100% Total compliance INCLUDES ONE YEAR OF TESTING! That means that all 108 nuclear Power Plants will be shut down on July 1, 19999 to allow enough time to cool the Nuclear Core. Prepare NOW for nationwide power outages starting in July, which will cause chaos throughout the country! YOU MUST BE FULLY PREPARED FOR Y2K "BEFORE" JULY, 1999!!!

-- Freddie the Freeloader (freddie@aol.com), March 07, 1999

Answers

I agree with RD on this one, but the folks who are likely to hear the details first are people like Rick Cowles, Roleigh Martin, Rick Mills, etc.

I think we'll also see some wonderful euphemisms like "substantially compliant" or "nearly compliant" or "99% compliant". There's also the familiar trick of redefining what you mean by "mission-critical" systems.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), March 07, 1999.

Can you provide a link for confirmation?

-- (donna@home.now), March 07, 1999.

Where is your prrof of this Freddie?

Got a link?

PMM

-- PMM (grute22@yahoo.com), March 07, 1999.

Isn't going to happen. They will keep them running even if they have to turn off the safety systems and call that "compliant". Any other choice causes regional blackouts in July and August. Nukes account for 20-25% of all US power - more % wise here on the East Coast. Look for waivers of regs in June.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), March 07, 1999.

Verification of this report can be found on page 16 in the March 1999 issue of the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor. Do a search on your search engine for Don McAlvany.

The Headline reads....April Fool's Day: The countdown to Y2K has begun. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent out a memo that they will shut down any non-compliant Nuclear Power Plant on July 1, 1999. Mr. Don McAlvany is Nationally known for his extremely accurate Reports. PREPARE FOR POTENTIAL BLACKOUTS IN JULY, 1999.

-- Freddie the Freeloader (freddie@aol.com), March 07, 1999.

I don't know if what you're saying is absolutely grounded in fact. There are many in the industry who would argue that there are enough manual/analog backup controls to allow safe shutdown after 00, if need be. Might I suggest looking at the discussions in www.euy2k.com, and pay attention to Rick Cowles. He's pessimistic but perhaps not as pessimistic as you re: this issue.

In a larger sense, I'm betting that long-term/widespread electric failure will be in the low to moderate risk range in the US. There are many engineers and technicians who will be working overtime during the rollover to mitigate any unstable situation. They can do lots of manual overrides and keep things under control. Unlike a hurricane or thunderstorm, the 00 rollover will be expected well in advance. Yes there will be computer failures but engineers are usually smart enough to design complex systems with lots of redundancy and backups.

As 00 drags on, however, I'm not sure if power will be very reliable. Why? Rollover into 00 may happen successfully and lull people into false complacency, but hidden errors might gradually creep in and propagate cascading errors. Also, supply chain problems will get worse and make it difficult to restock/retool power plants. Finally, wintertime/weekend loads are much lower and there's lots of surplus; so in the summer time we might finally see the grid crashing from lack of surplus/unstable load.

But Europe/Russia will be another story. I doubt they'll even make it through the rollover.

This is just my humble opinion. I invite your respectful disagreement if I am ignorant.

-- Coprolith (Coprolith@rocketship.com), March 07, 1999.

Looks like RD is in denial. He cannot handle the idea of not having employment in July. Face the facts, buddy! The NRC will not allow ANY Nuclear Power Plant to operate past July 1,1999 unless they are fully compliant! No Nuclear Power Plant Manager will risk his job by continuing operations without the blessings of the NRC!!!!

-- Freddie the Freeloader (freddie@aol.com), March 07, 1999.

This issue has been addressed several times here in the past. Here is my own inquiry on this issue from October of last year:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000C Ue

The '6 month shutdown' issue has also been discussed repeatedly here but I could not immediately locate the thread (can someone assit with these links).

The current consensus (if you could go so far as to call it that) is that while there is some truth to the '6 month shutdown' issue, the heat output from the core drops dramatically during the first few days and that beyond that, minimal effort would be required for safe maintenance (i.e. simple water flow - the efforts required are not enormous).

The feeling seems to be that the operators of nuclear generating facilities are well aware of the issues involved and do have plenty of time to make certain that adequet contingency plans are in place for this specific issue.

