http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/99-87.htm

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ON TRACK FOR ACHIEVING Y2K COMPLIANCE

BY JULY 1

An audit of measures taken by 12 nuclear power plants to address potential computer problems at the start of the Year 2000 shows they are on schedule to meet the readiness target date of July 1.

No problems were found at the plants that will interfere with the ability of their computers to control key safety systems starting next year. The on-site audits were conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission between last September and January of this year.

The "Year 2000" or Y2K problem, refers to computers' potential inability to recognize dates beginning with January 1, 2000, and beyond. It is caused by computer programs that use two-digit numbers to represent a calendar year (such as "98" for 1998). If the problem is not corrected, vulnerable computer systems will read "00" as 1900, rather than 2000, potentially causing some plant systems or equipment to malfunction.

The plants audited included Brunswick (North Carolina), Hope Creek (New Jersey), Davis Besse (Ohio), Wolf Creek (Kansas), Monticello (Minnesota), Seabrook (New Hampshire), Watts Bar (Tennessee), Limerick (Pennsylvania), Waterford (Louisiana), North Anna (Virginia), Braidwood (Illinois), and WNP-2 (Washington State). They were chosen on the basis of design, geographic location and age to be generally representative of all 103 operating nuclear plants. Because licensee Y2K programs are corporate-wide, many of the NRC staff audits include more than a single nuclear power plant site, since many utilities own more than one nuclear plant. Hence, theY2K programs for 42 of the 103 operating power plants are included in the audits.

Results of these audits and a copy of the Information Notice sent by NRC to its licensees summarizing its findings will be posted to the NRC website at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NEWS/year2000.html

NRC has no indication that Y2K computer-related problems exist with safety-related systems in nuclear power plants. Most commercial nuclear plants have protection systems that do not rely on computer dates and hence, are not vulnerable to the Y2K "bug." However, the audits did identify some problems in non-safety, but important computer-based applications that use embedded computer chips vulnerable to the Y2K problem. These include computer systems used to control personnel access systems within the plants, control room display systems, engineering programs, control systems, radiation monitoring systems, and emergency response systems. In some instances, work on these systems may not be completed until the fall.

At the time of the audits, most NRC licensees were just beginning work on contingency plans to deal with unforseen Y2K problems. The NRC plans to assess the effectiveness of contingency plans during reviews to be conducted over the next few months at six other nuclear power plant sites - Palo Verde (Arizona), Oconee (South Carolina), Duane Arnold (Iowa), Indian Point 2 (New York), Turkey Point (Florida), and Diablo Canyon (California).

Licensees are also planning for the possible loss of off-site communications and the loss of off-site power in the event of instabilities of the electric power grids, the audits found. Although NRC regulatory oversight and authority does not extend to the U.S. electric power grid system, the agency recognizes the national importance of providing electricity to customers during the January 1, 2000 transition. Therefore, NRC has taken an interest in this matter and has received assurances from the North American Electric Reliability Council that it is working with NRC licensees to develop plans for handling generation and transmission problems.

Beginning this month, NRC inspectors will review Y2K programs at all 103 reactors - including those previously audited, to gather information that will be used to evaluate licensee Y2K readiness letters. Summaries of the results of those reviews will be made publicly available and will be posted on the NRC website. By July 1, licensees must submit written confirmation to NRC that their plants are or will be Year 2000 ready at the turn of the century and if not, must provide a status report, including detailed completion schedules for remaining work to ensure Year 2000 readiness.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 23, 1999

Answers

Cherri,

Thank you for the post. Reading the following got my attention:

It says NO safety related systems have problems and THEN it admits discovering problems with control systems, radiation monitoring systems and emergency response systems. I don't get it. How are those not considered "safety" related systems?????

Sincerely,

Kristi

-- Kristi (securx@succeed.net), June 23, 1999.

"These include computer systems used to control personnel access systems within the plants, control room display systems, engineering programs, control systems, radiation monitoring systems, and emergency response systems. In some instances, work on these systems may not be completed until the fall."

Umm...completed until the fall? I thought the deadline was July 1st? Maybe the word "spin" would fit here?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

It contains positive information and undermines a major tenet of the extreme doomer-view . . ergo . . it must be spin.

Same ol same ol.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

This appears to be another balanced report about Y2K remediation. The pilots of Fear Air will not be pleased...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 23, 1999.

