I received the following email today - anyone with an interest in following the situation with nuclear power and Y2k should consider attending this meeting. Unfortunately, I have another commitment on the day of the meeting, or I would be there. NRC headquarters is very easy to get to; if anyone needs directions, let me know. If you plan to attend, you must register in advance, for security purposes. You can register by emailing or calling Joseph Birmingham 301-415-2829 or e-mail jlb4@nrc.gov

>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 22:11:03 -0400
>From: Mary Olson 
>Reply-To: maryo@nirs.org

>...FYI -- NRC has not yet responded to the NIRS petitions for 
>rulemaking that said:
>
>1) NRC should establish a criteria for what Y2K compliance at a 
>reactor is and then require testing to show that the criteria is met, 
>and if it is not met, require the reactor to be off-line as of 
>December 1, 1999.
>
>2) NRC should require that all reactors do an emergency drill in 1999
>with a Y2K scenario and then compile these across the industry in a
>guide and 

>3) NRC should be sure that all fuel pools are hooked up to 
>back-up power in the event of grid failure (3/4 of US fuel pools are 
>not currently hooked up) and also be sure that diesels are working, 
>have fuel, etc., and also supply an additional source of back-up 
>power.
>
>The good news is that maybe the NRC is using this as a stick with the
>utilities and maybe that is why they have not responded. On the other
>hand we hear that we will be their response by the end of June.
>
>We also hear that a number of utilities will not make the June 30th
>deadline for reporting to NRC -- there is a meeting here at NRC
>headquarters on June 15th between NRC staff and NEI (Nuclear Energy
>Institute -- the industry trade group) to discuss how they are going
>to "handle" the June 30th reporting information, and utility 
>activities in general on Y2K. 

>NEI is the entity charged under NERC to deal with nuclear utility Y2K
>readiness, so it is not exactly what it seems here in terms of
>impropriety. Anyone in the area might consider showing up to let them
>know that they are not in a vacuum.....


>NEI Y2K meeting at NRC
>9:00 am  -- 10:30 am
>One white Flint North -- across from the White Flint Metro stop
>room O-8B4
>Rockville, Md.

>to register call Joseph Birmingham 301-415-2829 or e-mail jlb4@nrc.gov

-- Anonymous, June 12, 1999

Answers

Perhaps they are meeting to discuss this. It's a posting from a Y2K site that I came accross this morning. I think that if we connect the dots here and add in the increases in capacity that I mentioned in an earlier posting, we have the makings of a pretty scary picture. It appears to me that at least some Nukes will be shut down. This will weaken the grid signifigantly. You know the rest of the story from there.

S Boyenger 6/12/99 11:58:14 AM PDT I have just received word from one of my co-workers who has recently retired from the Nuclear power industry. He has indicated to me that non of the Nuclear Power plants are compliant, and that to bring them to compliant that is required bringing a Nuclear power plant down, testing it, divert the power, etc. The EPA is placing a mandatory shutdown of all Nuclear power plants that are not compliant, by DEC 1,1999. All 56 plants produce 43% of the total power to the U.S. that is shared by Canada and Mexico. My co-worker PHD; Nuclear Scientist has bailed due to Washington's slow change control process. You could call it a "Analysis Paralysis" decision making process. A process that is porked, and pushed around in Washington till no one wants to deal with it. There is not enough power resources from conventional Power plants to compensate all of the failing Nuclear Power plants in the U.S. Anyone care to comment?

-- Anonymous, June 12, 1999

Jim, there are reasons to doubt the veracity of the posting you saw. Someone really in the industry would know that there are 103 operating nuclear reactors right now and the total generation supplied by nuclear power is 22% of the total electric generation in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Adminstration stats. Also, in the winter months, the margin of available generating capacity above demand is close to that 22%. I myself sincerely doubt any claim that ALL of a particular industry will not be compliant -- just as I doubt claims that ALL will be compliant.

Some regional areas do depend on nuclear generation for a higher percentage of their power than the national 22%, just as some areas don't depend on nuclear generation at all. The same applies for all types of non-nuclear generation, too. Different states have different dependencies upon coal, oil, etc. However, this is part of the reason for the grid connections; they provide the capability to balance the potential loss of generation in one area with possible excess in another area. The country could afford to lose the generation of some of the nukes, provided not too much of the other generation is offline. If we were talking about a peak summertime rollover, that's a different situation -- but in winter, the margin is a lot higher. This is one of the verifiable "good news" parts of Y2K re electricity here. We may all have different levels of skepticism about readiness reports, but winter margins do give us some "breathing room" at least. I would imagine that there is an even higher concern about margins at rollover in countries in the southern hemisphere, though. January is not a low-demand winter month for them.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 1999

CL, Factfinder, Engineer, you can pick yourself up off the floor now! I know I just wrote something of a positive nature about Y2K and the electric industry in the above. *wink* Just so you don't celebrate prematurely, I still think there are plenty of risks, winter season rollover or not. Certainly enough for preparations/risk management plans to remain wise and practical.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 1999

Thanks, Bonnie - you saved me the effort; ditto, ditto, ditto.

The post that Jim referenced does not pass the smell test by a long shot. In addition to what Bonnie related, the EPA has no regulatory authority (from an operational standpoint, anyway) over nuclear power facilities.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 1999

This forum seems to have too many post from people who don't do research.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 1999

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah I do research. I examin NERC documents til I'm blind. But you know what, at this point I tend to believe secondhand info better than what I'm getting from all the charts n figures guys out there.

Judging from the syntax of the statement I posted, our poster in question does not have a very firm grasp of the English language. Did anyone think for a second that maybe he spoke with his friend the PHD in Nuclear Sciences who maybe told him that there were 50 or so plants which would need to be shut down?

Or have you all become chart n figure ninnys? I'm very tired of all the lies. Time and time again. Every industry. At a certain point you step back and say I'm done. Make no mistake, I'm not pointing a finger at the electric industry, in fact, I think as an industry you've done a tremendous job. But I'll say it again, I've seen way to many posts like the one above to ignore it. But you're welcome to poke holes in it if you like.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 1999

Jim & others ... The 43% loss is a correct figure if your talking about the Northeast nukes supply in New England ! Eagle

-- Anonymous, June 14, 1999