Caveat: I am not a nuclear engineer, nor do I have any specialized training on the subject. I am simply paraphrasing what others here more knowledgeable that myself have indicated. This subject is of great interest to me however, because I live in a "Zone 1" - about as close as you can get to one of these facilities without actually working there.

We are continuing to keep a close eye on issues involved with the nuclear plants, but, at this time, we are not panicked nor inclined to move from our current location. We are, however, developing plan G3 which would be executed should the need arise to leave our current location. We are also considering whether our not we should be doing our monitoring of radiation levels. We've held off on the potassium iodide for the time being.

Nevertheless, we feel the July 1st date will be an interesting on to watch.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), March 07, 1999.

I should add that a good portion of my lack of fear living close to such a facility is based upon the numerous safety regulations imposed upon these plants.

Should those regulations be gutted this summer, that would change everything. It would be incredibly short-sighted. It is also highly irresposible to ask that my family and I endure increased risk because the operators of these facilities were negligent in addressing their Y2K issues. I would much prefer them to be shutdown than operated without the current level of safety regulations.

After all, we've had plenty of warning. My family and I are prepared to live without electricity for a time so that others more in need (hospitals, emergency services, etc) can have electricity. We feel others should also be prepared. We are not prepared to suffer increased risk so that others may continue to operate their microwaves and jacuzzis.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), March 07, 1999.

this from Electric Utilities and Y2K Forum

Electric Utilities and Y2K

On thread titled "NRC's policy on noncompliant nukes (1999-03-06)

I realize that there are some questionable points in the recent "Nation" article on Y2K by Kevin Sanders. Is the following point made near the end of the article correct or not? Sanders claims (and even quotes the NRC here) that the NRC recently said it will NOT shut down any noncompliant nuclear power plants by the end of this year. Has the NRC really decided to let noncompliant nukes operate into the next year?

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), March 06, 1999
-----------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 07, 1999.

July 1 is the date by which NRC is supposed to have received sufficient information on each nuke about the likelihood of it being compliant prior to rollover. It was never the date by which the nukes would have to be shut down.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), March 07, 1999.

The following is a letter from a nuclear engeneer, published in the Grapevine Publications Network newsletter....

As a nuclear engineer, I read with great interest the article about the NRC mandate for all nuke plants to be compliant or else shut down. A 1000 electric megawatt nuclear power plant generates about 3000 megawatts of heat energy. That is 3 billion watts of heat energy. When a plant is scrammed (shut down), the nuclear fission stops almost instantaneously; however, the core still generates a tremendous amount of heat. This heat is called residual heat and is a result of the natural cooling-off of the nuclear core.

Under normal circomstances, special pumps called Residual Heat Removal pumps circulate water through the core to keep it cool and remove excess heat.

Also under normal circumstances it takes approximately 4 months (depending on the operating power of the core) to cool a core to the point that loss of cooling will not damage the core.

In other words, nuclear plants need SIX MONTHS to ensure their cores are cool enough and won't melt if power to the plant is permanently lost. Imagine the ensuing mess if nukes can't cool their cores.

-- Freddie the Freeloader (freddie@aol.com), March 07, 1999.

July 1st is the target date to be Y2k ready for the Nuclear Plants. The actual NRC cutoff date for regulatory action seems to be September 30th: Link

Generic Letter 98-01 also requests a written response, no later than July 1, 1999, confirming that these facilities are Y2K ready. Licensees who are not Y2K ready by July 1, 1999, must provide a schedule for remaining work to ensure timely Y2K readiness. The NRC will assess these responses and, by September 30, 1999, determine the need for further plant-specific regulatory actions. Should the NRC identify a situation where the Y2K problem results in a licensee being in noncompliance with the plant license or NRC regulations, appropriate regulatory action (e.g. a shutdown order) will be taken as necessary. Hoffmeister

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 07, 1999.

Shutting down the nukes is a political decision. Haven't noticed an upwelling of testicular fortitude in that arena lately.

The nuke plants will stay up till they break or they are fixed. Count on it.

Sure hope the operators know what they are doing.

