Mvh. Kai Braathen
----------
>From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <nonukes@foesyd.org.au>
>To: y2k-nuclear@egroups.com, y2k-nukes@envirolink.org,
uk-y2k-action@egroups.com, Abolition-caucus@igc.org,
abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com
>Subject: Y2K AND ENERGY
>Date: tir 31. aug 1999 09:28
>
>Excerpt from "The Millennium Reckoning", September 1999 Update (Free
>copyright with attribution). Go to: http://www.trendmonitor.com for full
>report
>
>RISKS / ENERGY
>
>IMPLICATIONS
>
>If the Russian natural gas pipeline supplying both Eastern and Western
>Europe is interrupted, as Russian experts say it almost certainly will be,
>it will be a very difficult to start the gas flowing again with an
>uncertain electricity supply and sub-zero temperatures. Oil stops flowing
>at freezing temperatures which means that pipelines and refineries are at
>risk, even if there are relatively short power outages. In the US, which is
>far ahead of Russia in its preparations for the energy sector, "major" oil
>companies are reported adopting a fix on fail (FOF) policy on wells,
>pipelines and refineries.
>
>Another reported implication is that if the electricity fails, some nuclear
>plants may have difficulty cooling their cores if they are to be shut down,
>creating a real danger of accidental melt-downs.
>
>The economic, environmental and social implications of the failure of the
>Russian gas and oil pipeline network are so enormous - for Europe and the
>rest of the world - that the necessary resources must be made available on
>an international level to ensure that:
>
>i. the operation of the Siberian gas pipeline network is made secure,
>ii. nuclear reactors everywhere have sustainable back up electrical systems
>which do not depend on national grids,
>iii. as many alternative local electricity sources are built as possible.
>
>All the countries of Europe and all the people of Europe are at risk of
>having to deal with the consequences of severe energy shortages and
>consequent energy price increases.
>
>Although it is not certain that this scenario will come true, even if no
>remedial action is taken, the seriousness of the multiple risks warrants
>emergency action now on a "just in case" basis. A huge investment in
>sustainable energy systems is required, both for deployment around nuclear
>sites and within communities. The task could be doable in the time
>remaining if an international crash programme were to be implemented in the
>next few weeks. It is a question of mobilising people and money to secure
>the future very quickly. Not only would the short-term problem be solved,
>but also the implementation of an economical long-term solution could be
>accomplished at the same time. A first step would be a comprehensive
>upgrade and support programme for Emergency Diesel Generators worldwide.
>
>Continuing denial by governments and the media of the possible magnitude of
>the risk to key energy systems is the greatest danger at the moment because
>it is preventing people and companies from making appropriate contingency
>preparations.
>
>STORIES
>
>Oil and Gas
>
>An April 1999, article in Computer Business Review quotes Professor Andrey
>Terekhov, a Russian Y2K expert, saying "the gas and electricity started
>work so late that their systems simply will not be ready in time". The
>article concludes that this news has "ominous implications", not just for
>Russia, "but also for the countries in Europe which are dependent on
>Russian gas". [1] In August 1999, it is reported in Computer Weekly that
>the total money spent "so far" in Russia was $80 million (£48 million).
>[11] Yet, a report published in a French industry publication Enerpresse in
>March 1999 quotes a Gazprom executive saying that his company had virtually
>solved the "probleme du bogue" with new control software. [No mention was
>made of embedded chip systems.] [12]
>
>In March 1999, UK energy companies are seen as well prepared, according
>both to their own spokesmen and to Action 2000's colour coding scheme. [2]
>However, in June 1999, the Financial Times reports that the energy industry
>is still "spending heavily to ensure that their complex computer systems
>suffer no ill effects" from the millennium change over. The article warns
>that "anticipation of chaos" is liable to push up the price of oil as the
>end of the year approaches. The article also questions the well publicised
>confidence of the energy sector citing Chevron which said "it could not
>tell whether it would suffer significant business interruptions, including
>the shut down of its entire oil and gas production", although the company
>expected disruptions to be "localised". [3]
>
>Sources within the US oil industry are quoted in an Editorial appearing on
>the Golden Eagle Website saying: "Overall, these sources estimate that
>based on prior limited testing, they are expecting a 10 to 20% ratio of
>failure, or multiple embedded systems going down on each oil well. There
>will be no parts to fix them and no replacement systems available for quite
>a long while. These sources tell me that the major oil companies have
>adopted a FOF policy (fix on fail), because it is the only affordable and
>practical approach."
