Two confirmed nuclear plants will be shut down. I am sure others will follow. Check it out HERE

Mike

-- flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), August 06, 1999

Answers

While 30 of 103 U.S. nuclear power plants remain unprepared for Y2K, the NRC expects most to be Y2K ready by Sept. 30. At that point, the agency will make a determination whether certain facilities will remain operational.

Dicus said, however, that she believes all plants "will be able to operate...safely during the transition from 1999 to 2000, and we do not anticipate the need for the NRC to direct any plant-specific action."

Hey flierdude, I presuem this is your own little brand of Doomerism...

"Two confirmed nuclear plants will be shut down. I am sure others will follow.

Well, let's all go out and buy more candles, because apparently, MIKE is SURE more will shut down (even though , as stated in the article, ALL of the plants are expected to be ready before 2000)

-- (Doomerism@Rears it's ugly head. yet again.), August 06, 1999.

Doomerism,

'EXPECTED to be ready' are weasel words.

They were expected to be 'COMPLIANT' by the end of last year and spend 1999 for testing. Then they missed the extended June, 1999, deadline of expectation to be now 'READY'.

Let me get this straight. When you read 'EXPECTED to be ready' you take that to mean that there is no question or doubt that they actually 'WILL be ready'.

-- Lurker (lurking@y'all.com), August 06, 1999.

'While 30 of 103 U.S. nuclear power plants remain unprepared for Y2K, the NRC expects most to be Y2K ready by Sept. 30. At that point, the agency will make a determination whether certain facilities will remain operational.'

That would be nice if it works out to be true...but, in TX, neither of the Comanche Peak reactors will be ready for testing until Oct-Nov....

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 06, 1999.

(Fair Use: For Educational/Yadda Yadda Yadda)

Daily News

22 Nuke Plants Not Y2K Ready

By Staff, Newsbytes.

August 06, 1999

A total of 22 nuclear power plants are either unprepared for possible complications due to the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem, or will push an October 1999 deadline to fix the problem, the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) told the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem today.

Of the total, six will remain unprepared for possible Y2K complications after Nov. 1, with at least three of those plants having Y2K readiness deadlines set for mid-December, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). At least fifteen additional plants were identified to have late October deadlines, NEI also said.

NRC Chair Greta Joy Dicus said that the two D.C. Cook plants in Berrien County, Michigan would not be Y2K ready until after Nov. 1 - they will remain shut down during the Y2K transition. The plants are currently in the midst of an extended shutdown, and have Y2K readiness deadlines of December 15, she also said.

Four other plants, Brunswick Unit 1 near Wilmington, N.C., Comanche Peak Unit 1 in Sommervell County, Texas, Salem Unit 1 in Salem County, N.J., and Farley Unit 2 near Dothan, Alabama, have deadlines in November or later and require outages to complete Y2K activities, Dicus also said.

"These outages have been scheduled, and each of the licensees have experience on sister units in completing the most significant Y2K remediation activities," Dicus said in testimony.

Fifteen other plants have late October deadlines: Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2 near Decatur, Ala.; Comanche Peak Unit 2 in Sommervell County, Texas; Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 near San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Hope Creek in Salem County, N.J.; North Anna Unit 2 in Louisa County, Va.; Peach Bottom Unit 3 in York County, Penn.; Salem Unit 2 in Salem County, N.J.; Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 near Chattanooga, Tenn.; South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 near Matagorda, Texas; Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Penn.; Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt.; and Watts Bar in Rhea County, Tenn.

While 30 of 103 U.S. nuclear power plants remain unprepared for Y2K, the NRC expects most to be Y2K ready by Sept. 30. At that point, the agency will make a determination whether certain facilities will remain operational.

Dicus said, however, that she believes all plants "will be able to operate...safely during the transition from 1999 to 2000, and we do not anticipate the need for the NRC to direct any plant-specific action."

But Y2K Committee Chairman Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said setting late deadlines for Y2K readiness in nuclear power plants "may not allow enough time to address unforseen problems in such an immensely complex and potentially dangerous facility."

"Nuclear power plants shouldn't play Russian roulette when it comes to Y2K, where they wait until the last minute and then hope for the best," said Y2K Committee Vice-Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

The Y2K Committee also heard testimony on the preparedness of gas utilities. While specifics were not offered on Y2K preparedness, statements made by representatives from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and American Gas Association indicate that natural gas industries plan to be Y2K ready by Sept. 30.

