Internal report from Y2K Newswire

As you may know, we've written down a series of "trigger events" we think are likely to indicate important psychological and physical Y2K milestones. Recently, one such event was triggered, leading to this important message to members.

Here's what happened: on Monday, May-24th, a single comment from one stock analyst resulted in a 174-selloff in the stock market. But that's not the entire point: the analyst specifically mentioned Y2K as the reason international banks might not meet earnings expectations. Thus, Y2K alone set off a 174-point selloff.

Ponder for a moment the gravity of that event. It was a breakthrough event, of sorts. To see the market react to Y2K was amazing. Economists have been telling investors that Y2K is nothing, that in fact, it will add to the output. But here, we saw the public react to Y2K news.

You must be wondering: why didn't we issue an alert the very next day? Here's why: we wanted something more solid than a one-time blip event. Yesterday, we got it. It's not substantial enough to prove, so we can't publicly publish it. We can, however, tell our members about it and explore the potential outcomes of this situation.

Here's the event: we received confirmation from a credible source -- another investigative journalist covering Y2K -- about a memo leaked from the NRC. That's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, of course, the industry-supported group responsible for ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants. This memo tells nuclear power plants to prepare for shutdown in July or August of this year.

That's right: an industry-wide nuclear plant shutdown is apparently being planned. Obviously, it is not being made public.

This event, combined with the demonstrated fragility of the market when it comes to Y2K news, tells us something of critical importance: if the nuke plants shut down, this market will probably crash. Imagine: if a single recommendation covering international banks can drop the market 174 points, what will the nationwide realization that Y2K is real do to the Dow?

Frankly, we still don't have a crystal ball, and we can't tell you how far this thing will drop... or even whether the NRC memo is the real thing. We simply don't have rock-solid proof. However, we believe it to be true, and we believe the recent market reaction demonstrated the Y2K-vulnerability of the entire system.

FACT #1: If the nuke plants shut down, the country will wake up to Y2K.

FACT #2: If the country wakes up to Y2K, the market has a much higher probability of crashing. Why? If Y2K is real, people will think the bull market ride is over. They'll pull out money to buy some extra supplies or just to "be safe" from this problem.

FACT #3: Purchasing supplies will become extremely difficult. Why? Nuke power plants provide nearly 20% of the nation's power -- 40% on the East Coast. A shutdown of even half of these would effect 10% of the nation's power supply and would wake up most of the now-brainwashed population. Once awoken, they'll realized they've been lied to. And when that hits, it spells anger, fear, resentment, and so on. Bottom line: these will not be happy people, and they may not act rationally.

-- interesting stuff (john@home.com), June 09, 1999

Answers

Won't happen. I'll bet a week's pay on that.

-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), June 09, 1999.

I agree, it would cause too much of a panic ! ! ! ! !

-- lurker (lurker@msn.com), June 09, 1999.

Art - I'll raise you three cases of TP!

1. I don't for a moment believe that the market tip during the flight from banking stocks was a general condemnation of Y2K. It was simply a recognition that bank stocks, compared to other types of investments, were not so competitive. The market bounced right back.

2. Unless I misunderstand how the grids operate, the issue is not a national average, it is whatever the specific grid can handle, so we are dealing with some percentage of the 40% capacity for the entire eastern half of the company. With an operating margin of about 15-20%, that would mean the eastern grid would collapse, and during the period of greatest annual demand. Individual areas could operate by islanding, but much of the eastern half of the U.S. would be without power (or operating under really severe rationing). This is a massive threat to national security, among other issues. Washington won't let this happen. It also is clearly unnecessary that anything like this happen before the end of the year. Sounds more like a demand by NRC for contingency planning, not specific action.

So, I'll join the ranks of those questioning Y2K Newswire's integrity.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

I have the sense that sometimes posts are directed at us, rather than to us. To test our reaction. By our comments, measured response models indicate the *temp*, to gauge the psyche of our group.

I thought from the beginning of GI, that we would be subject to a test of the critical systems during the summer, when the most would suffer the least. So this post makes ?sense in my little world. But I *feel*, for lack of deeper investigative analysis, that there is more to this 'leak' than the obvious. Just a feeling, and it really doesn't matter to me what the market does or doesn't do, what matters is the degree of preparedness when TSHTF.

-- unspun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), June 09, 1999.

nah- I bet that IF they do order a shutdown, it won't be until after summer is over- power demand is too high in the summer- the grid almost went down this week in parts of the country due to the heat- so I vote it won't happen til Sept/Oct.

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), June 09, 1999.

Politicians are not concerned with fact, but perception. Truth is relative. I believe that the political beast would rather gamble with the lives of citizens and hope for a good outcome before taking any conservative approach that would result in less risk. This may include, but not be limitied to, shutting down some or all of the plants.

