This story was reported by Reuters and is available at the following URL: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990907/tc/yk_nuclear_2.html

NRC SAYS 28 U.S. NUCLEAR REACTORS STILL NEED Y2K FIX

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON(Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday that 28 nuclear power reactors need to upgrade their computers to avoid possible Y2K computer problems, though none of the work still to be done involves computer safety systems.

The commission said 75 of the nation's 103 operating nuclear power reactors were completely Y2K compliant and it believed there would not be any problems with the remaining facilities becoming Y2K compliant before year end.

"At this time, the NRC believes that all licensees will be able to operate their plants safely during the Y2K transition," the agency said. . .

Most of the remaining reactors will be completely Y2K ready by the end of this month or in October, the agency said.

However, the computers at two reactors will not be fully upgraded until the final weeks of the year, leaving a small window to address any unexpected problems. The plants cutting it close to the deadline are the Comanche Peak Unit 1 reactor in Somervell County, Texas, which will not be ready until November 30, and the Farley Unit 2 plant near Dothan, Alabama, that will be upgraded by December 12.

The NRC said after checking the records at the Cooper Nuclear plant in Nebraska, it determined the reactor was not Y2K ready, even though the plant's operators said its computers had been upgraded on July 1.

In addition, Cooper told the NRC that during an audit it discovered three pieces of the plant's equipment were improperly evaluated by the reactor's contractor.

None of the equipment was related to safely shutting down the plant, and the reactor's operator has told the NRC the problems have been fixed.

The agency said it is checking to see if the problem is unique to Cooper, but so far has no indication it extends to other plants.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Jeff's Editorial Comments:

Reading this makes me wonder just what kind of information the NRC will require before it concludes anything other than "there won't be any problems with the remaining facilities becoming Y2K compliant before year end." Apparently, plants scheduled to be finished on November 30 and December 12 = no problem! (and if there is a problem or two - piece of cake - they've got 19 days to fix them at Farley)

It is comforting to know that the NRC, two months after the fact, has determined that a plant which 'had been upgraded' was, in fact, not Y2K ready afterall. Makes me wonder how many others might have slipped through.

I don't know whether the fact that during an audit Cooper discovered three pieces of the plant's equipment were improperly evaluated by the reactor's contractor is good news or bad news. At least they did have an audit performed. But the fact that a reactor's operator improperly evaluated the Y2K viability of the plant's equipment is scary indeed. How many other nuclear plants out there that we think are 'ready' have had similar misevaluations?

-- Anonymous, September 08, 1999

Answers

Clarification of Previous Post:

The Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Plant was not among the 74 nuclear plants declared 'ready' in the Nuclear Utility Industry Year 2000 Readiness Status report Updated August 17, 1999.

The plant was listed among nine facilities "that will be Y2K ready when the indicated remediation is completed. These support systems do not impact continued plant operation."

The needed 'indicated remediation' for the Cooper plant was described in full as follows: "Site Contingency Plan - The integrated contingency plan is being updated." ( the scheduled 'remediation' date was 8/31/1999. )

In other words, Cooper's plant equipment had been declared Y2k Ready. The only thing that had made the plant 'not ready' was the lack of a completed contingency plan.

The complete Nuclear Utility Industry Year 2000 Readiness Status Report Updated August 17, 1999 is available at www.nei.org

-- Anonymous, September 08, 1999

Once again we see the use of the words "totally compliant" by the media when the NRC says no such thing. Within the industry they say "ready" at best, not totally compliant. I don't know if this is sloppy reporting or intentional mistatement, but it's certainly common, and what the public *wants* to hear.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 1999

Just noticed that I refer to Cooper as "Clinton" in a number of places, please forgive me, I am used to discussing problems at the Clinton plant, it's late and I am a bit tired. I need an audit before I post...;)

Regards,

-- Anonymous, September 08, 1999

FactFinder,

Thank you for your contribution to this thread and for the time and effort you have spent providing information for this forum. Although I do not always agree with your conclusions I do very much appreciate and value your input.

I have been through federal agency audits of my own business. You are right, they are no fun! But they are necessary.

-- Anonymous, September 09, 1999