Thanks for the post, Cherri. It's always nice to see some good news posted here. It gives one hope. Be prepared anyway though, just in case. :)

-- GeeGee (GeeGee@madtown.com), June 23, 1999.

Do the people who write this 'stuff' ever read it? Fear not sheeple, the NRC God has spoken. Be careful when swallowing these statements though, they are extremely twisted and may create a choking threat.

"These include computer systems used to control personnel access systems within the plants, control room display systems, engineering programs, control systems, radiation monitoring systems, and emergency response systems. In some instances, work on these systems may not be completed until Fall." - Work on these systems may not be completed AT ALL.-

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 23, 1999.

Hey, "Will Not Think", please provide some of your extensive power plant experience to prove that your assertion " Work on these systems may not be completed AT ALL.-" has some substance to it. Were waiting...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 23, 1999.

Forgive me for pointing this out.

"An audit of measures taken by 12 nuclear power plants to address potential computer problems at the start of the Year 2000 *shows they are on schedule to meet the readiness target date of July 1.*"

"In some instances, work on these systems may not be completed until the fall."

Now why is pointing this out mindless doom-zombie-ism? Is that, or is that not, an inconsistant statement?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

Tell you what "PRO", whay don't you scroll up and answer Kristi's question, and then *I'LL* feel alot more "peachy" as I drive my Son to summer school this morning, you flaming idiot.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 23, 1999.

Wolvie?

Pro?

Hello?

Inconsistant-ergo-spin?

Anyone?

Anyone at all?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

Is it possible that the chorus of "shit for brains" individuals who constantly pop up around here, are simply ONE person? I find it difficult to believe that this many morons could possibly exist on ONE forum, but I could be wrong.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 23, 1999.

If you had learned to read past an eighth grade level, you would have ascertained that "audits did identify some problems in non-safety, but important computer-based applications that use embedded computer chips vulnerable to the Y2K problem."

Idiotic doomer blowhard...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 23, 1999.

Will Not Think:

Still waiting for you to back up your ludicrous "Work on these systems may not be completed AT ALL.-" statement with facts...(theme from Jeopardy playing in background)

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 23, 1999.

Answer Kristi's question.....now. Some of us have the capability of thinking beyond...PRINT. Quit changing the subject, sub-human.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 23, 1999.

Cherri,

:The on-site audits were conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission between last September and January of this year.

So, a report dated April 28 states that as of January they were 'on-track'. How about some NEW info Cherri? Oh wait, 8 more days and we'll find out just how 'on-track' they really are...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 23, 1999.

"However, the audits did identify some problems in non-safety, but important computer-based applications that use embedded computer chips vulnerable to the Y2K problem. These include computer systems used to control personnel access systems within the plants, control room display systems, engineering programs, control systems, radiation monitoring systems, and emergency response systems.

Nope, nuthin' to do with safety there.

Cheers!

-- Idiotic Doomer (8thgraderlevel@betterthan.yours), June 23, 1999.

Unc D said . . . {snip} "An audit of measures taken by 12 nuclear power plants to address potential computer problems at the start of the Year 2000 *shows they are on schedule to meet the readiness target date of July 1.*"

"In some instances, work on these systems may not be completed until the fall."

Now why is pointing this out mindless doom-zombie-ism? Is that, or is that not, an inconsistant statement? {end snip}

No, it isnt.

It seems at first glance as if it could be, but if you analyse the language, it is NOT contradictory. The issue revolves around your understanding of the terms used.

If the report said . .

"An audit of measures taken by 12 nuclear power plants to address potential computer problems at the start of the Year 2000 *shows they are on schedule to achieve 100% full Y2K compliance by the target date of July 1.*"

and . .

"Work on these systems, which are critical to readiness certification, WILL not be completed until the fall."

Then that would be contradictory.

However, it is entirely plausible, and acceptable, that work may continue on a system beyond the target date of July 1, and yet the company may be nevertheless able to achieve its readiness certificate if the systems which are being completed are not vital elements of the certification process.

The systems mentioned by name are such generic catch-all fields, that the degree of criticality and the nature of the problem is impossible to assess. However, one should trust in the fact that those people who work for the NRC are conscientiously persuing the best interests of the industry and the public, and any assumption that some kind of cover-up or conspiracy is at hand is totally unjustified considering the information in the quoted statement.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

Please excuse the split infinitive, its been a long day.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

Auditing 12 plants and assuming that it is a reliable estimate of the 103 total plants is lunacy. Sampling may work for opinion polls, but nuclear safety is not a matter of opinion.