All policies have a political twist in their makeup. Statesmen are a very rare breed. The NRC, if it shuts down the plants, would have to eat crow, go against political bosses and be able to trump the hand of wall street. Won't happen. Got thyroid tablets?

-- Daryl (rushmore@dailypost.com), June 09, 1999.

I will bet two cans of sweet corn that no nuclear power plants will be shut down in August by NRC as a precaution against Y2K technology problems. I will bet two more cans of sweet corn that no nuclear power plants will be shut down in September by NRC even if there is concern about Y2K technology problems. I will even make the same bet on up to December. It's my current (perhaps, well informed) opinion that the NRC will take no such actions against the operation of nuclear power plants.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), June 09, 1999.

Some thoughts:

(1) My understanding is that the NRC is responsible for safety, not the availability of power. That is to say, they are required to take steps to protect the public from nuke problems regardless of the other consequences. If so, the shutdown may be a painful reality for them (shootin' old yeller).

(2) My guess is that putting a "sell" order on the four major banks was without precedent. Sell orders are reserved for companies that have flames coming out of the windows and creditors knocking on the doors. This WAS a big event (regardless of whether the market reacted appropriately or not.)

(3) I was listening to Cavuto Business Report last night and they were discussing how only a cataclysmic event could stop the "bull" (bull market that is). After considerable discussion, they just couldn't think of what that event could possibly be! It was funny in a sick sort of way. If you read quotes of analysts from the '20s and '30s they don't sound a whole lot different than today. Lots of euphoria and bold assertions about the future.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), June 09, 1999.

I agree Stan, I honestly don't expect to see anything logical, reasonable or responsible being done, if it runs the risk of hurting people's hard earned "take our word that it's there" money!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 09, 1999.

No nukes will be shut down in Texas. We're projected to have (once again) a generation capacity shortage. Only 5KW of our 56K capacity is Nuke, but sounds like that would be enough to shut some areas down.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 09, 1999.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Neil Cavuto and his lap dog, Karen Gibbs, are two of the biggest pollyannas in the history of television.

Where do these people come from ???? Sorry to get off topic.

-- lurker (lurker@lurker.com), June 09, 1999.

Nukes shutting down this summer is a RUMOR only.

If you bother to read anything ELSE from the NRC, you will find that the plants can invoke 10CFR50.54(x) and stay open.

(until some unforseen Y2K problem or zebra mussels clogging their cooling systems cause them to shutdown)

more reading 4U from NRC

-- PLONK! (realaddress@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

uh????? If this is trolling, it at least is quality trolling. Is this supposed to be some sort of non-public "private stock, club members only" "internal" report? If so...... Anyway. "That's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, of course, the industry-supported group responsible for ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants." Is Y2K newswire confusing them with NERC? Last time I looked it was nrc.gov not nrc.org.

As Brooks pointed out, taking the nukes off line would crash the east grid. I mean for heaven's sake [replace with your favorite obscenity if it will wake you up], wheeling (transfer of power from area A to area B and from B to A due to deregulation contracts) causes enough headaches as far as grid stability goes (if what my power freind tells me is true). The grid is not magic, the amount of power that it can transfer from one location to another is finite and does incur losses.

July and August, give me a break. While the loss of KC's Hawthorne, Detroit's Ford, and who's-it down in Florida, is managable because overall it is small, taking half or all the nukes off-line equals disaster in the summer.

It would be interesting to see what the deep greens would say if that did happen! :)

Also, I really do have to laugh at the talking heads when they try to summarize precisely why the stock market went up or down at the end of the day in 25 words or less. "Right." - Bill Cosby The intentions of 600-800 million shares traded per day, which by the by means that many sold AND than many purchased (a difference of opinion is what makes a good horse race), can explained by one little glib sentence or two? That represents a level of faith that the most abnegating saint couldn't come up with.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 09, 1999.

ROTFLMAO Lisa, some typos are funnier than others, and heaven knows I've made at least my share, and most of them were just ho-hum and one was real funny. However your's should win an award.

Just the mental image alone is priceless. A cooling tower made out of a 5 gallon galvanized bucket was the first thing that popped into my head. An backup generator of a rub-on-tire bike generator on a exercycle was the next.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 09, 1999.

A few weeks ago I read something kin to this report. The nuclear plants may be shut down starting in July because it takes four months for the reactors to cool down. This is need before they can start working on the changes for Y2K. That only allows two months for instillation and correcting any problems before Jan. 1, 2000.

-- Freda McClain (mcclain@coscc.cc.tn.us), June 09, 1999.

Freda - It only takes a few days to lower temperatures to a manageable level. Nukes are routinely taken off-line for maintenance and refueling. Some of the Y2K work is being scheduled for these maintenance periods (which is why not all of the plants are "ready" yet).

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

I hope they shut down the nukes in Texas. My cabin is about 30 miles away from one. Too close.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), June 09, 1999.

