working or there is not enough electricity supplied to keep the cooling system going. Oh, dear, didn't the NRC compose a report blasting the poor condition of back- up generators at U./S. Nuke plants? Don't be east of the Mississippi after December.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

This is a most facinating discussion. We have anti-nukes vs clean power. I would like to think that in this day and age we are all aware of the negative consequences that might occur, I repeat, might occur if there is any kind of a problem at a nuclear facility. I have seen nobody deny that point. Yet the campaign to shutdown all plants because of an irrational hind brain fear continues. Maybe we should be telling our elected officials that we want them to fund research in to cold fusion/fission? to help eliminate the problem of the current nuclear waste problem. Why do we as a populace rush to embrace a quick solution to a situation?

I live within 25 miles of a plant in Washington. I do not plan on moving. I am aware of what might/could happen. Life does not come with a gurantee that nothing will go wrong. Passing laws, regulations, etc. does not change this fact. You can live your life in fear of everything or you can live your life by trying to improve what you can. This knee jerk reation that seems so prevalent to any "bad situation" may cause more problems than it fixes.

Yes it would be nice to have clean power, cheap power, etc. In our stumbling way we have used nuclear power to try and provide this. Is it perfect, not yet. But do we chant incantations around a flame to make the "bad" go away or do we seek to deal with the reality of the issue. Nuclear power has a place. Cleaner nuclear power has a place as well. To use the fear factor to influence people and their opinions is disingenious and serves no one in the long term. I for one do not wish to huddle in a cave and fear the dark.

One persons view.....

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

Dan,

The recent NRC statement about the readiness of nukes contains a very powerful statement: "...there are no Y2k related problems which directly affect the performance of safety systems."

So there are Y2K problems which indirectly affect the performance of safety systems. Well, in CA the 4 million gallon sewage spill was an 'indirect' Y2K problem. Isn't that the point almost every GI is trying to make? That problems, even indirect ones, are Y2K problems and we must be prepared for them. Sorry if it upsets you, but when you're talking about nuclear power plants 'indirect' problems with safety systems are enough to make be nervous.

Btw, recall our discussion a few months back about PSE&G? Well guess what? As far as I can tell, they STILL aren't compliant (or even ready) and it IS JULY (they promised they would be Done by July). I even tried calling them but when you select Y2K from their voice menu system it just has someone reading the same material that's up on their website (last updated in APRIL).

What do YOU make of this? How do YOU interpret this?

-TECH32-

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

You wrote: "You can live your life in fear of everything or you can live your life by trying to improve what you can. This knee jerk reation that seems so prevalent to any "bad situation" may cause more problems than it fixes."

I think we can all relate to being scared. While there are some denialists out there who think that perfect remediation of all utilities is possible, I'm not one of them. I do think you can quantifyvthe risk with an estimate. And to tell you the truth, I like Dick Mills' approach which I think put the "possible screw up" rate at about 15% overall (forgive me if I've mis-stated your position Mr. Mills).

We all make mistakes pal. It's not about your hind brain or your fabulous IQ. It's all about 15% in a zero margin game. It's all about that moment when you realize that you've made an irreversable error. A long time ago when I was a young man full of testosterone, I jumped into a rain swollen creek with an innertube headed for a waterfall. Needless to say the rushing brown water washed away my tube and I became trapped in a pressure pool under the water. At that moment I became profoundly aware of my mortality. I was going to die because of a silly mistake. An error in judgment. What these people are trying to say is that they don't want to jump into the water, but the industry is not giving them any options.

This is from a recent warning from the pipeline safety boys, while it's not related to electricity directly, I believe it's a stellar example of how mistakes happen, even with forebrained geniuses like yourself at the helm....