I'm sure the Soviets never were of the opinion that Chernobyl would occur.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), June 23, 1999.

Further to the debate about some of the Y2K remediation work not being completed until the fall, I believe NERC is allowing utilities to file exception reports that detail which of their systems will not be compliant as of July 1. The main reason for utilities delaying such work is that they are waiting for scheduled outages before implementing Y2K fixes.

Hoffmeister has already pointed out on a previous thread a few weeks ago that all reasons for missing the July 1 deadline will be listed in an exception report to be published with the next NERC report.

Further infomation about this whole issue can be found at Rick Cowles' site (www.euy2k.com)

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), June 23, 1999.

This proves that Will cannot think on her own. She definitely needs help maybe in more areas also. The question It says NO safety related systems have problems and THEN it admits discovering problems with control systems, radiation monitoring systems and emergency response systems. I don't get it. How are those not considered "safety" related systems?

Now Will I'll take you very slowly through this so that little brain of yours can comprehend the terminology. Safety systems are backup systems or systems which turn on when other systems fail. They could include "checks and balances" on the main systems providing power.

Now control systems provide what? Anyone what? Oh yes, control. They could control any number of things, try to think of one. Now what could a monitoring system do? Anyone? Yes, that's right Will they monitor; they display information about the control systems or the supply systems or the access (personnel) systems. What about emergency response systems? I know this might be a little too hard for your brain this morning afterall you had a busy morning. But emerency response systems, you guessed it, reacts to a warning alarm that pops up. It could shut down something or open a switch; it responds to some threshold being tripped. Now can you tell the difference in these systems. Think little one I know it's hard but you can do it.

-- Why is (willsuch@n.idiot), June 23, 1999.

"12 nuclear power plants" 12? 12? What about the rest?

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), June 23, 1999.

Thank you, why is, you've done a fine job of explaining that those systems mentioned just might fall under the heading of 'critical' to the continued operation of a nuclear facility. You did fail to mention the statement that, "In some instances, work on these systems may not be completed until Fall." What IS the time frame in which the term "Fall" falls into? My calender tells me it is anywhere from September 23rd through December 22nd. I, personally find that fact to be somewhat alarming, when one considers this problem known to many as Y2K, has a fixed and non-negotiable deadline of January 1st. Please excuse my stupidity. Perhaps it would be best, if I simply 'trusted' the track record of the number of the 100% remediated systems, confirmed by third party verification "announcements" that are currently flooding the media, in hopes of preventing panic? My apologies for not responding in a more timely fashion. I have a life and children and would like to keep it that way. I prefer using night lights as opposed glowing family members.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 23, 1999.

Thanks, Cherri

I'm at the point that I want to keep Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station humping out the Kilowatts. Yes, I'll take the risk associated. By Summer, when we really need the extra power, it will be compliant.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@it's_all_going_away_in_January.com), June 23, 1999.

K Steven's would prefer an air-conditioner over taking a risk with "It's" children glowing. Wow. It must get really hot where you are living!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 23, 1999.

Will, have you forgotten what you asked of Y2K Pro. Let me quote: "Answer Kristi's question.....now. Some of us have the capability of thinking beyond...PRINT. Quit changing the subject, sub-human" That was the last thing you posted. That was what I was trying to answer. Excuse me but doomer mental jumping is hard for the normal person to follow.

Now you have another question: "In some instances, work on these systems may not be completed until Fall." What IS the time frame in which the term "Fall" falls into?

Not sure if your conclusion of "critical" is valid but I'm sure the admin for these power plants would like to have your advice, so please give them a call. (OK enough snide remarks) Based on the quote from my first response, I can't conclude that these are the same systems or not. If they are the same systems, then the power plant has obviously begun work to the point of testing and finding problems. Good news, they have plenty of time to fix and retest. If they are different systems, then I can't conclude anything about their schedule, neither can you. In any event fall of 1999 comes before 1/1/00 even by your calendar.

If you think your smart in repeating the same meme about track records (if I simply 'trusted' the track record of the number of the 100% remediated systems, confirmed by third party verification "announcements" that are currently flooding the media), then you know little about Y2K remediation. Do you even know what TPV is? How do you know anyone's track record for any project? Are you some psychic? Just because you don't know anything, you're assuming the power plant admin doesn't know anything also. Just because other systems may have come in late (somehow the Euro made it, somehow the airline reservation system made it), you conclude that also applies to the power plant. My you are as smart as you say you are. (OK enough of the snide remarks)

-- Why is (willsuch@n.idiot), June 23, 1999.