The Y2K technology problem, also called the Y2K or Millennium bug, prevents computers from reading the year 2000 correctly and can potentially cause wide-ranging system failures.

A hearing had been scheduled for today on the matter, but it had been canceled earlier this week. Instead, the committee accepted written testimony on the subject, and posted it today to its Website in a "virtual hearing."

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), August 06, 1999.

Hey Dommerism here's a snip:

"But Y2K Committee Chairman Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said setting late deadlines for Y2K readiness in nuclear power plants "may not allow enough time to address unforseen problems in such an immensely complex and potentially dangerous facility."

"Nuclear power plants shouldn't play Russian roulette when it comes to Y2K, where they wait until the last minute and then hope for the best," said Y2K Committee Vice-Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn."

Doomerism, have you ever played "Russian Roulette" with a Nuclear Power plant??

This is August 1999 you nitwit and these folks are still talking about getting their ACT TOGETHER.

Get a Life!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.

Ray - do you notice the way the NRC has approached their 100 plants - warts, late schedules, non-comliant systems exposed, test errors, and a "true" completion date pattern of each plant centered about the expected date?

This is real world, real programs actually implemented, audited, and tested - vs the way the way the FAA suddenly and magically has been able to declare ALL of its systems and installations - each much more difficult to remediate and repair than the simple analog controls in a nuclear plant - all magically compliant exactly on the administrator's pre-determined due date?

And the FAA has only 128 "mid-sized" installations - only a few more than the NRC does! All of its weather and in-route systems. All of its major centers. A brand-new systems they are installing. All of the international centers to worry about. All of the terminals and regional centers.

Amazing - simply amazing that the NRC is so inept that they can't even get a mere 100 power plants all built by only two venders - compliant on the same day. (Dripping sarcastic comments .....)

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 06, 1999.

Hi Robert, again thanks for all of your insightful posts they are much appreciated. It is truly mind boggling that here we are in August of 1999 with these kinds of conversations going on at the highest levels of our political system and the best the media can do is whip up a frenzy over JFK Jr..

Don't know what event will precipitate public awareness but I do know it's coming.

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.

DC Cook is currently shutdown and will remain so during the rollover due to regulatory related plant problems, y2k has nothing to do with it.

US nukes have NSSS systems designed by four vendors: Westinghouse General Electric Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Combustion Engineering

A number of the plants on the list are waiting on the next refueling outages to install plant related software upgrades, this is the way all such upgrades are installed, and it wouldn't make any sense to increase risks doing on-line upgrades.

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 06, 1999.

LOL.

The POWERS and the FAA.

I think I recognise twaddle when I read it.

-- Lurker (lurking@y'all.com), August 06, 1999.

'Four other plants, -snip - Comanche Peak Unit 1 in Sommervell County, Texas, -snip- have deadlines in November or later and require outages to complete Y2K activities, Dicus also said.'

"These outages have been scheduled, and each of the licensees have experience on sister units in completing the most significant Y2K remediation activities," Dicus said in testimony.

Fifteen other plants have late October deadlines: -snip- Comanche Peak Unit 2 in Sommervell County, Texas; -snip- South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 near Matagorda, Texas;

-----------------------------------------

So, I guess that pretty much blows the 'experience on sister units' theory. I vote for shutting them all down...but then with folks as intelligent as Senator Phil (no financial problems from the rollover of 1900) Graham around the state (and there are lots of others) I don't think we have much chance for pressure to that end from our leaders.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 06, 1999.

Thanks Mike, This is one of the most important pieces I have read in the last few months. Maybe ready means compliant. I think I'll go look it up in the dictionary. Wonder when they will do the testing? March 2000 maybe. Sheesh

-- Watcher (mpearsion@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

It is amazing to me how many Americans believe everything the Government says!!!! In fact is is unbelievable!

It has been proven that the Government has lied to the American people for many years!

-- freddie (freddie@thefreeloader.com), August 06, 1999.

Question 1. Will the drought persisting into the winter of 2000 in the East, pose any potential threats for nuke cooling systems that depend on plentiful supplies of water?

Question 2. Is there a potential threat to these plants if the dams on the supply waterways should fail for an extended period of time?

Question 3. Are the plants currently running with/at post rollover dates exposed to problems because of possible confusion when integration is attempted post rollover.

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), August 07, 1999.