http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/Y2KNRR.html

(State) (Plant) (Begin Detailed Assessment) (Plan to Finish Assessment)

Tenn. Watts Bar 5/1/98 2/24/99 (10 months) Ohio Davis Besse 4/98 4/99 (12 months) NJ Hope Creek 4/20/98 2/24/99 (10 months) NC Brunswick 6/98 12/98 (6 months) NH Seabrook NoData 6/15/98 MN Monticello 11/98 3/99 (4 months - huh?)

Remember, assessment = finding the problems (about 5% of your overall y2k project according to the California White Paper

Look how late they will find out how big their problem is in order to fix it.

Now go to www.y2knewswire.com/y2kengine.htm and type in your own personal percentages on the iron triangle.

Try typing in a low 20% in every category and see what you get. It demonstrates how likely it is that the dominoes will fall using a simple model, but an effective communicating tool.

-- James Chancellor (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), January 08, 1999

Answers

All nuclear plants that are not compliant are due to be taken off- line on July 1st '99 for safety reasons.

Pigs might fly.

Ain't gonna happen - watch that deadline get pushed towards 2000.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

Before you believe that nuclear generation power plants will be taken off-line for any reason, at any time, you should recall Dick Mills words in Power Prognostications-Mamma Mia. . .etc.:

"I heard Mr. Jared Wermiel of NRC speak at the Infocast Y2K conference in Las Vegas last month. Mr. Wermiel is the NRC's point man for Y2K. What he said was astounding. NRC has been ordered to consider the lack of nuclear power production in 2000 as a threat to the nation, and therefore to work cooperatively with the nuclear plant owners to allow them to keep running.

At the same conference Kathleen Hirning from FERC, (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), said that FERC had also been ordered to be cooperatvive (sic)." -end quote (bolding & italics mine-Hardliner)

Who has the authority to issue orders to both NRC and FERC?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 08, 1999.

When I read posts like yours above Hardliner, makes me appreciate even more the Atlas Shrugged novel.

And Hardliner, your bold/italics/colors are getting more and more fancy. Is this your way of venting steam? (You're my forum idol in self-countenance ;-) )

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

Chris,

Nothing quite so practical; Jarheads are just "colorful" guys! If you get a chance, check out one of the weekly parades at 8th & I in Washington.

As for the "idol" stuff, it's very flattering but could get me in "big trouble" with Harderliner (to say nothing of making all the other guys on the forum jealous a hell)!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 08, 1999.

Alright. I get the hint. I'll quit the praises ;-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

Hardliner,

I believe both NRC and FERC are part of the Executive Branch - in other words they're more or less under direct control of the prez...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 09, 1999.

Arlin,

You wrote:

"I believe both NRC and FERC are part of the Executive Branch - in other words they're more or less under direct control of the prez... "

I really couldn't tell you about "FERC" being a part of the govt. Just cause it's got "federal" in its title... Well, think "federal" reserve...

As for NRC, isn't it like NERC (National Electric Reliability Council)? I.e., isn't it just an industry-sponsored commision with little or no authority?

-- Sean Fitzgerald (seanf@sas.upenn.edu), January 09, 1999.

Sean: RE: NRC Authority

If the NRC says crap, my nuke plant doesn't ask how much; they go until the NRC says stop. Near total authority.

No way the US shuts down 'all' nuke plants in July.

-- nucpwr (nucpwr@hotmail.com), January 09, 1999.

NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a federal regulatory agency fully empowered to do whatever's necessary to keep the plants SAFE, not running.

NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council, an industry funded and operated organization fully empowered to do nothing other than set operating standards and guidelines for the transmission network in the U.S.

-- Dan Webster (cant@spamme.com), January 09, 1999.

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/Y2KNRR.html

This page gives links to 6 of 12 reactors.

