NRC Requests for Comment; RE: Nuclear Power and Y2k

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has posted four "requests for public comment" in the past few weeks. I strongly encourage you to read all four, and provide your reasoned input. In fact, if you don't have enough time in the day to post here *and* provide a response to the NRC (pro or con,it matters not to me) I would certainly prefer that you use your time to write a letter to the NRC (make sure you follow the directions in the "requests for comment" explicitly).

Any letter that you write need not be long. In fact, the shorter the better. Whatever position you support, I would recommend that you say *why* you support your particular position. If you have a technical background, and can provide a technical basis for your views, so much the better!

I assure you, your comments will make a difference. You only need to review the public comments to NRC Draft Generic Letter 98-01, and then look at the final version of GL 98-01 to see the difference that public input made. Take this opportunity to make your voice heard.

Here's links to each of the comment requests:

  1. NRC Contingency Plan, comments due 2/15/1999
  2. Petition for rulemaking: Y2k Shutdown of Nuclear Facilities, comments due 2/24/1999
  3. Petition for rulemaking: Y2k Emergency Planning, comments due 2/24/1999
  4. Petition for rulemaking: Y2k Availability of Backup Power, comments due 2/24/1999


-- Anonymous, February 07, 1999

Answers

Oh, and I forgot - if you do write a letter, make sure you CC your local U.S. congressional representatives (both House and Senate).

-- Anonymous, February 07, 1999

Since it has been publicly stated that Northeast Utilities (CT) will miss the July 1, 1999 deadline, my window for preparations has just been narrowed significantly. Thanks Rick for these thoughtful and thoroughly researched reports.

~Steve King

-- Anonymous, February 07, 1999


Now is not the time to make conservative estimates like "The Contingency Plan for the Year 2000 Issue, built around a reasonably conservative planning scenario ..." I am concerned about underestimating what can happen from the Y2K problem.

Instead we should ask the question, "what if we are wrong about our predictions?"

Taking precautions that later prove unneeded is far superior to not being prepared for matters that could easily threaten lives and lead to civil unrest.

We need to swallow our pride and plan to be safe rather than sorry.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 1999


I served on two "Nuc" boats in the 70's (pre computer era) and now have a job where I work with relatively simple programing (Energy management). I could not begin to doccument the time locating & correcting the mistakes in new or modified programing. I'd rather spend a few days in the dark then have any human being face the results of a serious accident inside or outside of the plant.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it is my impression that the feedwater that makes the steam that runs the turbine that makes the power is all radioactive.

I am scared silley to think that anyone would consider taking any risk at a nuc. facility.

Mike

-- Anonymous, February 20, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