Preliminary review of the SCADA system indicates that the processor load (a measure of computer performance utilization) was at 65 to 70 percent during normal operations. Immediately prior to an upset condition occurring on the pipeline, the SCADA encountered an internal database error. The system attempted to reconcile the problem at the expense of other processing tasks. The database error, coupled with the increased data processing burden of the upset condition, hampered controller operations. In fact, key operator command functions were unable to be processed immediately prior to and during the abnormal operation. It is possible that post installation modifications may have hampered the system's ability to function appropriately.

This could just as easily been written about an electrical utility or even, god forbid a nuclear plant, like Peachbottom? Remember Peachbottom?

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

Sorry if the hind brain statement incited your wrath. I am very far from a genius. I have only a high school education and drive a pickup truck, wear Levis and boots. I am self educated for the most part. Just a mere mortal with a view point on topics and issues. My alegory was simpley one of fearing what we lack information about or experience with. I have no dispute with consequences of failure in the nuclear power plant arena. I furthermore have no wish to shorten my life due to a "mistake" at a power facility.

Having said all of this I still retain the belief that living with fear about what could happen does not help any of us solve the problem. We should be advancing the proposition that we will accept nothing less than the truth and there should be consequnces for not telling it.

just my view...

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

Some questions about MinnesotaSmith's thoughts:

"1) There was a power plant a while back that had its in-house engineering staff do what they thought was a very thorough survey on their embedded microprocessors. A team of experts specializing in this sort of thing was later brought in and found TEN TIMES as many embeds as the in-house group did. Doesn't give much confidence when some utility says they have a handle on their Y2K problems, does it?"

Do you have the details on this? which power plant? And where were the team of experts from?

"2) One of the 3 operational commercial nuke plants within 60 miles of Minneapolis, MN is in Monticello, MN. I had a conversation in Spring 1999 with a plant manager of one of the utility's (NSP) other (fossil) plants, who claimed that Monticello was totally electro- mechanical & had no embeds, and that all 3 (!) of their nuke plants would be running on 12/31/1999. Monticello has been mentioned in the news as having had critical replacement (compliant) chips on order for over a YEAR."

So you were told PRESONALLY that there were NO embeddeds? Hmmm... Hard to get replacement of those chips that they had none of, huh? I see from the NRC list that they now EXPECT to be "ready" Sept. 1st.

"6) I will be a LONG way from any operational nuke plant by end of Nov. (1st possible embed failures?), and will have KI, Geiger, HEPA air filters for dwelling, and deep basement. Hope everyone here does as well."

Why is Nov. 1st a date for embedded chip failure? And are the "ready" dates also a concern (Sept. 1st in your case) because around that time the plant may be switching over to some new system that could have glitches?

"Oh, I forgot: the nuke plant in Monticello, MN has two emergency diesel generators for backup power to supply the cooling systems during emergencies. BOTH must be working or there is not enough electricity supplied to keep the cooling system going."

Do you know about any other plants? Is that usual - that BOTH generators are needed at the same time? And is that to keep just the core cool? Or does it also cover the cooling pools?

Thanks for your input MinnesotaSmith.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 1999

Maybe, Just maybe Dan is so worried over Mariann bringing up TMI because he was there?

Maybe even involved?

Hey ya never know!

He is just a little to touchy on this subject to NOT be involved.

What is Dan The Power Man hiding from us?????

-- Anonymous, July 14, 1999

Linda: That's the end of November (25th of the month or so) that I suspect the first embedded system failures to begin. Re the plant with 90% of embeds the expert team caught being missed by in-house engineering staff: believe I saw this on North's site >1 month ago; if not, then probably on Yourdon's forum. Hope this helps.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- Anonymous, July 14, 1999

A little rational apprehension can maximize (but not guarantee) survival. Don't knock it.

My two boys, ages 4-1/2 and 3 (this was long ago and far away), had been warned by myself and their mother several times not to play near the road (much less on it) which fronted our rented farmhouse. They kept going out there, notwithstanding. I was away during the day, and their infant brother often occupied my wife's attention.