>
>"The bottom line: Most oil well embedded systems were never, and are never
>going to be checked or tested for Y2K compliance. Its a virtual
>impossibility PLUS... And even if they did, most likely the parts to
>replace them will no longer be available. It's now become very difficult to
>find anyone who can supply a replacement system before 1/1/2000. Some
>easier testing was done on more accessible systems, which are usually
>newer. Understandably, fail rates have soared 25% in some areas. On the
>subject of oil and gas pipelines, the author says, "The same that was said
>about the well heads and embedded systems is true for the pipelines. It's
>just too complicated - and the major companies decided to adopt the FOF
>policy - and wait to see what breaks down and to subsequently try to fix
>it. Another consideration is loss of electricity for any significant length
>of time." The other point made in the article is that the oil industry --
>like so many others -- works on the basis of a just in time supply
>principle. Consequently stocks of oil and natural gas are very low. [4]
>
>This perception is confirmed by the International Energy Authority which
>says in a July 1999 report, "One of the most important findings is that
>just-in-time energy supplies present the greatest risk of failure. These
>energy supplies, electricity and gas, are dependent on a complex delivery
>infrastructure". The report says "Vulnerabilities still exist at all levels
>of the oil supply chain".
>
>Specifically, "Oil and gas pipelines have been identified as an area of
>ongoing concern. Most potential problems lie in pipeline control and
>monitoring systems and a vulnerability to disruptions in the electricity
>supply." Offshore production is seen to be "generally at greater risk" than
>onshore production "because of the accessibility problems encountered when
>testing subsea equipment". [10]
>
>Electricity
>
>In both the US and the UK, there has been very little press concern about
>the readiness of the electrical generation and distribution grid utilities.
>
>However, a draft report by the US Army entitled Y2K Analyses for Complex
>Systems of Systems, published in January 1999, provides a critical view.
>The report concludes that the possibility of serious electrical power
>disruption is very real despite what it describes as the growing optimism
>of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Some of the
>reasons given for this conclusion are that "industry deregulation since
>1996 may have made the electrical power grid more vulnerable to Y2K", as
>"competition produces far more inter-grid power wheeling, stressing
>transmission stability beyond industry modeling and planning". The report
>argues that the "unbundling of generation, transmission, distribution and
>brokering makes coordinated exchange of information and action more
>difficult" and large scale testing impossible.
>
>According to the study, "the industry systems for modeling and analyzing
>contingencies emphasize continued operation in spite of the "most severe
>single contingency" making them inherently "far less capable of dealing
>with multiple and dispersed contingencies". However, Y2K failures are
>liable to be "multiple and geographically dispersed - even if not
>catastrophic individually". Industry strategy is said to "to assume that
>all required fixes or workarounds to the initial failure - can be made
>quickly, thus allowing the system to reconstitute itself in hours or days".