NRC has no authority. They can only reccommend action.

-- Carol (abc@abc.com), June 09, 1999.

Carol, I thought it was NERC that had no regulatory power (over the non-nukes). Who has authority to shut the nukes down over safety issues if not NRC, a regulatory body?

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

Will this rumor never die?

I'll bet three weeks pay, and my 12 gauge.

Find another crock to dispense from John@home, this one is played.

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

i have been informed that a midwest nuclear power will close this summer. the individual that informed me works for the company. it will not be any big news to me just those that are not prepared. will it be wise to wake up america by these actions? this about it. i will not reveal the company or the source as i doubt this person knows what kind of information they are releasing. until it happens keep preparing and enjoy the summer. its only 90 today.

-- ima (not@revealing.com), June 09, 1999.

I've heard various unconfirmed rumors, but have seen nothing verifiable. This should be confirmed before we go spreading rumors that [a lot of] the lights are going out. Remember, there is always a nuke plant somewhere that is shutting down. They have to refuel. They are decomissioned because they've reached their life expectancy. they are decomissioned for political reasons. But what do I know? I only operate a hydro plant. I did pick up 50 gallons of kerosene, though....

-- Lane Dexter (madison_6@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

Brooks, I got ahead of myself. You are right. The NRC has the authority. The NERC does not. Very confusing isn't it?

-- Carol (abc@abc.com), June 09, 1999.

Some posters have questioned my motivations. I am a member of the "Y2K Newswire", so I have access to their "internal reports". This was on there yesterday. I had a similar reaction to most posters "what the heck? could this be true? nah ...".

One person suggested that the NRC wants to force nukes to produce contingency plans. Releasing this as a rumor could be a way to put pressure on the nuke operators.

I am not a troll. I am not trying to stir up trouble. I am your average "GI". I have spent $10,000 on preps (getting a wood stove is half of that, with purchase, installation, and new water heater to prevent doubling up on the chimney).

I usually post under a different name, but I used this one to avoid getting in trouble for posting an "internal" report.

-- interesting stuff (john@home.com), June 09, 1999.

Thanks I.S. Actually, what I had in mind when I brought up the issue of contingency planning, is that I could see a requirement by the NRC that nukes spend July/August preparing their contingency plans, since the end of June is the deadline for submitting reports on remediation compliance. There is no need for NRC to coerce the nukes into preparing plans by leaking rumors; they could simply require them to do so. What I took exception to was the apparent groundless sensationalism and distortion of the facts and context of the article. I have enjoyed your articles in the past, but it is especially important that they be carefully researched and written.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

I WILL, bite on this one. I have thought all along they would have to be shut down by the end of summer. We will see.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 09, 1999.

There was discussion of this on csy2k about a year ago. The NRC sent a letter out to all of the plants last year. The following is in the section titled "Required Response":

Upon completing your Y2K program or, in any event, no later than July 1, 1999, submit a written response confirming that your facility is Y2K ready, or will be Y2K ready, by the year 2000 with regard to compliance with the terms and conditions of your license(s) and NRC regulations. If your program is incomplete as of that date, your response must contain a status report, including completion schedules, of work remaining to be done to confirm your facility is/will be Y2K ready by the year 2000.

Make of that letter what you will.

-- Me (me@here.com), June 09, 1999.

right, meant of 56KW, 5KW is nuke - if that's the typo you mean, ken- doing enterprise-wide training this week, can only bop in to insult Y2K propeller-head intermittently

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 09, 1999.

Lisa,

Tou must be talking about MEGA watts not KILO watts. A good wind mill can put our 5 KW.

Others,

Based on what I have read the NRC definetly has the power to order a nuke plant to shut down. They have several levels of safety. Check out the www.nrc.org page and find the Level alerts - as I recall three of six are in northern Illinois. Two are Commonwealth Edison's.

I'll try to find the link.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), June 09, 1999.

NRC says No Problem

NRC posts Watch List says next update tobe July 1999

The last Watch List above was published on NRC web page on July 1998. NRC stated they will update the watch list annually. As I recall about 12 of 103 plants have been audited for Y2K with less than perfect results. NRC page says ALL nuke plants will be audited and results posted by July, 1999

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), June 09, 1999.

I do not think there is much chance of nuke plant shutdowns before the end of the year (Doug, move!) unless the 8/22 or 9/9 dates make for a meltdown or two, which seem not too likely. We'll see, won't we?

my site: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

That 8/22 date that MinnesotaSmith mentioned -- when the GPS rollover occurs -- is sure a very elusive animal. If there is going to be a summer shutdown, I would highly suspect that it will be prior to that event.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 09, 1999.

Since they did not meet their june 1st compliancy dead-lines, didn't they move it to Sept. 1st? That would be more in line with the terrible 9's.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 10, 1999.