Nuclear Power Plants' Y2K Readiness Questioned

By Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, November 9, 1999 (ENS) - Two federal agencies are at odds over how ready U.S. nuclear power plants are to handle the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer bug.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says all 103 operating U.S. nuclear power plants are now ready for Y2K. But the U.S. General Accounting Office testified before Congress October 26 that the steps the nuclear industry has taken might not be enough to prevent problems at power plants.

Some activists fear that Y2K could cause a nuclear crisis like the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant, the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history (Three photos courtesy NRC) The Y2K problem refers to a computer's potential inability to recognize two digit dates after January 1, 2000. A computer system could read "00" as 1900, rather than 2000, causing a computer system to malfunction. "Y2K ready" means that the computer will function as designed after the Year 2000 date rollover. Nuclear reactors provide about 20 percent of the power supply in the U.S., serving more than 65 million homes.

All U.S. nuclear plants have notified the NRC that they have completed remediation efforts on all plant systems involved with safety, power generation and plant support.

The Peach Bottom Unit 3 nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania was one of the last to become Y2K ready at the end of October The NRC says safety related systems at all 103 plants have been Y2K ready since July 1. At that time, 68 of the plants were declared fully Y2K ready while 35 had remaining work on power generation and plant support systems. During the past four months, NRC has confirmed completion of the remaining work. Based on a review of responses from the nuclear power industry concerning Y2K readiness, the NRCs independent inspection efforts at all 103 plants, and ongoing regulatory oversight activities, "we conclude that the Y2K problem will not adversely affect the continued safe operation of U.S. nuclear power plants, and should contribute to grid stability during the transition period," the NRC says.

On October 26, representatives of the federal General Accounting Offices Y2K Computing Challenge office offered testimony before Congress that casts doubt on the NRC assurances.

The General Accounting Office is the investigative arm of Congress. Charged with examining matters relating to the receipt and disbursement of public funds, GAO performs audits and evaluations of government programs and activities.

Joel Willemssen and Keith Rhodes, directors of the accounting and information management division of the GAO, detailed weaknesses in the NRC reporting process to subcommittees of the House Committee on Science and the House Committee on Government Reform.

The GAO spokesmen pointed out that the NRC has not required that its licensees perform an independent verification and validation (IV&V) of their Y2K remediation programs.

"Although we were told by NRC that some licensees obtained independent technical reviews of each facility's Y2K system test plans and results, NRC did not have specific, current information identifying the types of Y2K IV&V reviews performed at nuclear power facilities," Willemssen and Rhodes said.

Last month, the Nuclear Energy Institute reported that the Farley Unit 2 nuclear power plant in Alabama would not be Y2K ready until December 16 "NRC noted that the industry had reported in April 1999 that multiple audits were completed. ... However, neither NRC nor the industry issued guidelines establishing criteria to ensure consistency of reviews," they testified. Without an IV&V, the NRC cannot know which plants might need additional work, due to inadequate Y2K testing and preparation programs, the GAO testimony concluded.

All NRC licensees, including nuclear power plants, are required to have contingency plans in place in case unforeseen problems do arise from the Y2K bug. The GAO says these plans, like the actual Y2K remediation, have not been adequately verified.

"While the nuclear power plants have reportedly completed Y2K contingency plans, it is unclear as to whether these facilities have validated their plans," Willemssen and Rhodes testified. "While NRC's assessment ... included questions on whether the facility validated contingency plans, NRC has not summarized the results of each question from all plants and therefore does not know how many plants responded affirmatively that they had indeed tested their plans. Further, NRC did not assess how the plans were being validated."

In December 1998, the Washington, DC based nuclear watchdog group Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) petitioned the NRC to perform emergency planning exercises to confirm that nuclear plants are prepared for the possible failure of their computer systems due to Y2K. The NRC denied this petition, saying that nuclear power plants are already required to conduct exercises covering scenarios like a Y2K related computer failure.

The GAO acknowledged the NRCs position, but noted, "It is unknown whether or not each plant has recently tested, through normal emergency exercises, scenarios addressing potential Y2K induced failures. Therefore, given the known Y2K threat to nuclear facilities, we believe that NRC should obtain information on the scope and extent of nuclear power plants' emergency exercises, and whether these exercises have incorporated Y2K scenarios."

Rail cars delivering enriched uranium hexafluoride to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio (Photo courtesy Portsmouth GDP) In addition, Willemssen and Rhodes pointed out that the NRC has not required nuclear fuel facilities or decommissioned nuclear power plants to develop specific Y2K contingency plans. Eight of 10 fuel facilities plan to be in safe shutdown mode during the Y2K changeover. The remaining two facilities - the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky, and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio - have contingency plans that are acceptable to the NRC. "NRC could not say how many of the decommissioned plants completed contingency plans," noted the GAO experts, "as the agency had not reviewed them because NRC staff concluded that Y2K issues were highly unlikely to cause a potential threat to public health and safety at such plants."

In early 1999, some of the nations 14 decommissioned nuclear power plants that store spent fuel onsite reported they were not yet Y2K ready. Willemssen and Rhodes observed that the NRC has not reviewed their status since. "Because of the risk posed by the spent fuel facilities at these sites, we believe that NRC should evaluate and report on the current Y2K status of these plants," they recommend.

Finally, the GAO questioned whether nuclear facilities are adequately prepared for potential power outages, supply shortages, and other external problems that could occur on or after January 1, 2000.

According to Willemssen and Rhodes' testimony, "Probably the most serious external risks faced by a nuclear power plant are the potential instability of the electric power grid and the loss of offsite electric power. ... NRC studies show that a major contributor to reactor core damage is a station blackout event."