>The question is asked: "What if the Y2K fixes take weeks?" [19]
>
>Nuclear
>
>In May 1999 The Financial Times reports, "The French Institute of Nuclear
>Safety reported that safety at France's nuclear power stations could be
>jeopardised by the millennium computer bug. The institute said the plants
>were threatened by failures from both their own computer systems and
>problems with the French electricity grid. It found that between 45 per
>cent and 80 per cent of internal systems "could be sensitive" to the Y2K
>problem." [18]
>
>On August 22, 1999, the Observer reports a study by nuclear engineer, John
>Large, commissioned by Greenpeace, which suggests that "the millennium bug
>could jeopardise the safety of Britains nuclear power plants" and "raises
>alarming questions over the international nuclear industry's preparedness
>for year 2000 computer problems". According to the report, "One of the
>major concerns is that facilities linked to the nuclear plants, such as the
>national grid and local telecommunications networks may fail at the time
>when the plants need them most." The article quotes Frank Barnaby, a
>nuclear physicist working for the independent Oxford Research Group, "There
>seems to be a very strange complacency about the who Y2K issue within the
>UK nuclear industry". Spokesperson for the UK's Nuclear Installations
>Inspectorate is also quoted saying "They have nothing to worry about." [14]
>On the same day, The Independent on Sunday reports that "Britain's nuclear
>watchdog has issued a warning to atomic power stations about the dangers of
>a millennium-like computer bug which is due to strike on 9 September." [15]
>
>An article by Helen Caldicott is published in The Los Angeles Times on
>August 17, 1999 which says that "at a White House meeting I attended
>recently with John Koskenin, the head of the president's Y2K committee,
>representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the
>Department of Defense and four independent experts, the government
>representatives dismissed concerns that were raised while providing no
>substantive basis for confidence that we do not face potentially irregular,
>and possibly serious, nuclear accidents on or after Jan.1, 2000".
>
>According to the article, "Nuclear power plants are dependent upon an
>intact external electricity supply to maintain the circulation of about 1
>million gallons of water per minute to cool the radioactive core and also
>to keep the spent fuel pools cool. If a section of the grid goes down, the
>approximately 100-ton fissioning uranium core in the affected reactor will
>melt within two hours if the two back up diesel generators--whose
>reliability has been estimated at 85%--fail." The point is also made that "
>Unlike the reactor cores, most of the spent fuel pools, which hold four to
>five times more radioactivity than the core, have no back up power supply
>nor containment vessel, and thus could melt within 48 hours if the reactor
>has been recently refueled; if not, they would melt within two weeks
>without cooling water. Twenty-six U.S. reactors are scheduled for refueling
>before Jan. 1."
>
>While Koskenin is reported admitting the possibility of "random power
>outages" in the US, "he did not address the issue of the precarious back-up
>generators nor the fact that the NRC requires only one week of diesel fuel
>at each reactor site, even though local power outages could last longer."
>[17]
>
>According to a database called "Diesel Generator Defects at US Nuclear
>Plants" compiled by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reports from
>January 1, 1999 to the present "show that defects and problems occur on a
>weekly basis in the US nuclear power industry. There are 27 reports
>affecting 41 plants; or 40% of all US commercial nuclear plants so far this
>year." Scott D. Portzline of Three Mile Island Alert comments in "The
>Weakest Link: Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs)" that during a "station
>blackout" (loss of offsite power) these generators "supply the electricity
>needed to bring the plant to a safe shutdown". If they fail, it is said
>that the chance of an accident "approaches certainty". Former NRC Chairman
>Dr. Shirley Jackson is also quoted saying, "NRC reviews in recent years
>have left no doubt that a station blackout at a nuclear power station is a
>major contributor to reactor core damage frequency." Although the NRC is
>reported to be claiming a 97.5 per cent reliability, "watchdogs say it is
>lower". [9]
>
>Reuters reported from the US on June 18, 1999 in an article entitled "US
>proposes stock piling radiation antidote", that the Nuclear Regulatory
>Commission (NRC) had proposed the stockpiling of potassium iodide, which
>helps "prevent radioactive iodine from being lodged in the thyroid gland,
>where it could lead to thyroid cancer or other illness". [5]
>
>A report in The Times, on August 25, 1999, says "US nuclear power industry
>regulators have discovered that around one-third of the nation's 103
>nuclear power stations have yet to resolve all of their Y2K problems".
>Although safety systems are said to be 100 bug free, 15 stations are
>reported to be "still working on systems that might shut down power
>generation". [16]
>
>In an article entitled, "The accidental Armageddon" in The Australian,
>Helen Caldicott, an anti-nuclear energy campaigner, warns that the
>circulation of coolant water is "dependent on an external electricity
>supply and an intact telecommunications system. If the millennium bug
>causes power failures and/or telecommunication malfunctions, reactors will
>be vulnerable. Because of this possibility, each US reactor has been
>equipped with two back-up diesel generators. But at best these are only 85
>per cent reliable. So, in the event of a prolonged power failure, the
>back-up diesel generators will not necessarily prevent a nuclear
>catastrophe. And 67 Russian-built reactors are even more vulnerable,
>because they have no back-up generators.
