This report from a nuclear plant seems unusual in that it acknowledges that "Y2K problems have been found in nonsafety, but important, computer-based applications, such as security computers, control-room display systems, engineering programs, radiation monitoring systems and emergency response systems." It goes on to state that they've addressed these things at this plant.

NUCLEAR PLANT PREPARED FOR Y2K

Date: 991005

From: http://www.injersey.com/app/ocean/

Staff Report, Asbury Park Press, 10/08/99

Lacey -- The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant is ready for the year 2000, company officials said in a news release.

GPU Nuclear, which operates the plant, reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission it has completed its Y2K-readiness program.

In addition to assessing, testing, repairing and replacing items with Y2K concerns, GPU has been developing and testing contingency plans, according to the release.

Y2K, or Year 2000, refers to computers' potential inability to recognize dates, beginning with Jan. 1, 2000. It arises from computer programs that use two-digit numbers to represent a calendar year and would read "00" at the end of 2000 as the year 1900.

Most nuclear power plant safety systems are operated and controlled by analog equipment, which is not date-dependent or susceptible to Y2K problems, according to the NRC.

But Y2K problems have been found in nonsafety, but important, computer-based applications, such as security computers, control-room display systems, engineering programs, radiation monitoring systems and emergency response systems. Those problems have been addressed and are no longer an issue, according to plant officials.

Copyright 1997-1999 IN Jersey

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

Answers

In March of 1998, I was told by a GPU spokeman that Oyster Creek was behind schedule for Y2K remediation and that it was questionable whether or not the plant would continue operating into 2000, even because of it age and expenses to operate.

If there is any plant in the US I would place on my suspect list, it is the Oyster Creek plant.

GPU wants out of the nuclear industry NOW. It is selling Oyster Creek for only $10 million dollars. That's like selling a hot watch on a street corner with GPU as the fence.

I can't imagine putting a whole lot of effort into maintenance or Y2K fixes at a plant which is a loser.

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

hot watch?

An unintended pun, I assume.... ;-)

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

Maybe Rick or Bonnie has some thoughts on Oyster Creek. A few months ago I was talking (Y2k) to someone who is married to a guy in management at Oyster Creek. She said they had tried to get NRC approval to just shut it down, period, no sale. According to this source, the NRC said *no* to the shutdown. I'm speculating that the NRC wants this operating plant available for next year, regardless. So the small sale price could be only to cover the basic costs of a change of ownership, a compromise to Oyster Creek owners, if you will. (and maybe, so they won't sell off those EDG's at some flea market) Wonder what the full story is. Bonnie, if you have a chance to search through some official reports of this sale it might be very interesting.

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

Scott, thanks for that information. So, do you think this is like a used car ad pointing out all the parts that have been replaced, in order to make an honest impression, and failing to mention that other major repairs still need to be done but haven't been? It's scary to think there could be nuclear plant shoppers out there who would be taken in by a "sales pitch" like that. Hope the NRC will step in if that's the case ... - Judy

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

I'd posted my last reply before seeing Gordon's. Sounds like the NRC has already "stepped in," but not the way I was hoping! - Judy

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

I suspect it was the New Jersey Public Utility Commission who nixed the shutdown and not the NRC.

Utilities which are buying plants seem to be doing a thorough search of maintenace issues. That's one of the reasons prices are so low.

Now if stockholders inspected plants under normal operating conditions, they would sell their stocks out of fear.

Look what happened to the stocks and the license at Tokaimura.

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

Shutting down Oyster Creek was always an economic thing - and the New Jersey BPU rightly tied the current rate structure of GPU/JCP&L to reliability standards for the plant. If the plant were shutdown prematurely (prior to end of license, which I believe is 2005 or something like that), the basis for their rate case would be moot and I suppose that a case could be made for rolling back rates to pre-rate case levels.

Y2k or no, Oyster Creek has had it's share of problems through the years. It would not surprise me in the least to see some serious NRC scrutiny on Y2k preparedness at OC in the next month

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

OK, it looks like I got some details twisted on this, regarding NRC versus NJ BPU. Still, the point is that the owners were looking to shut it down and couldn't. In a normal world (not Y2k type) this would have probably been worked out for a shutdown, or merger, whatever. What I am speculating now is that while OC may have problems, as Rick has noted, it is still capable of producing energy right here in a nuclear energy dependent area. I think those in the NRC that *do* know what's at stake will keep everything running that they possibly can, perhaps some idled for the rollover, but ready to go back online as needs surface. Other plants have potentially questionable weak areas too, maybe not in their safety shutdown systems, but certainly in some of their monitor, display, and remote control systems.

I have felt for a long time now that risks will be taken with the nukes, based on lesser of two evils planning. One evil is the possibility of accident, sure. Another evil is loss of the grid and the chaotic results from that, such as blacked out major urban areas, business shutdowns, and even military bases that need the power. To me it's a no brainer as to what will be risked, and I don't think they want to risk the second evil. I do not hold the NRC responsible for this decision. It would come from the highest levels of our government, including the Pentagon. The NRC is simply over its head now with the potential Y2k disruptions to the entire infrastructure. Every time we send troops anywhere, we are planning on deaths. That is a fact of life. It may not be a pleasant fact, but it is reality. But, sometimes we forget that deaths are acceptable. On our own civilian level we accept that the automobile, which we love and believe we need, is going to kill 10s of thousands, and maim 100s of thousands every year. So, why do we accept this dangerous piece of equipment and not go back to using horses, wagons, and carriages? Unless you are Amish.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 1999