-- art welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), March 07, 1999.

This same scenerio including July shut down was covered in a post dated January 11 by David Bresnahan at WorldNetDaily.com in conjunction with Nation Guard preps. His reasoning behind the July date was that nuclear power plant must have power to shut down. If it takes 4 months to shut down then September 1 would seem to be the latest date they could start the shut down process and be safe.

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), March 07, 1999.

The quote below leads me to believe nuclear power plants are hoping that completed *assessment* will be enough in July. The article is from January 1999.

http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/124358.html

[snip]

However, an NEI statement said the "majority of America's 103 nuclear power plants" still have not finished the assessment stage to determine which of their computer systems will be affected by the Year 2000 problem.

Specifically, NEI said most of the plants "have nearly completed the detailed assessments needed to pinpoint computer systems that might be affected by Y2K issues."

"Plants that have not completed this work have been asked to increase their efforts so that the industry can report on the Y2K status of all plants to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the agency's July 1, 1999, deadline," the NEI statement said.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 07, 1999.

What about Russia? France? and other countries that have nuclear plants? Any word on if they will shut down?

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), March 07, 1999.

From Rick Cowles' forum:

The NRC has never said that it will be, or is even considering, shutting down any power plant in July, 1999. The only significance of the 7/1999 date is that a report on Y2k readiness is due from every nuclear plant in the country. Regarding potential shutdowns, the only thing that NRC representatives have said publicly is that they have the authority to shut down any plant that they deem not to be Y2k ready. They have established no time table for such action, to the best of my knowledge.

There are quite a few threads on this issue in the euy2k.com forum. Simply scroll to the bottom of the forum index page, and look under the 'nuclear' topic heading.

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles.remove@waterw.com), March 07, 1999.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), March 07, 1999.

In January the Nuclear Regulatory Commission received three petitions submitted by the Nuclear Information Resource Service concerning y2k effects on public safety re. nuclear plants. The petitions called for closing all plants that are not y2k compliant, or assuring that they have needed power from alternative sources such as solar power. Public comment was limited to a 30 day period ending February 24, as time is of the essence. The petitions were posted in the Federal Register Onlilne via GPO Access (wais.access.gpo.gov)

-- Shivani Arjuna (odnsmall@aol.com), March 07, 1999.

This is the kind of reporting we need, different dates for shut down, different dates for compliance, different testing dates, no wonder we are all confused and bewildered. But that's exactly what the Fed's want. Don't get scared and don't prepare, we are in control! Spin, spin, spin, round and around we go, where we land no one knows. So who is BSing who?

-- Spinning (Spinning@spinning.com), March 07, 1999.

Sir Freddy - yes we've discussed this both from a technical (nuclear physics) standpoint, and from a legal (NRC legistlative) standpoint - as well in terms of their public policy comment period on these rules.

You are both correct and wornd at the same time - because the issue is complex and has twelve sides - more than the ususal "two" sides the journalists use. If you want more info - get hold of me; if others want a continued physics discussion, say so.

The real issue is like asking two teachers whether a hand grenade is safe in the hands of a student? If I didn't tell you that one student would be a Marine on a drill field, and the other a sixth grader in her classroom, could you predict the answer?

If the second teacher was a Marine drill sargeant, would he answer "yes - a hand grenade is safe." -

Of course not! He knows that a hand grenade is obviously dangerous - and in the hands of a student Marine - is doubly so. But he knows that the Marine must learn to respect the power and purpose of the hand grenade - he must use it professionally, and must treat it with respect. But it will always be dangerous. So the drill sergeant won't spout meaningless garbage - but he will show you whaen and why it is needed, and how to use it safely so no one is injured - unless intended.

Then those receiving the hand grenade should be dead. If it is properly used - it is deadly. If it is properly used - it is perfectly safe.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 07, 1999.

The NRC has but one function in life. That mission is to insure that all nuke plants are operating safely. Period end of conversation. IF,,, the nukes are in anyway, for anyreason, in an unsafe or UNKNOWN condition, the NRC, must by law, SHUT THEM DOWN. If they do not, there is no need for the NRC. It takes 4 months to cool the reactor core, and they MUST have power to do it! So alittle math. July first the reports, before Aug.31 shut down if needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Letes put this one to bed untill July. Buy more Iodine!!!!!