>
>"What is more, the Russian electricity grid is itself at great risk
>because, as one might expect, the political and economic turmoil in that
>country means the Y2K problem has hardly been examined. There are 70 old
>nuclear reactors on old Russian submarines moored at dock in the Barents
>Sea. If they were to lose the electricity grid powering their cooling
>systems, they would melt."
>
>The article advocates a crash program to provide all the world's nuclear
>reactors with Wind and Solar electricity generators in order to insure that
>enough electricity is always available for cooling necessary to prevent
>meltdowns. [6]
>
>An article in the Independent on July 4, 1999 cites an internal memo
>circulated in the British Embassy in Moscow, which says that Russia is "one
>of the countries most vulnerable to Y2K problems". Among the concerns
>listed in the article is "back up generators for nuclear power stations".
>[7]
>
>"Midnight Crossing" published in the July 1999 issue of the US Airforce
>Magazine, says: "US officials are very concerned that a computer failure in
>Russia's interconnected power grid could cascade through the entire nuclear
>system and lead to a massive power outage. Such an event could easily end
>in catastrophe at one of the 65 Soviet-made nuclear reactors." Human error
>by "an undermanned and unmotivated" (and often unpaid) nuclear work force
>is increasing "the possibility that a power outage at a nuclear reactor
>could lead to a catastrophe". Even if the nuclear reactors are managed
>well, the article says, "loss of power and cooling at the numerous waste
>pools where atomic fuel rods are kept could cause the water to boil away
>and permit the release, into the local atmosphere, of lethal levels of
>radioactivity. Recently loaded rods -- those placed in the waste pools
>within the past two years -- could begin to melt down within 48 hours of a
>loss of power". [8]
>
>Russian experts are quoted in a July 1999 Enerpresse saying that it is very
>unlikely that the bug will have serious consequences for Russian nuclear
>reactors. An official is quoted saying Russia hoped to commence work on
>remediation "in a couple of weeks". [13]
>
>REFERENCES
>
>[1] Russian bug threatens cold winter of discontent - Computer Business
>Review, Apr 1999
>[2] Questions linger on energy - Financial Times, Mar 3, 1999
>[3] Industry tries to avoid hazardous flare-ups - Financial Times, Jun 22, 1999
>[4] Oil and Natural Gas: Are They the Real Problems in Y2K? - Jun 21, 1999
>http://www.gold- eagle.com/editorials_99/rc062199.html
>[5] US proposes stockpiling radiation antidote, By Tom Doggett - Reuters
>WASHINGTON, Jun 18, 1999
>[6] Accidental Armageddon - The Age (Australia), Jun 20, 1999
>http://www.theage.com.au/daily/
>990620/news/news22.html
>[7] Diplomats warned off Y2K Russia - Independent, July 4, 1999
>[8] Midnight crossing - Airforce Magazine, July 1999
>[9] Emergency Diesel Generators: The Weakest Link - Three Mile Island
>Alert, July 1999 http://www.tmia.com/EDGs.html
>[10] Update on the IEA's Y2K Activities - International Energy Authority,
>July 1999 http://www.iea.org/ieay2k/homepage.htm
>[11] Russia dances to the date bug's tune - Computer Weekly, Aug 5, 1999
>[12] Gazprom rejette tout problem lie au bogue de l'an 2000 - Enerpresse,
>Mar 12, 1999
>[13] Le bogue ne devrait pas avoir de consequences graves en Russie -
>Enerpresse, Jul 6, 1999
>[14] Nuclear alert over millennium bug - Observer, Aug 22, 1999
>[15] Nuclear plants on alert over computer bug - Independent on Sunday, Aug
>22, 1999
>[16] It's safe we hope - The Times, Aug 25, 1999
>[17] Perspective on the Y2K problem: The sky indeed may be falling - Los
>Angeles Times, Aug 17, 1999
>[18] French nuclear plants threatened by Y2K bug - Financial Times, May 4, 1999
>[19] Y2K analysis for complex systems of systems: Electric power systems in
>North America - US Army Report, Jan 1999
>http://cr-iiacfs1.army.mil/army-y2k/y2kelectric90224/tsld001.htm
>
>************************************************
>Jan Wyllie
>Trend Monitor "The Information Refinery"
>3 Tower Street, Portsmouth
>Hants. PO1 2JR, UK
>Tel: 44 (0)1363 881017
>Email: mailto:jan@trendmonitor.com
>Web: http://www.trendmonitor.com
>"only what you need to know"
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <<...>> CIS: Russia, US defence chiefs to meet Sept 13 - agency
>Tuesday, 31 Aug 1999 at 01:52am; Category: Overseas News; Low priority;
>Story No. 9551.
