ML20205A127
| ML20205A127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/24/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Feingold R SENATE |
| References | |
| GL-98-01, GL-98-1, NUDOCS 9903300300 | |
| Download: ML20205A127 (10) | |
Text
_
01 fl%q k UNITED STATES
,=
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20ssH001
%*****4 March 24, 1999 l
The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
~ United States Senate Washington, DC 20510-4904
Dear Senator Feingold:
l 1 am responding to the letter you sent to our Office of Congressional Affairs on February 12,1999, in which you requested information on a concern raised by one of your constituents, Mr. John M. LaForge, about the preparations being made to daal with the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem at nuclear power facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed Mr. LaForge's concerns and is providing the following information as you requested.
The NRC has been working with licensees of operating power reactors in order to achieve Y2K readiness at all nuclear power plants. The NRC has issued Information Notice 96-70,
" Year 2000 Effect on Computer System Software," December 24,1996; Generic Letter
-(GL) 98-01, " Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants,"
May 11,1998: and GL 98-01, Supplement 1, " Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nucbar Power Plants," January 14,1999. - In Generic Letter (GL) 98-01, the NRC required that all operating nuclear power plant licensees submit written responses regarding their facility-specific Y2K readiness programs in order to obtain confirmation that licensees are addressing the Y2K problem effectively. Alllicensees have responded to GL 93-01 stating that they have adopted plant-specific programs that are intended to make the plants Y2K ready by July 1,1999. GL 98'-01 also requires a written response, no later than July 1,1999, confirming that these facilities are Y2K ready. Licensees who are not Y2K ready by July 1,1999, must provide a status report and schedule for remaining work to ensure timely Y2K readiness.
Mr. LaForge's first concern focuses on one of a number of initiatives undertaken by the NRC staff to addres.s the Y2K problem, namely the 12 sample audits of licensee Y2K readiness progrsms. A sample audit approach was determined by the NRC staff to be an appropriate means of oversight of licensee Y2K readiness efforts based on the fact y[_, i
- that all licensees had committed to the nuclear power industry Y2K readiness guidance (NEl/NUSMG 97-07) in their first response to NRC Generic Letter (GL) 98-01 and the NRC staff had not identified any Y2K problems in safety-related actuation systems. The 12 licensee sample included large utilities such as Commonwealth Edison and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as well as small single unit licensees such as North Atlantic Energy
-(Seabrook) and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporetion. Because licensee Y2K programs are corporate-wide, many of the NRC staff audits included more than a single nuclear power plant site since many utilities own more than one nuclear power plant, in 9903300300 990324 PDR ORG NE ED
V y [ Q C D PDR c-300013 C4b r
m m.
-m
,,_.m._.
Honorable Russell D. Feingold all, a total of 42 of 103 operating nuclear power piant units were associated with the Y2K readiness program audits of 12 utilities. The NRC staff selected a variety of types of plants of different ages and locations in this sample in order to obtain the necessary assurance that nuclear power industry Y2K readiness programs are being effectively implemented and that licensees are on schedule to meet the readiness target date of July 1,1999, established in GL 98-01. The second response to GL 98-01 requires confirmation of plant readiness by July 1,1999, or a status and schedule for those actions necessary to achieve readinese in late January, we completed the 12 audits. Based on the results of these audits, we concluded that the audited licensees were effectively ::ddressing the Y2K problem and were undertaking the actions necessary to achieve Y2K readiness per the GL 98-01 target date. We did not identify any issues that would preclude these licensees from achieving readiness. These findings are consistent with those recently reported by the Department of Energy in the report prepared by the North American Electric Reliability Council on the status of Y2K readiness of the electric power grid. The NRC staff is not aware of any i2K problems in nuclear power plant systems that directly impact actuation of safety functions. The majority of commercial nuclear power plants have protection systems that are analog rather than digital. Because Y2K concerns are associated with digitsi systems, analog reactor protection system functior.s are not impacted by the Y2K problem. Errors such cs incorrect dates in print-outs, logs or displays have been identified by licensees in safety-related devices, but the errors do not affect the functions performed by the devices or systems. Most Y2K problems are in balance-of-plant and other systems such as security systems and plant monitoring systems which support day-to-day plant operation but have no direct functions necessary for safe operation of the reactor. These systems are being addressed in the licensee Y2K readiness programs consistent with the industry guidance and GL 98-01 schedule.
We have noted from the completed audits that licensee Y2K contingency planning efforts have not progressed far enough for a complete NRC staff review, and, therefore, additional oversight of this area is planned for the Spring of 1999. The NRC staff currently plans to review the contingency planning efforts of six different licensees from those included in the initial 12 sample Y2K readiness audits, beginning in April 1999 and ending in June 1999. These reviews will focus on the licensee's approach to addressing both internal and external Y2K risks to safe plant operations based on the guidance in j
NEl/NUSMG 98-07.
