http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/1999/12/15/timfgnrus02001.html?1124027

Chernobyl 'is millennial time bomb'

FROM ROGER BOYES IN BERLIN Weak links in the chain reaction

CHERNOBYL and two other ageing Soviet bloc nuclear reactors may help to fulfil prophecies of millennial disaster if work is not done swiftly to adapt their computers.

The head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad al-Baradei, has identified three nuclear plants that are lagging seriously behind in preparing for the Year 2000 software problem: the Medzamer reactor in Armenia and the Ignalina reactor in Lithu-ania as well as the still-functioning reactor in Chernobyl.

The locations have long been a headache for Western experts. Even after considerable investment, the safety standards are well behind those in the West. The Medzamer plant, consisting of two pressurised light water reactors, is in an earthquake zone.It had to be closed in early 1989 after an earthquake, but by 1995 it was reopened. Armenia is dependent on nuclear-generated electricity. Before the re-opening, residents of Yerevan, the capital, were rationed to two hours of electricity a day.

There are Western worries about the plant's ability to withstand another earthquake, about the level of staff training and the plant emergency planning. But Armenia's dependence on the reactor is such that politicians refused to close it for tests or maintenance.

Computers are central to nuclear plant safety: they gather, compare and contrast data received from the different stages of electricity production and monitor temperatures and possible leakages.

Dr al-Baradei said the "millennium bug" problem in the atomic energy sector of the former Soviet Union was due to lack of money - maintenance is chronically underfinanced - and lack of adequate planning.

The nuclear plant that attracts the most attention is Chernobyl in Ukraine. It was there that a meltdown in 1986 triggered the world's worst nuclear accident. The people of Ukraine and Belarus are still feeling the consequences of that disaster; much agricultural land is irradiated and there has been a sharp increase in certain illnesses.

The Chernobyl reactors are of the RBMK type - graphite-moderated channel reactors. There are more than a dozen such reactors still in operation in the former Soviet Union and the chief concern is about the lack of a sufficiently large steel or concrete containment structure to block large releases of radiation. At Chernobyl, the plant's accident localisation system could not cope with the force of the explosion.

Despite these and other misgivings, one Chernobyl reactor has just reopened. It was closed for six days after leaks were discovered in the secondary cooling system for radioactive water. Two other reactors have been out of operation because of serious technical defects. The fourth, which blew up in 1986, is buried under a concrete sarcophagus.

A Chernobyl-style reactor is in operation in Lithuania. The European Commission has demanded a closure plan for the Ignalina reactor, threatening delays in Lithuania's entry to the European Union unless it complies. The first block has been active since 1983, the second since 1987. Together they account for 85 per cent of the republic's electricity. For the Lithuanians, the plant guarantees their energy, and therefore political independence from Russia. Electricity exported to Latvia and Belarus is also profitable. There is no hurry to close the plant.

Despite the safety improvements, introduced largely with the help of the Swedes, the West is growing increasingly nervous about the reliability of the plant.

Weak links in the chain reaction

The key Western reservations are:

Accident mitigation systems are very limited.

If cooling water is lost the reactors produce faster and less stable nuclear chain reactions.

All plants have inadequate fire protection.

Electrical and safety systems are poorly separated.

There is limited capability for suppressing steam in the graphite stack.

Only precise computerised control can deal with these problems. This will be under threat if the "millennium bug" problem is not solved in the next fortnight.

-- 16 more days (@ .), December 15, 1999

Answers

There will be no Y2K- Nuclear problems. It is impossible. Trust me on this one.

Terrorists are our worst enemy.

Llama

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 15, 1999.

Llama-man,

Are you nuclear reactor expert?

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 15, 1999.

If there is a nuclear accident it will be in the former Soviet Union and surrounding states. Bad for them, but as in Chernobyl TV fodder for us. I agree we have a much greater chance for a Chem/Bio/Suitcase nuke terriorist attack here in the U.S. We have enough possibles to worry about why not focus close to home.

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), December 15, 1999.

Gregg,

Think... TIC

-- (cujo@baddog.byte), December 15, 1999.

"If there is a nuclear accident it will be in the former Soviet Union and surrounding states. Bad for them, but as in Chernobyl TV fodder for us."

Sorry to add to your worries Squid, but I strongly disagree with this assumption. Chernobyl did as little damage as it did (!) only because of the presence of some of the most heroic guys to ever stride the earth. If we end up replaying this event in a poor eastern European country with few resources and a paper military, we're all in for a world of trouble. An uncontained meltdown would be catastrophic, and not just in the areas surrounding the plant... of all of the potential problems that could arise from Y2K, this one scares the bejesus outta me.

-- Choirboy (choirboy@hellzchoir.edu), December 15, 1999.

How many cults are you recruiting for today, Llama Man? First it's Chairman Peter, in a thread further down, of whom you earnestly testify...

"You must believe him."

Now, apparently, not content to recruit for De Jager's Band Of Happy Hopers, you appear to be setting yourself up in competition with him...

"Trust me on this one."

So who exactly do you want us to 'trust' and 'believe' in? Is it you or de Jager? [This is a purely academic question on my part, as I'm still trusting in Jesus:)]

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 15, 1999.

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again ... cuz it bears repeating:

"Chernobyl" translates from Ukrainian into English as "Wormwood"

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 15, 1999.

And the award for biggest new idiot on the forum goes to ..... (envelope please)......... Llama Man! Not only for the gem in this thread, but also this bit of wisdom in the thread about a water plant explosion...

why in the heck would this be a Y2K problem????????? probably mixed chemicals the wrong way....

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 15, 1999.

-- _ (_@_._), December 15, 1999.

The USA has a plethora of Nuke plants, all of which have embedded chips up the kazoo. Think about it. Remember Three Mile Island???

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 15, 1999.

Chernobyl-type (RBMK) reactors are designed without a containment structure. Commercial reactors in the U.S. are designed with a containment structure.

From RBMK Reactor:

Strength

* The low core power density of RBMKs provides a unique ability to withstand station blackout and loss of power events of up to an hour with no expected core damage.

* Ability to be refueled while operating, permitting a high level of availability.

* The graphite moderator design allows the use of fuel that is not suitable for use in conventional water-moderated reactors.

Weakness

* Lack of a massive steel and concrete containment structure as the final barrier against large releases of radiation in an accident.

* Power increases when cooling water is lost, i.e. positive void coefficient.

* Accident mitigation systems are limited.

* Flawed separation and redundancy of electrical and safety systems.

* Limited capability for steam suppression in the graphite stack.

From http://www. insc.anl.gov/neisb/neisb4/NEISB_1.1.html

Western-style plants employ the design principle of safety in depth, relying on a series of physical barriers--including a massive reinforced concrete structure called the containment--to prevent the release of radioactive material to the environment. With the exception of the VVER-1000 design, Soviet-designed reactors do not have such a containment structure.

(Hope this helps.)

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), December 15, 1999.