One day their favorite kitten went out with them to the roadside. While they were there the kitten ran out on the road after a grasshopper. A passing car ran over it as they watched.

Thereafter the boys stayed in the farmyard of their own accord.

One doesn't need to live in fear -- but wearing blinders is not a good option.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 1999

"You probably won't like me bringing this up :-) but I doubt that anybody would have argued that a database failure in SCADA could incinerate two young boys in Bellingham, Washington; but when the SCADA was rendered less than optimal because of that, at precisely the time when corrosion caused a breach in a 16-inch pipeline that spilled 277,000 gallons of gasoline into a creekbed alongside which the boys were playing with a butane lighter... well, I think I've made the point.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 12, 1999. " ***********

Geesh Lane, your logic never ceases to amaze me...I thought the cause was the pipeline rupture, not the failure of the SCADA monitoring that MIGHT have aided in identifying the problem earlier....I didn't realize SCADAs were flammable.....

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

Oh, MN Smith you've gotta give us more to go on. Does this nuclear plant REALLY need both diesels to cool the reactor? Are you sure? Thanks for the objective viewpoint and please answer Linda's questions. Enquiring minds want to know more.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

Factfinder,

Regarding the SCADA system, read the reports. The handicapped SCADA system didn't close a valve that should have closed when the pipe ruptured. Instead the valve stayed open and dumped an order of magnitude more gasoline than should have been lost. That extra gas was what incinerated the boys. ... sad story.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

FF, thanks for arrogance: proves my (and Marianne's and Gordon's and Jim's and...) point.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Well hello everyone. The reason I haven't responded to date was because each day several new posts appeared, and I didn't want to stifle the discussion.

First, to Marianne: I want to re-emphasize that this is not a personal attack. I was merely getting frustrated with the number of posts that kept discussing TMI and Chernobyl. Remember, I approach this thing from an engineering standpoint. If an inference is made, I want to know what the link is in that inference, not more discussion of the inference itself.

You mention that you live near 6 plants. That is good to know, and I now understand a little better what your concern is. Are any of those units on the NRC list as not yet re-mediated?

I think you took my post personal, based upon your comparing me to McCarthy and mentioning an "attack". In taking a look at the posts that followed, there appears to be an almost unanimous support in discussing these issues. So, TO ALL, I throw myself at the mercy of the forum god Rick...if he deems it a worthy subject by not deleting such posts, then so be it.

Now to respond to other inquiries:

Jim Smith: I appreciate your candor, that you don't trust me, the NRC or NERC. But be aware that what you are saying is that you then must not believe hundreds of utility reports on the web, and hundreds more of vendors and manufacturers. If all of us were lying, this would be the grandest disinformation scheme known to mankind, on a greater scale than Capricorn One. What information are you getting that leads you to this conclusion?

No, I won't be hanging out at TMI on December 31. I'll be working at my power company to make sure folks like you continue to receive reliable electricity.

David Binder: Again, the inference that Y2k problems could lead to meltdown requires supportive information. What is it in the design of a plant that could lead to that? What devices are date- sensitive and could fail? Yes, I am interested in the other countries, I just haven't heard much about them.

Lane Core: I agree that indirect occurrences could lead to serious problems; I'm just wanting to know what those might be. No, I don't mind you bringing up the SCADA thing, because it does illustrate how a series of events can lead to a disaster. Again, what I would ask is, do nukes use SCADA? Is it date sensitive? Have SCADA systems reported Y2k failures? TMI does not help answer these questions.

Brian McNeill: No, I'm not upset, just irritated with the number of posts on events that occurred many years ago.

Bonnie Camp: In general, I agree with your sentiment, and I have nothing to add to it. Good points.

xBob: I couldn't get to the link you provided, so I can't comment.

Gordon: I am not saying that "there be no further talk" on this subject, and I don't resent it being brought up. But must TMI be brought up every week, with little backup information on how it relates to Y2k? Regarding Connectiv, the big list on all major power companies will be out in less than two weeks. Since I don't work for that company, I've given you the information I know.