~
In addition to the NRC staff activities addressed above, NRC inspectors will review plant-specific Y2K program implementation activities at all nuclear power plant facilities. The inspectors will be using guidance prepared by the NRC headquarters staff who conducted the 12 sample audits. Training in the use of the guidance will be provided. The experienced headquarters staff will be available to the inspectors for support and assistance during the review as necessary. The headquarters staff will also provide oversight of these reviews to ensure consistency among the Y2K program implementation activities.
.~-.-- - -- -..
. - - ~ _ _ - -
b Honorable Russell D. Feingold The second issue raised by Mr. LaForge concerns the reliability of the backup generators that supply electric power to the plant safety systems upon a loss of all offsite power, particularly as it affects the cooling of the spent fuel pool. Emergency onsite power is usually provided by diesel generators, which supply electric power to the plant safety systems upon a loss of c!! offsite power from the external power grid. NRC regulations require that the onsite electric power supplies and onsite electric distribution system shall have sufficient independence, redundancy, and testability to perform their safety functions assuming a single failure. Thus by design, normally a single emergency diesel generator with its oedicated set of safety system equipment is capable of safely shutting down the reactor and maintaining it in a safe condition. The operation and maintenance of the emergency diesel generators and the other safety-related equipment necessary for the safe shutdown of the reactor are controlled by the plant technical specifications (TSs). One of the plant TSs requires the emergency diesel generators to be tested routinely in order to demonstrate their operability and capability of supplying power as needed. This test ensures a high level of readiness and reliability. Contrary to Mr. LaForge's assertion, the staff concludes that onsite power provided by diesel generators is a reliable source of emergency power in the case of loss of offsite power.
Spent fuel pool cooling systems at many operating plants can be supplied electric power directly from the emergency onsite power system. At those plants where the spent fuel cooling system is net directly connected to the emergency onsite power system, the capability exists to connect the cooling system to the emergency power system. At all plants the make-up water supply to the spent fuel poolis provided by a plant safety system.
The scope of the licens3es' Y2K program covers the emergency onsite power and other emergency power systems at the plant. NRC audit results to date have verified the licensees' consideration of these systems and have not identified any associated residual Y2K problems with the emergency power generation system.
Plants are; also required to be able to cope with the loss of all ac electrical power to the nuclear plant. This event, called station blackout (SBO), includes the loss of the emergency diesel generators as well as the power from the offsite power grid. The NRC issued 10 CFR 50.63, the SBO rule, in 1988, which requires that nuclear power plants be able to cope with an SBO event for a specified duration. Specifically, the SBO rule required plant-specific coping analyses to ensure that e plant could withstand a total loss of ac power for a specified duration and to determine appropriate actions to mitigate the effects of a totalloss of ac power. The NRC staff has verified that each nuclear power plant complies with the SBO rule. Furthermore, each plant must have SBO procedures in place.to restore offsite and onsite power as soon as practicalin order to supply power to the shutdown safety systems. This requirement is consistent with our defense-in-depth philosop;.y.or maintaining reactor safety. For the Y2K concem, licensee preparations will includc contingency plans to ensure prompt response to Y2K related issues that
. might arise, d
4 y-
O Honorable Russell D. Feingold ;
The next issue raised by Mr. LaForge regarded his support of the NIRS petitions for rulemaking. These petitions were published in the Federa/ Hepister on January 25,1999, for public comment in accordance with the NRC procedures for handling petitions for rulemaking. The text of the petitions is accessible through the NRC Web site htt p: //ww w.nrc.g ov/N R C/N EWS/ yea r2000.h tml Also, NRC has received the text of Mr. LaForge's comment on the petition for rulemaking, dated January 13,1999. The NRC staff is currently addressing the petition in accordance with the NRC procedures for handling rulemaking. In view of the time constraints, the staff has sought prompt public input (FederalRegister: January 25, 1999; Volurne 64, Number 15, page 3789-3790) in order to make a timely decision on the need for a rule on the issue. We will consider Mr. LaForge's comment as part of the public comments received on the petition.
I trust that the above discussion addresses your request.
Sincerely, l
4) h l.
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations l
l l
i l
4 h
i 1
Honorzblo Russ:ll D. Feingold.
The next issue raised by Mr. LaForge regarded his support of the NIRS petitions for rulemaking. These petitions were published in the FederalReg/ ster on January 25,1999, for public comment in accordance with the NHC procedures for handling petitions for rulemaking. The text of the petitions is accessible through the NRC Web site http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/ NEWS / year 2000.html Also, NRC has received the text of Mr. LaForge's comment on the petition for rulemaking, dated January 13,1999. The NRC staff is currently addressing the petition in accordance with the NRC procedures for handling rulemaking, in view of the time constraints, the staff has sought prompt public input (FederalRegister: Janusry 25, 1999; Volume 64, Number 15, page 3789-3790) in order to make a timely decision on the need for a rule on the issue. We will consider Mr. LaForge's comment as part of the public comments received on the petition.
