Is the deadline for compliance for nuclear plants still July 1st? I want that question answered before I say anything about a conversation with a Florida Power and Light nuclear plant employee.

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), May 19, 1999

Answers

It's my understanding that some THOUGHT July 1 was the date for actual compliance, but I believe I read later that it was the date for REPORTING compliance.

Sorry that's so "iffy."

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 19, 1999.

I thought July 1st was the deadline because if they have to shut down the plants it takes six months to cool the reactors down and you have to have electricity to cool them down. I don't know where I heard this and cannot provide any links, sorry. This was just something in the back of my head. We live in Kentucky and only have coal plants since that is one of our MAJOR industries next to Tobacco and Whiskey. With Tobacco on the ropes we don't need anything to happen to the others!

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 19, 1999.

Johnny:

This was spin and was disputed by EVERYONE in the know. I believe Rick Cowles states that it takes a max of 2 weeks to take the reactors down and cool them. Of course this spin WAS the reason why everyone thought that the Nuclear Plants had to be compliant in July.

Check Rick Cowles' site for more information. I believe this was even mentioned in Rick's interview with Drew.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 19, 1999.

July 1st is the deadline set by the NRC to respond, in writing, that the plant is Y2k Ready.

Those not ready at that date will be reviewed in detail by the NRC. September is the date that, if required, the NRC will issue any shutdown orders.

http://www.nrc.g ov/NRC/Y2K/Audit/NRST0499.html

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 19, 1999.

also- the following is quoted from the NRC draft proposal on Y2K planning:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/COMS/com1998-036/ y2kcplan.html

In an effort to help ensure reliable power to the electric grid during the transitional period of the Y2K rollover date, as an important aspect of the protection of public health and safety in the broader sense discussed above, the task force recommends the following:

Licensees may invoke 10 CFR 50.54(x) to maintain continued plant operation, providing the licensee determines that no significant safety concern results during a Y2K transition period of several days beginning on January 1, 2000.

- or -

The staff may provide a revised enforcement discretion policy specific to the Y2K transition period with specific guidance on those circumstances under which continued plant operation would be permitted and no significant safety concern results.

The NRC will provide support staff consisting of projects and enforcement personnel in the Operations Center to assist licensees in making prompt operability determinations during this transition period.

The NRC has determined that if the agency were to address Y2K issues affecting plant operability within the existing regulatory framework and procedures, continued safe operation of the facility could be unnecessarily adversely impacted, thereby potentially resulting in adverse impact on public health and safety by forcing an unnecessary plant shutdown. NRC approval for relief from a technical specification or license condition under current practices for notification of enforcement discretion would be too cumbersome and unworkable given the desire for prompt action if the licensee determines that continued safe plant operation is possible.

END QUOTE

10 CFR 50.54(x) basically is a loophole that says that if there is a greater threat to public health and safety from shutting down a plant than leaving it up and running, the licencee can leave it running.

In other words, even if the plant is not "prove" compliance, they can remain up and running, because shutting it down because it "might" have a Y2K problem is more of a threat to public health and safety than leaving it up and running....at the moment.

I had a URL for the actual def. of 10CFR50.54(x) but I lost it, sorry.

-- PLONK! (realaddress@hotmail.com), May 19, 1999.

also- if you hear the quote: "if they're not compliant by July 1, the NRC is required by law to shut them down.." ask what "law". then read my last post and note how the NRC's own 10CFR50.54(x) provision supercedes any such "law" (if such a "law" exists, and I have yet to get an answer to that, love to see that "law") on a slow news day, Gary North brought up that "quote" again, sort of, and I fired off an email to him asking what "law" and how did 10CFR50.54(x) affect things....he replyed by posting, on the same day: NRC CONFIRMS JULY 1 DEADLINE! hey, its his website, he can write what he wants, but he's not too interested in information that is counter to his own. if you care to view his two articles:

first one

second one

-- PLONK! (realaddress@hotmail.com), May 19, 1999.