Q & A with US EIA about Soviet nuclear plants

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

Y2K Threat to Soviet-Designed Nuclear Reactors (chance of major accident seen small, but other problems expected)

Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State (URL at bottom), 22 December 1999

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said a major accident probably will not occur in a Soviet-designed nuclear power plant because of the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem. The safety systems of the Soviet reactors do not depend on date-sensitive digital technology, the EIA said in a fact sheet issued in December.

The EIA said the Soviet reactors are not immune to the Y2K problem because many of the data processing activities require date-time stamps. If data flows are interrupted, the EIA said, the reactors likely will shut down.

The Y2K computer problem has arisen because older computer systems use two digits to indicate the year, creating the danger they will mistake 2000 for 1900 when date-time systems rollover on January 1, 2000.

The Soviet reactors are located in nine countries of the former Soviet bloc: Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Lithuania and Slovakia.

The U.S. Energy Department and the International Atomic Energy Agency have provided assistance to those countries to find and fix the Y2K vulnerabilities of the reactors.

Following is the text of the EIA fact sheet:

(begin text)

Questions and Answers Y2K Readiness of Soviet-Designed Nuclear Power Plants December 1999

QUESTION: Will a nuclear accident result from a year 2000 (Y2K) problem at any of the Soviet-designed plants?

ANSWER: It is very unlikely that a Y2K problem will directly cause a major accident at a nuclear power plant in Russia, Ukraine, or the other seven countries with Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. The primary safety systems in Soviet-designed nuclear power plants don't depend on dates to function, so they are not subject to the "millennium bug."

Q: What is a primary safety system, and how might it be Y2K vulnerable?

A: Primary safety systems are systems that control and maintain the operation of a nuclear power plant within safe limits. They also function to shut down the reactor automatically when these limits are exceeded.

None of the primary safety systems at Soviet-designed reactors have been found to be Y2K vulnerable. To be vulnerable the systems would have to be digital, and would have to have hardware or software that depended on dates. Neither of these conditions has been identified in any of the Soviet-designed reactors' primary safety systems.

Q: Will Soviet-designed reactors be impacted at all by the Y2K problem?

A: Probably. The plant process computers in these nuclear power plants are known to haveY2K vulnerabilities. These digital computers, which are not a part of the primary safety systems, process plant operating data and provide information to the plant operators. Many of the data processing activities require date-time stamps, and may causeY2K problems, because, if plant data are not available within a specified time, usually a few hours or less, operators must shut down the reactor.

In addition to plant process computers, Y2K problems originating in electrical transmission and distribution grid systems could cause nuclear power plants to lose off-site power. If a plant loses off-site power, it must shut down. Russian and Ukrainian electrical transmission and distribution experts are confident, however, that they can operate their systems manually to avoid any unplanned disruption of electricity to nuclear power plants. Even so, readiness drills are being conducted for several grid systems to plan for safe shutdown of reactors if off-site power is lost.

Q: Will all of the Y2K problems at the Soviet-designed reactors be fixed before next year?

A: No. The host countries are fixing the high priority items associated with the operations of their nuclear power plants. Most of the high priority items should be fixed by the end of the year. Contingency plans are being developed for high priority items that will not be fixed. Most of the lower priority items, such as computers used for administrative purposes, probably won't be fixed before next year.

Q: What about reports of Y2K related problems with the computer systems at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant?

A: The Y2K problems at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant involved the plant process computer, not the safety systems. Failure of the plant process computer requires that the plant shut down. Operating procedures direct the plant operators to conduct a normal, controlled shutdown of the plant if the computer fails. This shutdown does not represent an increased risk of an accident at the plant. In addition, the Department of Energy has provided both equipment and technical assistance to help the Chernobyl nuclear power plant resolve these Y2K problems before the first of the year.

Q: Why were the nuclear power plants in Russia and Ukraine late in starting their Y2K programs?

A: These plants probably experienced initial complacency because the nuclear power plants in Russia and Ukraine rely much less on modern digital technologies than U.S. plants do. However, some of these plants have upgraded individual computer systems to modern technologies. Russian and Ukrainian awareness of potential Y2K problems was raised, in part, by the involvement of the Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency. These countries now have aggressive programs to address Y2K problems.

Q: What preparations have been made to respond to any emergencies during the Y2K transition period?

A: A formal mechanism has been established at the Department of State for U.S. embassies to collect information about Y2K disruptions in each country and report that information back to the United States. The Department of Energy's Emergency Operations Center will be staffed and prepared to monitor and respond to possible Y2K events reported by the embassies.

For nuclear power plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has set up an informal mechanism, called the Y2K Early Warning System (YEWS) to allow for the exchange of information between nuclear power plants during the Y2K transition period.

Q: How many U.S. government agencies are involved in helping to solve the Y2K problems at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants?

A: The host countries, Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, and Slovakia, are responsible for identifying and correcting any Y2K problems that could jeopardize the safe operation of their nuclear power plants. All of the nuclear power plants in these countries have active Y2K programs, and they have made substantial progress in addressing Y2K issues during the past several months.

Both the Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency are providing assistance to host countries to help resolve Y2K issues associated with Soviet-designed reactors. In addition, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working with the host countries' regulatory organizations on Y2K issues. The President's Council on Y2K and the Department of State also are involved.

Q: The Department of State is advising U.S. citizens and some U.S. Embassy officials to leave countries like Russia and Ukraine before the Y2K transition occurs. Isn't such advice inconsistent with the Department of Energy's conclusion that the risk of a serious nuclear accident is low?

A: The Department of State's decision to allow embassy staff voluntarily to leave was based on many factors, not just nuclear safety. For example, this decision was partly based on Y2K vulnerabilities in the host-countries' financial and telecommunication systems, as well as other elements of the host-countries' energy sector, including natural gas. The Department of State might also base its decisions on the Y2K impact to the host countries' overall infrastructure, including water, health care, and the availability of electrical power.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State)

http://www.usia.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=99122205.clt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State



-- Anonymous, December 27, 1999

Answers

Boy, this is rich. Let's see if I can summarize this:

1. ALL of the nuke's are pre-digital in their primary safety systems (didn't say about their primary plant operations systems) 2. The people running the plants depend on digital data to keep the thing fired up (shut off the data, shut down the plant) 3. Russia, Ukraine and the like are planning on a manual operation. 4. The US is asking their people overseas to come home "voluntarily of course" since things like natural gas, telecoms, ELECTRICITY will likely be disrupted (oh but the nukes will be just fine, we're not asking them back for that, Hell no, that's not the issue)

<< I see a problem here - Russia is planning for manual. US thinks electr. will go down, bring all those embassy people home except for the y2k roll over informant, crank up the diesels Russia and Ukraine to keep those babies cool, yea right, half the diesels in the good ole US needed the cobwebs knocked off them, but don't worry, Russian nukes will have a 3 weeks supply of diesel for those babies, it takes more than promised diesel to run a generator, first the generator has to be in good working condition >>

-- Anonymous, December 29, 1999


Not very reassuring is it. I wonder how much time one has between failure of backup power at one of these plants and a real problem?

One might not be able to "overnight" a new generator of the appropriate size to a needed location, especially if people are suffering in big cities from the cold, and want it there.

-- Anonymous, December 29, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