Each audit follows the same format, but the amount of info varies. The result of a failure of a given system is usually not given, but in the audit where it is - very sobering indeed - ranges from decrease in generating power to plant shutdown in the critical systems. The phases of assessment are broken into "initial" and "detailed", and one gets the idea that is where they are on the majority of the systems, with the caveat that of course they are in remediation on those which have been assessed as noncompliant. Read the system details and embeddeds. Check out their time frames, the scope of the projects, and their progress. Not good, but they vary considerably depending upon the age of the plant, the older plant having much less of a y2k problem. GPS reliant was mentioned for on system at Seabrook. Cooling systems seem to be a common problem. Most of the audits give boilerplate lip service to the Elec Grid, but the one that does go into detail of y2k impact and current status had me shaking my head. Contingency planning status varies, with a lean towards boilerplate. Randoms: had varied from the y2k standard test procedure: not all hot dates are being checked: excessive reliance upon vendors sayso.

It is apparent that these people are making an effort, but I seriously question, given their progress so far and the given time frames, how the majority will get enough done to actually physically run the plant, or get the juice onto the grid. Their scheduling and progress is quite at odds with the Calif White Paper project phase assessment of cost and time frame.

These audits are well worth the time to read. I came away with the thought that we are looking at the whole y2k nuke scenario wrong. It would seem, that with any med grade serious noncompliance, whether or not the NRC decides to let the plant stay operative is rather moot, because most likely the failure will either disable the plant or the associated grid system.

Because of this I suggest the focus on nukes perhaps move away from the NRC issue and instead focus upon plant operation and safety (and it would seem that there _are y2k safety problems in some of the plants). And since each of these plant's physical operations vary, judging from their hard and software lists, it would probably be a good idea to begin regional grass roots, face-to-face activism for each plant complex.

mitch

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), January 09, 1999.

I agree with that - each plant is unique, and has been repaired/replaced/upgraded/refitted differently by different sensor venders at different times over the past 20-30 years.

So the response - even to the same problem - will have to be different at each plant. But worry more about the other 80% of power production, about the national distribution of power, natural gas, and heating oil - all of which also rely on power, telephones, some satellites, and regional control centers and distributed (remote site) sensors.

Those things (or more precisely, the vast network of those things being assumed to be working rightly!) will be the killer.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 09, 1999.

Mitchell, thanks for the link. Very troubling information to me as a lay person. Here's an example of how the testing on different plants differ and how much lattitude they have:

Audit comment on the Hope Creek plant in NJ:

"5.The licensee is conducting confirmatory testing of mission critical system Y2K compliance at the plant site, regardless of vendor certifications. The licensee stated that this was necessary because some vendor certifications of Y2K compliance have not been reliable."

Audit comment on the Brunswick plant NC:

"The licensee is accepting vendor certifications for embedded components including those in high priority mission critical systems without conducting additional confirmatory testing at the plant site. This approach is based upon the licensee's reliance on and confidence in its established vendor qualification program and resulting approved vendor/supplier list. The audit team acknowledged that the decision on whether to perform additional embedded component Y2K susceptibility testing is based on the licensee's determination of the importance of the affected system and knowledge of the item, prior experience with the vendor, and other relevant information obtained."

And this comment on Monticello plant, MN:

"The audit team was under the impression that all nuclear power plant licensees had started their facility-specific Y2K program by early 1998 because NEI/NUSMG 97-07 was provided to senior utility management in November 1997. The MNGP Year 2000 Readiness Project was formally started in June 1998 and incorporated into the NSP corporate Y2K program at that time. The licensee was aware of the Y2K problem in late 1996 and had initiated an ad-hoc evaluation of some MNGP computer systems (e.g., plant process computer, plant security computer, and the turbine electronic pressure regulator) in 1997. The MNGP project is at the initial assessment stage now which is expected to be completed by October/November 1998. The overall MNGP Y2K project is scheduled to be completed by July 1999 with readiness achieved at that time. The audit team considers the schedule to be an ambitious one."

I noticed that there's no audit posted yet on the Limerick plant owned by PECO in PA, of which I posted the dismal Y2K 10-Q disclosure in an earlier thread.

I'm certainly not an expert, but I agree with you Mitchell, that "whether or not the NRC decides to let the plant stay operative is rather moot, because most likely the failure will either disable the plant or the associated grid system."

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 09, 1999.

The link for the Limerick audit is not posted on the NRC website yet, but it is on the NRC's webserver. The link can be found on the euy2k.com forum.

-- Dan Webster (cant@spamme.com), January 10, 1999.