Wolvie

Thank you for your kind response. Can't you just feel the lovin' good groovin' vibes on this thread?

I may sound like a doom zombie from time to time, please forgive my tendency to question authority, you know, the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" crap so prevalent from those who rule over us peons.

As to your following statement: "and any assumption that some kind of cover-up or conspiracy is at hand is totally unjustified considering the information in the quoted statement."

I am not assuming conspiracy or cover-up, but when a *seemingly* inconsistent statement jumps out at me, I question it.

With all my love,

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

Unc

the bit about "conspiracy theories and cover-ups" wasn't aimed at you so please do not take offence, it was just a closing observation about what I believe should and should not be inferred from the NRC statement.

Similarly, I have (on occasion) been less than cordial in some of my postings, although I do try my hardest to exchange information rather than insults and always keep an open mind to the fact that I could be wrong. Ive found most of your postings follow a similar ethic.

Despite being a (supposed) "polly" (having prepared for a bump rather than an apocalypse), I do have concerns regarding some elements of this fascinating subject, and always try to see both sides. However, the extremism which crops up in here all too often, in my opinion serves neither of our positions, and only causes the water (already as muddy as the bayou in a rainstorm) to become yet muddier.

Kindest Regards

W0lv3r1n3

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

Why is: I have never claimed to be an expert on anything, unlike so many found in the forums discussing this topic. I have been completely truthful and honest in my numerous admissions of my lack of formal education. Several have taken advantage of my honesty in this reagrd. All I can and will say, is that *I* for one, am not so stupid as to take the vague 'assurances' and fluffy 'confidence' of those with far greater knowledge than me. I should like to think that there are others of my limited abilities who never attended a University who would agree with me, for the sake of their children if for no other reason at all.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 23, 1999.

I'm a little scared to get in the middle of this, but I have got to say to 'Why is', all of the operators here thought your post that defined the terminology of nuclear power was a riot. Thank you for a laugh. Your opinions may or may not be mine, but your definitions are...innovative.

-- nucpwr (nucpwr@hotmail.com), June 23, 1999.

nucpwr

You sound like an industry insider. You and the "operators" ???

Well dont sit there like a wallflower, whats your take on this thread ?

Nothing spicy to add to the dish ?

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

Just to correct some info here.

There are 103 nuclear units in 66 facilities. The 12 audits were of licensees, which encompassed 42 of the 103 units.

Also, while not full-scale audits, the NRC is currently conducting reviews of all nuclear plant Y2k efforts, to be done this month.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 23, 1999.

Poor Wiil Not Think said:

1."I have never claimed to be an expert on anything"

Yet she also said: 2."Work on these systems may not be completed AT ALL.-"

So clearly you are lying about something. Are you or are you not an expert? If you are not an expert, how can # 2 be true?

Still waiting...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 23, 1999.

Sorry, PRO. I have a farm to run...now, you have lost any hope of credibility to continue any further on this thread. I'd like to suggest you go to the "98 MILLION Y2K bugs MINIMUM" thread. Since your reading skills are minimal ( apparently missed the word 'may' in my above comment) I'll help you to find it. It is the 12th thread above this one, you can count, right? Hopefully at least as well as Mr. Ed.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 23, 1999.

Translation:

I am an idiot doomer, with no way to answer your question without looking like the numbskull I am...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 23, 1999.

A sorta off-topic pict ure of the Limerick, PA plant... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 24, 1999.

PAGING : nucpwr....nucpwr...please call the op-erator!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 25, 1999.

My opinion, expressed in a long ago 'Utilities' thread titled Nuclear Risk Proof?, has changed only for the better. The IT people here finished the assessment last year. We've remediated some code, upgraded some hardware, and found a few things that nobody used. Months ago we rolled the clocks forward and passed with flying colors. On 1/1/00, this power plant will work normally and safely. BUT: Reliance on spare parts, food, mob mentality, etc.... precludes a guarantee on 2/1/00. I consider preparation like auto insurance, I've never had an accident but tomorrow might be the day. The wife and I can miss a few meals, but I am not going to try and convince my children that they aren't hungry. Sixty days and firepower.

-- nucpwr (nucpwr@hotmail.com), June 25, 1999.