Just me: When TMI occurred, I was more concerned about how to feather my hair, talk to girls, and which rock band was more "cool": Boston or Van Halen. So no, I wasn't there.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Dan,

Lane Core: I agree that indirect occurrences could lead to serious problems; I'm just wanting to know what those might be. No, I don't mind you bringing up the SCADA thing, because it does illustrate how a series of events can lead to a disaster. Again, what I would ask is, do nukes use SCADA? Is it date sensitive? Have SCADA systems reported Y2k failures? TMI does not help answer these questions.

Thanks for responding. I'm glad somebody understands what I was trying to illustrate. :-) To put it another way, for another poster, indeed SCADA isn't inflammable: that was my whole point.

It seems to me that those who repeatedly raise TMI and Chernobyl in Y2K discussions have their reasons (excluding, for the moment, political considerations): when the questions like those you have raised here get answered wrong, really bad things can happen. They are afraid, so when you ask them not to bring up bad events from the past, they wonder why you don't want them to talk about it. I don't blame them.

I would like to reiterate my belief that using Y2K as a pretext to shut down the nukes temporarily as a first step towards shutting them down permanently is disingenuous, and it is going on, and it ought to be exposed as disingenous political maneuvering. That does not mean that others don't honestly have concerns that they feel are legitimate.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Dan The Power Man

I would like to comment on your restrained and thoughtful comments.

As you know, I am no electrical power expert. I do consider you one, if you say so. But, to first give you a little background, on my own history, so you will understand where I am coming from. I am a bit older than you, and at the time of TMI clean up, while you were chasing girls and concerned with your hair, I held a responsible position of International Traffic Supervisor on various Bechtel Petroleum projects, varying in size from $350 million to $3 billion. I was in charge of shipping all materials and equipment for construction of large plants around the world. I had previously held a Top Secret clearance in the military, and had a high level "private" clearance with Bechtel. (Whether you know it or not, many industrial processes are kept secret, never patented, and all documents are controlled, burned and/or shredded - this is one of the reasons I fear y2k so much, because we may be creating the "secrets of the pyramids" today, if our systems fail).

I was married and worked very hard on my job, in Petroleum in Houston. Bechtel Power (the leading engineer/constructor of nuclear power plants in the world) got the contract to clean up TMI. A different division, but same company. It was of passing interest, to me, and because of my clearance and my job I got to see things many other people didn't see and did proposals and studies for new work. But TMI was in a different division and I had no "need to know" and I was busy with other stuff, so what I am saying, is strictly from my, sometimes poor memory, of an event that had little or no impact or importance on my life at the time. But I am a curious sort, and had friends all over the company, in various divisions because I was the heavy lift specialist for Bechtel, moving giant things. (Note the recent giant crane collapse in Wisconsin was it?, this was the type of thing I often worked with - the supervision - was, from what little I have heard, in my opinion, guilty of criminal negligence, hoisting a heavy load with a 500 ft mast in 24 mph winds, the guy who supervised that should be shot - just my opinion though.) I moved heavy (up to 600 tons) chemical and power reactors for huge industrial plants .

Anyway, as a result, on occasion, I became privy to some info, not in my line, and I remember 4 things about TMI which particularly stick out in my memory. I have done no research, recent or otherwise, and have nothing other than my poor memory to go on, no documents, no paperwork, just my personal memory, so there is no way for me to verify this for you, unless, you being in the power industry have a way. Maybe it is public, maybe not. I would appreciate it if you could verify one way or the other my following memories. You're the expert, not me, and these are only personal memories, but very disturbing, none the less:

1. I remember that TMI was so "hot", that it took years, literally, just to get into it. We had to build special robots to enter, and robots were not common in those days, except in the movies. Navigating stairways was a real problem. It seem to remember that one particular robot took 18 months to build, and then had to be redesigned and rebuilt because it didn't do the job needed once inside. 2. I seem to remember the inner containment vessel wall was breached by the pressure and that the outer containment vessel held only because of the release of the radioactive gas pressure to the local atmosphere. 3. I seem to remember that there was a pool of melted uranium core at the lowest level of a control room. 4. And I do for sure remember there were many, many problems discovered, finally overcome and that it took years, even with Bechtel's expertise in nuclear power, to fix them.

