World's Nuke Plants On Track

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

World's Nuke Plants On Track For Year 2000 - UN

[you know.. I don't think any comment from me is really necessary, so here's the article... sigh.]

Tuesday July 20 2:50 PM ET

World's Nuke Plants On Track For Year 2000 Bug-UN

LONDON (Reuters) - The United Nations energy watchdog said Tuesday the world's nuclear power stations were on track to tackle the millennium computer bug.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said reviews of the plants' Year 2000 programs revealed ``vulnerabilities'' when systems controlling data and monitoring processes were tested.

But there had been no problems with programs related to the safe operation of the plants.

``Reported results (from nuclear countries) give confidence that nuclear power plants are on the way to meet the Year 2000-related milestones established by the regulatory bodies,'' the IAEA said in a statement.

``Of the few problems reported so far, none was found which compromises safety,'' it added. There are about 440 operational nuclear plants around the world.

The so-called millenium bug refers to the potential problems caused by older computer systems unable to distinguish between the years 2000 and 1900. They may crash or spew out faulty data as a result.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999

Answers

O.K., people, I have stayed out of the nuclear discussion because I don't know jack about it. Above, the report says, "Reviews of the plants' Year 2000 Programs revealed "vulnerabilities when systems controlling data and monitoring processes were tested." Then, "But there had been no problems related to the safe operation of the plants." Now, I am asking for information here. Does the first quote mean that there could be a problem with the control and monitoring process thereby perhaps triggering a shut down or slow down (their generation capability threatened) of the plant. I guess my question is how important are these two systems to the generation of electricity which is why we have these plants.

The second quote means to me that the safety features of the plants are and will be operational. That is a different system than the generation of power.

If I am correct in my interpretation then the report says they could have problems in generation (meaning a loss of some/all electricity to people,) but if they do have such a loss, they can deal with the plant safely so that no major accident happens.

I have put my interpretation and questions in simple terms so that I can be corrected/informed by those of you who know about these things.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999


Linda...you almost sound disappointed in the good news ;-). Thanks for posting this. There's that pesky quote about safety systems not being affected by date changes...

Marcella...I'm not positive about this, but here's how I interpret the difference. When they talk about "controlling data and monitoring", they are talking about functions that are not directly critical to the safety or keeping the plant connected to the grid--equipment that generates reports and such. Monitoring equipment could just be used to report back a temperature, speed of flow, or something like that. Using an automobile as an example, monitoring would be like your speedometer, safety would be your brakes. As you know, if you don't have your speedometer working, that could cause problems (accidental speeding), which could lead to a safety issue. Same way with monitoring equipment, if it transmits critical information back to a control room. I hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999


Marcella: You are correct in saying that safety and generation are separate systems. Safety systems involve shutting down and cooling the reactor. That is it. I have no idea what problems other plants have with monitor and control systems but here is one of mine. From our IT y2k guru; we have a computer that tracks certain parameters related to the turbine-generator for maintenance purposes. At midnight 12/31/99 this computer will freeze. It carries a moving thirty day window that cannot deal with xx/xx/00 as a date. Resolution? Printout data before midnight. Then turn off computer. Turn it back on after midnight and it works fine, but no thirty day window. (until 01/30/00) So, my nuclear plant is not y2k compliant. Do I care? Y2K ready is plenty in this case. Efficiency may or may not be compromised but generation will continue.

For not knowing Jack, you've got a good handle on the definition of safety systems vice generation systems. Keep asking questions.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 1999


Nucpwr,

Thanks for that commentary with the mention of the system that would give some trouble, but not be critical to operation. It is that sort of detail that helps us non-power folks understand more of what is going on and what will be done with work-arounds for the rollover.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 1999


Marcella, the "Preliminary Report on Nuclear Power Plant Year 2000 Readiness" was just put online two days ago. It's at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/Y2KReady.pdf

On page 2 of this report there is information about the question you asked:

"The information obtained during these audits and from other licensees and industry groups indicated that significant Y2K problems do not exist in those NPP [Nuclear Power Plant] systems that affect the ability to safely operate and shutdown NPPs. However, licensees have discovered Y2K problems in non-safety (but nevertheless important) computer-based systems, such as security computers, control room display systems, engineering software, control systems, radiation monitoring systems, emergency response systems, and communications systems."

This report also lists the six plant system classes:

Reactor Protection System/Engineered Safety Features System (including emergency diesel generators)

Feedwater System/Balance of Plant Systems

Radiation Monitoring Systems

Emergency Notification Systems

Plant Process Computer Systems

Plant Security Systems

In regards to these six classes, it goes on to say, "One system or component from each of these system/component classes was reviewed during each NPP onsite review. The one exception to this approach occurred in several of the older plants in which no digiital systems or components are used in the reactor protection system or the engineered safety features systems (i.e. there are no potential Y2K vulnerabilities in these systems because the systems use only analog technology)."

If I understand the no-safety-systems problems controversy, it's not that some people don't accept that no problems have been found in the first of the six classes (Reactor safety) but that they have a problem with the definitions of safety systems as the NRC uses them. In my own mind I have sorted it out by calling the NRC "safety systems" the "Able to Shutdown the Reactor systems". The other five classes of systems obviously DO involve safety from various operational, personnel, and technical standpoints, but not the Ultimate shutdown safety of the NRC definition. I think of it as being something like there's SAFETY (first class of systems) and there's safety (the other five classes).

The arguments arise from those whose perspective leads them to believe that the small-s safety systems may also trigger problems which might impact the proper operation of the big-S system, perhaps by confusing controllers with invalid monitoring functions, or invalid emergency warnings, prompting mistakes to be made. (This is where the TMI incident is used.) Also, the concerns we read about re the emergency generators, are because these are a part of the big-S class of systems. The NRC position is that regardless of any small-s problems (which also are supposed to be remediated), the plant _will_ be able to shut its reactor down without a radioactive safety hazard.

It may be simplistic, but the big-S and small-s concept works for me.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 1999



Bonnie;

We all just hope that it isn't the Big S that hits the fan!!! (Then again, if that happens, the fan won't be working?)

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