>CIS: Russia, US defence chiefs to meet Sept 13 - agency
>RUSSIA US DEFENCE
> MOSCOW, Aug 30 Reuters - The defence ministers of Russia and the
>United States will meet in Moscow on September 13 to discuss
>Kosovo, arms control and other pressing problems, Interfax news
>agency said today.
> The Defence Ministry confirmed that Igor Sergeyev would meet his
>US counterpart William Cohen next month but said a final date had
>still to be fixed.
> Interfax, quoting Leonid Ivashov, who heads the Russian Defence
>Ministry's international cooperation division, said the problems of
>Russian peacekeepers in Kosovo would top the agenda.
> Kosovo Albanians have been barring Russian peacekeepers from the
>town of Orahovac saying they are biased in favour of the Serbs.
>Washington has urged them to stop their blockade and allow the
>Russians to carry out their duties.
> Ivashov said Cohen and Sergeyev would also discuss cooperation
>on arms control and tackling the millennium computer bug.
> The Kremlin is still trying to persaude the Communist-dominated
>parliament to ratify the 1993 START-2 strategic arms reduction
>treaty and wants to start talks on a START-3 treaty which would
>impose further cuts in nuclear arsenals.
> But Moscow is also concerned about US plans to develop an
>anti-ballistic missile defence shield to protect its own troops and
>allies in the Far East like Japan against attack from "rogue
>states" such as North Korea.
> Russia says such a shield would violate the 1972 anti-ballistic
>missile (ABM) treaty which it regards as a central pillar of
>international arms control.
> The arms control issue, along with the Kosovo crisis, has soured
>relations between Moscow and Washington. Russia fiercely opposed
>NATO's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia but played an active
>role in mediating between the alliance and Belgrade.
> REUTER was
>
>31-08 0152
> <<...>>
>
>Thought you should know about the following report in the Christchurch
>Press today:
>
>"Glitch hits Aust Navy
>
>Almost the entire Australian patrol-boat fleet was affected by a satellite
>navigation glitch akin to the millennium computer bug, the Defence
>Department said. A Defence spokesman said yesterday that the global
>positioning systems aboard 14 of the navy's Fremantle class patrol boats
>failed at the weekend when the calendars on a ring of 24 satellites
>orbiting the earth were reset."
>
>This was one of the preview kick-in dates. In Michael Kraig's oped piece in
>the March/April issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, he wrote:
>"These systems may go down earlier than 2000, or they may fail months or
>years later than the turn of the century. For example, the internal clock
>of the Global Positioning System will 'roll over' on August 22, 1999, with
>calamitous results for any GPS user who does not have properly configured
>satellite receivers."
>
>Now, I wonder if this might also have been a contributory cause of the
>collision in the English Channel in clear calm weather (but at night)
>between the cruise liner 'Norwegian Dream' and a container ship? Bear in
>mind that the GPS system is in thousands of ships, fishing boats, yachts
>etc
>
>The next big date is 9/9/99.
>
>Best wishes,
>Rob
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Commander Robert D Green, Royal Navy (Retired)
> Chair, World Court Project UK
>
> Disarmament & Security Centre
> PO Box 8390
> Christchurch
> Aotearoa/New Zealand
>
> Tel/Fax: (+64) 3 348 1353
>
> Email: robwcpuk@chch.planet.org.nz
>
> [The DSC is a specialist branch of the NZ Peace Foundation]
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>