Sorry, I didn't pay more attention. I had no idea it might impact on me and so many others nearly 20 years later. There are people who know exactly what happened, and there may even be documents and reports, if they haven't been shredded. But, there were powerful reasons to keep it secret from the public and it was a powerful industry and lobby in those days. I have no idea what documentation exists today, or how public it is. I do feel that those who really do know, exactly what was found and what happened, if they are not dead, still will not talk, even today. They were and are very competent and loyal people.

But, the point of this is, that while you can give us ton's of assurances that nothing will happen, you won't assuage people's fears until we successfully pass through y2k. You and I both know that the power industry is too powerful and too important to allow the nuc's to be shut down. I'm sure they have run the numbers, just like they did on the flaming gas tanks on several autos. You also know that only a few plants have run truly "compliant" tests, switching to and running on dates which are beyond 2000, and that even this may not be a true test because of other collateral problems. It is hard to be an honest man in today's world, and I feel you are one. But you expect others to be honest too and often they aren't. I was fired on at least two jobs for not "covering up" and on one government contract, when, I asked about whistle blower protection, I was told you aren't covered, you don't work directly for the government, you are a contract employee.

See: http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5297 1999-07-05 19:19:37 Subject: 50+% Lying Rate by Vendors, Says Bell South

Some of your logic doesn't work though.

Quote Lane Core: I agree that indirect occurrences could lead to serious problems; I'm just wanting to know what those might be. No, I don't mind you bringing up the SCADA thing, because it does illustrate how a series of events can lead to a disaster. Again, what I would ask is, do nukes use SCADA? Is it date sensitive? Have SCADA systems reported Y2k failures? TMI does not help answer these questions.

Unquote

zzz in-valid point - TMI shows what can happen when things screw up, the problem is not limited to SCADA systems.

Dan, Please answer the questions you posed, I don't know the answers, and I don't see any answers on the thread.

However, the issue of TMI isn't SCADA systems, it is danger. We are like lion tamers. We are taming the nuclear lion. Most of the time there is no problem, but on occasion a lion does kill a trainer. If you aren't experienced, don't get to close. And if you live near the nuclear lion, be aware of the danger and prepared if one happens to escape.

Quote: Brian McNeill: No, I'm not upset, just irritated with the number of posts on events that occurred many years ago. Unquote

zzz partially valid point, some things are different today, but remember Dan, Those who cannot remember the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it. While nuclear reactor safety has definitely improved, there is no way to make them 100% safe, ever.

And finally on your remark on me:

Quote: xBob: I couldn't get to the link you provided, so I can't comment. UnQuote

I just tried the link, and it still works for me. Perhaps there is a quirk in the system which allows only those on the link to get to it. I still can't get the link that FactFinder posted on my thread. If you still can't get to it, I can repost it. I downloaded the whole thread.

Anyway, Dan, everyone has their own concerns. You can help alleviate some of them by addressing them. Telling them to shut up, won't help, it only makes them more concerned that you are trying to cover up problems and I know you don't want to make people more concerned. So let Marianne and the others voice their concerns and try to answer their questions as best as you can, if you truly want to help. Engineers are generally not so people oriented. That's what it takes to be a good engineer. You can't go make a good design which just "feels good", you have to make a good design which "works good". That's why you never find engineers in politics, people rarely like to hear the truth and often can't recognize when they do. But y2k is not only an engineering and programming problem, it is also a people problem. Do us all a favor and do your best to allay concerns using your considerable talent and skills in the areas where they will really help, rather than appearing mildly paranoid about the fact that people are still concerned and won't believe. How many otherwise intelligent people do you know who just won't believe y2k even exists?