-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 07, 1999.

Whose in charge of the NRC? Is the committee, hierarchy, the powers that be, going to waiver safety for power? Will public safety in one region be sacrificed for another? This is what disturbs me the most, no true information coming from anywhere. It is heresay, speculation, this is why people are hoarding food and supplies, people are afraid. They are afraid for their lives, their loved ones, and they believe it will be me against the "spin doctors." The days are no gone for trust in one another, and trust in one's goverment. People truly are on their own because they have seen how governments and those in power have acted and reacted toward the public. There is a lack of trust, and when gtrust is lacking, so is everything else. May God help us.

-- Nuffsaid (Nuffsaid@preparing.com), March 07, 1999.

The Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) has a biased agenda (shutdown all nuclear plants) that discredits their public and private reports - they are not a credible reference for any technical matters, and the so-called "repairs" they require to be done actually place the plants at greater risk.

The NIRS are an environmental group whose releases and plans are only consistent with returning to a pre-technical era only slightly exaggerated by characterizing it by "power by horse manure and manual labor". Repeat, they are not a credible technical reference regarding nuclear safety issues.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 07, 1999.

And so folks, we have R.A. Cook (Kook), Scotty (Notty), Spinning (Whining), and so on so forth spewing information that is not information at all.......can we pucker our lips and say DOOM?

-- WoeIsMe (WoeIsMe@Woe.com), March 07, 1999.

You run any nuclear or conventional power plants lately?

Built any?

Tested any?

Lived near any? How close? (More than 30 feet doesn't count.)

Taken 'em apart, put 'em back together?

Dismantled any?

Designed any?

Analyzed any?

Studied any civil engineering?

Any structural engineering?

Any piping, heat flow, thermodynamics, or fluid mechanics? How many courses? How much post-bac.? How much in advanced degrees, how much was OJT? What systems?

Any electrical engineering? Computing? Control theory?

Where are you licensed? What field(s)?

What have you published? What fields?

What papers have you presented? Where? Who was the audience? What was their response?

Studied any nuclear physics or particle theory?

Studied any radiation or health physics?

Studied any math, past the basics of differential and integral calculus and numeric analysis?

I'll accept as valid any experience between say 1952 and 1999. The more recent the better - give me plants and your function. If, when, you've established your credibility, I'll listen to your technical opinions on a technical level. Until then, I'll assume you're only interested in distracting other people who have serious concerns, but who are not able to discuss it technically.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 07, 1999.

Robert,

Your presence on this forum is highly valued by those of us laymen who seek understandable explanations for highly specialized technical subjects. Your knowledgeable and experience-based contributions are greatly appreciated. The latest troll infestation is regrettable amidst well-informed forum participants such as yourself. Hang in here...we need you.

-- Wanda (lonevoice@mailexcite.com), March 07, 1999.

Robert, I have no close familiarity with the processes of a nuclear power plant - all I know is that it's an extremely dangerous method of boiling water, made trebly so by the uncertainty of their Y2K problems. A degree sure isn't needed to figure out that these things need to be shut down if there's the least chance that they may have problems.

-- belief (b@,.,), March 07, 1999.

Woe, my friend. You have attacked one of teh few acknowledged techies in ref nuclear power. In case you missed the threads in teh past, a brief review of Robert's background might be in order. He HAS built 'em, he has run 'em, and he has repaired 'em. I would expect designing felkl in there too.

Before you suggest that this is simply from a self reported compliant source, i would suggest that, in reading his past posts he has satisfied me (and I have hung around with some REAL power jocks as they are called at Niagara Mohawk Institute of Technology errr Clarkson University), and one of my old college buddies HAS done the work Robert has done.

Sorry about the typos but I can only furryly see the keyboard and teh screen.

Chuck hoping this fog is typical when the laser takes your epithelium!!

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 07, 1999.

And no one is questioning the source of this information? Mc Alvany? "Extremely Accurate?" Come now.... All you gotta do is dig up some of his old newsletters, and see for yourself - I believe there's some on file at some of the gold sites (Gold Eagle?).

