I'm a reporter for The MetroNet, an Internet-based news magazine in Toledo, Ohio, working on a story about Y2K and nuclear power plants. I want to focus on the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, about 30 miles east of Toledo, and operated by the parent firm of Toledo Edison.

DBNPS is one of about a dozen sites that will be undergo a Y2K audit by the NRC in ther coming months, but I wanted to find out from First Energy where they stand now on Y2K remediation at the plant. From the NRC, I got a copy of the licensee's 8/4/98 response to the NRC's request for a "status report" on Y2K. The request in NRC Generic Letter 98-01 specifically states, "this response must address the program's scope, assessment process, plans for corrective actions (including testing and schedules), QA measures, contingency plans and regulatory compliance."

First Energy's response was one sentence, stating they were pursuing a Y2K readiness program similar to the NEI's Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness Program. That's it. No details, no assessment, no schedules.

Two questions come to mind - why does the NRC allow a licensee to get away with just saying "we're working on it", and, is this the industry norm?

My story is not about the risk of nuclear holocaust should systems fail because of Y2K. But if the plant goes off-line because it's not Y2K compliant, that's 25 percent of the energy source for Toledo Edison. Last spring a tornado just missed the plant, but the storm tore down transmission lines. It was off-line for just a week, and we had voluntarily residential electric cutbacks and mandatory shutdowns for some big industrial users.

I'd welcome help from anyone with a background in the industry and/or sugesstions to help with this story.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 1998