From http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/99-240.html ------

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs Washington, DC 20555 Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet: opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-240

November 8, 1999

NRC Confirms That All Nuclear Power Plants Are Fully Y2K-ready

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received notification by all 103 operating nuclear power plants that they have completed remediation efforts to be fully "Y2K-ready"-that is, all plant systems involved with safety, power generation, and plant support are now prepared to roll over into the Year 2000 without computer problems.

Safety-related systems at all 103 plants have been Y2K-ready since July 1. At that time, sixty-eight of the plants were declared fully Y2K-ready while 35 had remaining work on non-safety systems (those systems involved with power generation and plant support). During the past four months, NRC has confirmed satisfactory completion of the remaining work that has resulted in all plants now being fully Y2K- ready.

Based on our review of responses from the nuclear power industry concerning Y2K readiness, our independent inspection efforts at all 103 plants, and our ongoing regulatory oversight activities, we conclude that the Y2K problem will not adversely affect the continued safe operation of U.S. nuclear power plants, and should contribute to grid stability during the transition period.

Detailed information on NRC's Y2K activities are available on the web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NEWS/year2000.html .

The "Year 2000" or "Y2K" problem refers to a computer's potential inability to recognize dates beginning with January 1, 2000, and beyond. It arises from computer programs that use two-digit numbers to represent a calendar year (such as "98" for 1998). For example, a computer system could read "00" as 1900, rather than 2000, potentially causing a computer system to malfunction. "Y2K-ready" means that the function provided by a computer will be carried out successfully with the coming of the Year 2000.

# # # # # -------- Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), November 11, 1999

Answers

And this is the response, due by Nov. 15, to Sen Bennett and Sen Dodd's pointed questions to the NRC?? Nah.

-- (normally@ease.notnow), November 11, 1999.

Aw gee, but I really had my heart set on them being Y2K COMPLIANT, not that wimpy "ready". Oh, well, it's just nuclear stuff, probably not that big a deal anyway....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 11, 1999.

I believe that by being "ready", they mean "compliant" as well. At least, it seems that way to me when read in context. Very good news, as we will sorely need those plants if we experience the predicted 10%-15% loss in petroleum energy production. While I realize that their contribution to the grid is around 40% of total, that should be enough to keep the juice on for at least a few hours a day everywhere. It will mean the difference between life and death to many, especially in the colder areas of the country.

-- PKM (.@...), November 11, 1999.

I'm feeling MUCH better now.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 11, 1999.

KOS:

"y2k ready" is the official NRC designation meaning "without computer problems." It's just the term selected, since "compliant" had such a wide range of meanings. No problems means no problems.

You seem to be trying to say that "ready" somehow means that these "no problems" will be fewer than the "no problems" they'd have had they chosen the word "compliant". This is not the case.

Somehow, though, I suspect that you already knew that, and you're desperately trying to create issues where they don't exist. This should be beneath you. There are plenty of real problems out there to worry about, without trying to manufacture nonexistent problems by playing semantic games. Aren't there?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 1999.

"I believe that by being "ready", they mean "compliant" as well."

Independent reports-especially on backup power systems, their track record, bias and methodology does not inspire confidence and has hurt their credibility, at least for me. This is a variation on a theme: "Can YOU afford for THEM to be wrong?"

Got KI?

JJ

-- Jeremiah Jetson (laterthan@uthink.y2k), November 11, 1999.

No, Flint, although I was (obviously) being sarcastic, I was not trying to "create" any problems. The "watering down" of the term from Y2K "compliant" to Y2K "ready" is something that we have seen happen across all industries. Everyone knew what compliant meant (except you, I guess): fix the damn code so it could handle 2000. "Ready", as I understand it, means that "enough" has been done so that whatever didn't get fixed, or tested well enough, or something, is able to be corrected or worked around well enough on the fly.

And I was (again, sarcastically) pointing out this "watering down" may be OK for some industries, but is somewhat dicey for nuclear power plants.

I guess it once again boils down to the old "odds versus stakes" type outlook, which you have repeatedly failed to comprehend.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 12, 1999.

Flint, I consider myself Y2K ready, but not compliant. If the power goes out, I have battery lights, candles, flashlights. If the gas goes off, I have propane tanks, firewood, kerosene heaters. If the stores close, I have food to eat. When all these items run out, I will be screwed if the system isn't back up.

If I were Y2K compliant, I would have my own solar and be able to live totally off the grid. I would have a natural gas well, trees to cut down and burn, and be growing my own food.

To me that's the difference between "ready" and "compliant". These companies that cop out with "Y2K Ready" could mean anything IMHO. In court they will follow the course set by our fearless leader, "it depends on your definition of sex". We never had "compliant" with that woman. Well, you get my drift.

-- allready (bill@tinfoil.com), November 12, 1999.

Flint & KOS: The terms compliant and ready have very little meaning when you live 5 miles downwind. Their waffling on the subject doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. My parents, children and grandchildren also live in the same area. They are all aware of what to do in case NRC's rosy prognosis fails.

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), November 12, 1999.

"Compliant" = all systems will work as designed.

"Ready" = have bought a few thousand hamsters to power the wheel if the systems fail.

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 12, 1999.

All this is kind of amusing. NRC have, for better or worse, defined "ready" and "compliant" as meaning the same thing. That's their choice, and it means NO COMPUTER PROBLEMS with 2000 dates, according to their definition.

Now, here we have a bunch of people who have decided to ignore NRC's definitions, create their own versions, apply their own versions to NRC's report, and then criticize NRC for failing to achieve what they claim, due to failure to use someone else's terminology!

I'm sure that with a little imagination, you could find some way of feeding your groundless fears, and the fears you're trying to spread, with a bit more substance. Try a little harder.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 12, 1999.

Regardless, I am STILL waiting to see NRC's response to Senators Bennett's and Dodd's very specific no-wiggle-room Nov. 1 questions .... DUE by Nov. 15. ... THAT answer I will pay attention to.

Everything else is just radioactive gravy.

-- (normally@ease.notnow), November 12, 1999.

Flint, your discussion is merely acedemic. The NRC can use whatever term they want, define it later how they want. All they have to say is "they told us they were ready, and we had no reason to think otherwise". It is still "grading your own tests". The NRC doesn't have time to do a thorough audit of all 103 plants. They could only do a handfull. I would have loved to grade my own tests in college.

-- James Chancellor, PE (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), November 12, 1999.