-- Morgan (morgan96@netscape.net), March 07, 1999.

Chuck,

The fog is typical, but you'll be back in business soon. Good choice... it'll be a wise long-term decision, I think.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999.

Perhaps Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, CA., may give you some helpful information on nuclear power plants. They have built and engineered many here in the states. Diablo Canyon, located in California is one of many that they engineered. Trouble is, the engineers who worked on them are either dead or retired.

-- ~~ (~~@~~.com), March 08, 1999.

As for the original topic of this thread: It is readily apparent that the NRC is not, I repeat not, planning on shutting down non-compliant plants in July. From the notes on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Briefing on Y2k:

Li nk

MR. DAVIS: Yes. Our goal is to finish the program and to be ready by 1 July, the final bullet. Since November my reporting has been aimed at that report. We are using the same terms and verbiage as we used in the manual and as we expect people to use in the report that they make on 1 July. In the final bullet we have 17 sites that have identified specific remediation items that will go beyond that 1 July date. The average is two items at any one site. So we are talking about 34 items.

CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But nothing in that red and dark red band?

MR. DAVIS: There is something in that red and dark red band. For example, we consider the feedwater control unit to be a critical item because if it trips, it will shut down the plant. There are two cases where we will have upgrades done in a fall outage to a feedwater controller. It has been done on one unit, the same exact piece of equipment, so we know it's going to work. They are going to put it in the second unit in the fall outage. It doesn't seem appropriate to recommend a five-day unplanned outage to do that upgrade when you have very high confidence that you are going to be able to make that repair. That's the only thing I can think of that is up in that top quadrant of my band.

So obviously, they know of 17 sites that plan on not being compliant by July 1, and are not planning on shutting them down.

Actually, one of them is my power company, Virginia Power. From their Y2k status report:

Link

In previous versions of this status page, they identified the plant finishing remediation in the fall as one of the Nuclear sites.

Hoffmeister

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 08, 1999.

Ever hear the expression "between a rock and a hard place"?

1) NRC has not committed to shutting down nuclear plants that are not Y2K compliant (i.e., all of them).

2) I doubt that any nuclear plant will achieve Y2K compliant status. (Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!)

Q: Do you feel lucky? Well, do yuh??

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 08, 1999.

Again - look at the specific quotes about the planning for the "Octoer" repairs - one specific plant, one spcific system (feedwater), one specific control system that has been repaired succesfully at another equal installation at a different plant.

But, for nuclear plants, its (one valve) literally the subject of conversation between regulators and the power company executives at the Congressional level - on the record.

This is a specific well-timed repair within known boundaries that would shut the plant downif not remediated. No fossil plant has released comparable level of cross-level industrial attention - but they have feedwater systems much more complicated and much less thoroughly documented, and with much less chance of finding source drawings, old venders, and replacement parts. And entirely unregulated, and unremediated, and unattended, and potentially uninspected, and most likely, untested.

So - in my humble opinion - the power that will be most likely reliable will be hydro - (if the systems are tested) and then nuclear. Coal next - based on inertia of old plants (if emmisions standards are voided for the duration - then the middle aged oil plants (until their tanks run dry) then natural gas-powered plants.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

Unless there is something being said privately we haven't heard-seen (and I doubt it), there is no way nuclear will be shut down prior to Jan. 2000, if ever. The political and panic costs of that in the government's mind far outweigh the reports they are receiving of minor, fixable problems.

I agree with Robert's analysis entirely (hey, BTW, called the whole-house surge guys you recommended on another thread, thanks).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 08, 1999.

Chuck said our apparent nuclear expert has "...built 'em, he has run 'em, and he has repaired 'em. I would expect designing fell in there too."

I'm sorry, but I have less than perfect faith in the nuclear industry, which has not really distinguished itself with candor, openness or supplying unbiased information to the public, or anyone associated with it. Ivory-towerism is pretty ugly when it's raining iodine-131 on your garden... anybody here remember TMI?

-- half-life (not@gonna.glow), March 08, 1999.

For that matter, anyone remember Karen Silkwood?

-- carey (nope@not.here), March 08, 1999.