The NIRS also petitioned the NRC last year to require that all nuclear power plants keep at least 60 day supply of diesel fuel for backup generators, needed to power reactor coolant systems and other critical areas in case of a power outage. The NIRS requested that plants also provide alternate means of backup power, such as solar panels or wind turbines.

The NRC denied the petition. "Why did the NRC deny what were relatively simple, straightforward, and, we believed, rather noncontroversial petitions?," asked Michael Mariotte, NIRS executive director, in a September speech. "Because the NRC is completely beholden to the nuclear industry, which, especially with electricity deregulation here or looming, doesnt want to spend an extra dime on public safety matters if it doesnt absolutely have to. And these days, the NRC is far more interested in saving utilities money than it is in doing its job of protecting the public health and safety."

"NRC officials told us that nuclear power plants have taken certain actions to be ready for the Y2K rollover," Willemssen and Rhodes said, "such as requiring additional staffing and stockpiling consumables (i.e., diesel fuel for emergency diesel generators). However, these do not entail a comprehensive set of actions to be carried out systematically by every operational nuclear power plant."

Trucks deliver cylinders full of natural assay uranium hexafluoride to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky (Photo courtesy Paducah GDP) "The actions that the nuclear power plants and fuel facilities take during this time will be just as critical as actions taken already to become Y2K ready," the GAO spokesmen concluded. At the same October 26 hearing a nuclear industry association spokesman assured the lawmakers the safety systems are all Y2K ready. "Safety is our top priority. As a result of the tremendous efforts of industry professionals, I am proud to report that all nuclear power plants have demonstrated that their safety systems are Y2K-ready," said Ralph Beedle, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).

"Detailed contingency plans are in place and are ready should they be needed during the transition to the Year 2000," Beedle said.

"Additional personnel will be at nuclear power plants, back-up communications systems are available, and response strategies have been developed. This advance preparation will reduce the likelihood that even a minor problem will disrupt power generation," he explained. "Consistent with the industry's commitment to safety, be assured that any problem that could affect safety would result in operators safely shutting down the plant," Beedle said.

Willemssen and Rhodes recommended to Congress that the NRC further evaluate Y2K preparations that have already been made, and ensure that plant emergency plans include Y2K scenarios.

The NIRS and other nuclear activists are calling for a Y2K World Atomic Safety Holiday. Activists want all nuclear facilities to be off line for New Years 2000, be subject to strict criteria of Y2K compliance and be given robust backup power systems.

Detailed information on NRC's Y2K activities is available online at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NEWS/year2000.html.

) Environment News Service (ENS) 1999. All Rights Reserved.

Environmental Press Releases Free ENS Daily News Feed by Email

Enter Email Address Here: Email the Environment Editor

Get your personalized news here.

Copyright ) 1999 Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Lycos. is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University. Our Privacy Vow Terms and Conditions Standard Advertising Terms and Conditions

-- MASS DEATH!!!! (IT'S ALL@OVER.COM), November 12, 1999

Answers

I might read this whole thing later or just turn it over to my nuclear- watch committee.

I'm having such problems at this point that I can't get past little items like computers mistaking 00 for 1900 and the sentence that says 'Y2K ready means a computer will function as it was designed to."

Thanks for the post. What are you doing about it?

-- Becky (rmbolte@wbadventures.net), November 12, 1999.

Having worked in the nuke industry, I'm not really that worried. Nuke plants have massive redundancy (triple at least on anything even remotely connected to the core), and the shutdown systems are extremely robust.

So why so many nuclear accidents? Please understand that all nuclear accidents large enough to be reported that have ever occurred have happened due to human error or just plain old stupidity, NOT to system failure. Windscale and Chernobyl both happened due to DELIBERATE overrides of the safety systems. More modern plants won't even let the operators do that.

It would take a special combination of bravery and stupidity to override a nuke plant's systems and keep it running over Y2K if there was even the slightest hint of trouble. The ex-Soviet plants are (last I heard) planning to shut down, and I wouldn't be surprised if Western Europe and the USA very, very quietely took theirs off line near the rollover as well.

The (limited) first hand knowledge I have of the nuke industry tells me that it's going to be OK. That's not what's keeping me awake at nights.

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 12, 1999.

Boy, with a headliner like the one you gave this thread, I thought the west coast was vaporized or something. You should write for the supermarket tabloids!!!

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), November 12, 1999.

No kidding - I saw the headline and figured it was too late to make it to the fallout shelter. The article is pretty tame in comparison!

-- mil (millenium@yahoo.com), November 12, 1999.

I agree with you Colin. But I do wish they would shut them down over rollover and then bring them up a few at a time. There are many systems in our infrastructure that I think should be handled this way. Trains and subways, pipelines and refineries and chemical plants, to name a few. A singular problem is much easier to control than a whole infrastructure going down. And if one of something goes down, they better do an autopsy on it before bringing up more of the same. Taz

-- Taz (Taz@aol.com), November 12, 1999.

You believed the headline? You actually believed that you would really hear the news of a massive nuclear explosion first in an internet DISCUSSION GROUP? Man...

-- John Deere (garynorth2@yahoo.com), November 12, 1999.

I have also worked "nukes" before. This looks like the anti-nukes are trying to use fears on y2k to stir up the ignorant masses. The nukes in the U.S. are safer designs then the waiting to meltdown Russian designs. My concerns are with the small and medium chemical plants. Worked at one of those for a while. If California disappears it will not be because of nuc power plant.

Hey is this post from Al Gore?

-- squid (Itsdark@down.here), November 12, 1999.