I consider myself pretty well educated and knowledgeable, particularly on the subject of y2k, and I'm not convinced that there is no problem. But I also know, that until it is over, I will never be convinced. So, I am philosophical, ke-serah-serah, and am also going to try to stay upwind.

Most of all, let's hope and pray that you are in fact 100% correct and there is no real problem.

xBob

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Sorry, the link I posted got concatenated. Try this one:

See: http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5297

1999-07-05 19:19:37

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Hello xBob. Your comments and questions were woven through your post, so I will attempt to address them.

First off, please do not refer to me as an "expert", particularly when discussing nuclear power. My memory fades just like yours does, and my only experience with TMI was studying it in a college power engineering course. I have only worked tangengially for a nuke. I am only one person voicing his opinion, I am not here representing anyone or any other entity.

Also, I am not trying to give anyone "tons of assurances." I firmly believe that Y2k will bring many problems. The unanswered question is how severe the problems will be. I do not believe that Y2k will bring about a nuclear meltdown. Actually, because many plants have had to review and drill their backup systems as part of contingency planning, we may end up in better shape than if there was no Y2k issue.

You mention that the nuclear industry "is too powerful and important to allow a shut down." To me, the question really is, will Y2k be a significant threat to plant safety? Also, something that is rarely pointed out when discussing nukes is that there are many parts of the country that do not depend on them for grid stability, so this is a non-issue for millions of people. This will be particularly true on 1/1/2000, when the load is relatively light. So why will nukes be running? Economics. Power companies are obligated to serve customers with the safest and lowest cost energy. Nuke plants are great base load units, with relatively low operating costs per kWh.

You mentioned that "only a few plants have run 'compliant' tests". It is true that each company has a little different way of testing, but all power plants had to be tested in some fashion in order to declare them ready. Over a hundred plants were tested while connected to the grid.

You mentioned "honesty and lying", and referred to an article. The issue of lying has not been a big deal in my experience. Early in 1998, I found that some vendor statements of compliance were not consistent with field tests. Sometimes they said a device was compliant when it was not, and other times the reverse was true. In each case I encountered, when we contacted the company, they verified it and corrected their documentation. In my mind, lying is a conscious, deliberate act. I have yet to encounter this in the manner that the article describes.

You mentioned that I am "telling them to shut up" about TMI. No, I am not, and I explained that several times in this thread. Take a look at the latest threads (July 17-18). You will see oodles of more discussion about nukes, so even if I was trying to stifle discussion, I failed miserably.

I did successfully take a look at the link you provided about the Ohio incident. Again, because of lack of experience, I can't comment, other than to say that it appears that the backup systems worked, and I don't think Y2k will bring problems of that severity. Now, if a grid goes down, then the same situation exists...that leads to the question of whether Y2k will bring down the grid. Perhaps we can discuss the latter issue another time.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

Dan,

I recall the TMI incident quite well, I believe it was in April, 1979. I was working in Chicago as a project managemnt consultant to US Gypsum Corporation. The thing that stuck me at the time was the way the US Government via the news media spun the story. They assusrd the people that the radiation levels were extremely low, way to low to cause any alarm.

To make a fat story lean, I took a position as a Senior Planning Engineer with Vitro Engineering, the A@E for the Handford Nuclear reservation, in Richland, Wa. in May of 1979. My first project management assignment was to develop a plan and schedule for installing radiation monitoring devices within a 50 mile radus of every existing and planned nuclear plant in the United States, including TMI. I remember asking the Engineering Project Manager about TMI. I asked him how did the US Government know the radiation levels at TMI if none were installed. He told me the radiation levels were postulated based on a recent engineering study.

So the moral of this story is that one can'nt really believe everything that one might read in the newspapers.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999