I trust that the above discussion addresses your request.
Sincerel
. nsh by 0,1bers William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION SCollins RZimmerman BSheron DMatthews LPlisco, Ril BBoger WTravers MKnaop FMiraglia BMallet, Rll JBlaha SBurns FCongel THiltz JGrobe, Rlli JGiitter DSpaulding EMarinos JMauck GGrant, Rlli MChiramal MWaterman RBlough, RI WLanning, RI AHowell, RIV SBozin 59-01 PNorry HJMiller, RI LAReyes, Ril KBrockman, RiV MSpringer DRathbun, OCA WKane JIDyer, Rlll EWMerschoff, RIV Central File (w/ original incoming) NRR Mailroom (GT #G19990092)
PUBLIC (w/in@ ming)
HlCB R/ File EELB R/F
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES *Previously reviewed by TECH ED as GT#
G19990050 Document Name: A:\\FEINGOLD1.WPD To r?ctive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE
- HICB:DRCH
' TECH ED
- C/EELB:DE
- D/DE
'ADT/NRR NAME MGareri BCalure JCalvo JStrosnider BSheron DATE 03/04/99 02/19/99 0.3/05/99 03/05/99 03/18/99 k
OCA OFFICE
- D/NRR DEDR NAME SCollins FMiraglia
\\
D bun DATE 03/19/99 03/
wM OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- Honorabla Russ2il D. FGingsid -
1 The next issue raised by Mr. LaForga regarded his support of the NIRS petitions for rulemaking. These petitions were published in the FederalRegister on l
January 25,1999, for public comment in accordance with the NRC procedures for handling petitions for rulemaking. The text of the petitions is accessible through the NRC Web site h tt p://w w w.n rc.g ov/N R C/N EWS/y e a r2000. html Also, NRC has received the text of Mr. LaForge's comment on the petition for rulemaking, dated January 13,1999. The NRC staff is currently addressing the petition in accordance with the NRC procedures for handling rulemaking. In view of the time constraints, the staff has sought prompt public input (FederalRegister: January 25, 1999; Volume 64, Number 15, page 3789-3790) in order to make a timely decision on the need for a rule on the issue. We will consider Mr. LaForge's comment as part of the public comments received on the petition.
I trust that the above discussion addresseis your request.
Sincerel
. e 47W bf O TGwers William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations l
DISTRIBUTION SCollins RZimmerman BSheron DMatthews LPlisco, Ril BBoger WTravers MKnapp FMiraglia BMallet, Ril JBlaha SBurns FCongol THiltz JGrobe, Rll!
JGiitter DSpaulding EMarinos JMauck GGrant, Rlll MChiramal MWaterman RBlough, RI WLanning, RI AHowell, RIV SBozin 90 01 PNorry HJMiller, RI LAReyes, Ril KBrockman, RIV MSpringer DRathbun, OCA WKane JIDyer, Rill EWMerschoff. 91V Central File (w/ original incoming) NRR Mailroom (GT #G19990092)
PUGLIC (w/ incoming)
HlCB R/ File EELB R/F
'SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES *Previously reviewed by TECH ED as GT#
G19990050 Document Name: A:\\FEINGOLD1.WPD To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box C=Cooy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copr OFFICE
- HICB:DRCH
- TECH ED
- C/EELB:DE
- D/DE
- ADT/NRR NAMr MGareri BCalure JCalvo JStrosnider BSheron DATti 03/04/09 02/19/99 0,3/05/99 03/05/99 03/18/99 OFFICE
- D/NRR DEDR k
W\\
NAME SCollins FMiraglia i
DATE 03/19/99 03/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Honorabla Russtil D. Feingold plant complins with the SBO rule. Furthermore, each plant must have SBO procedures in place to restore offsite and onsite power as soon as practicalin order to supply power to the shutdown safety systems. This requirement is consistent with our defense-in-depth philosophy for maintaining reactor safety. For the Y2K concern, licensee preparations will include contingency plans to ensure prompt response to Y2K-related issues that might arise.
The next issue raised by Mr. LaForge regarded his support of the NIRS petitions for rulemaking. These petitions were published in the FederalRegister on January 25,1999, for public comment in accordance with the NRC procedures for handling petitions for rulemaking. The text of the petitions is accessible through the NRC Web site http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/ NEWS / year 2000.html i
Also, NRC has received the text of Mr. LaForge's comment on the petition for rulemaking, dated January 13,1999. The NRC staff is currently addressing the petition in accordance with the NRC procedures for handling rulemaking. In view of the time constraints, the staff has sought prompt public input (Federa/ Register January 25,1999; Volume 64, Number 15, page 3789-3790) in order to make a timely decision on the need for a rule on the issue, We will consider Mr. LaForge's comment as part of the public comments received on the petition.
I trust that the above discussion addresses your request.
Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations plSTRIBUTION SCollins RZimmerman BSheron DMatthews LPlisco, Rll BBoger WTravers MKnapp FMiraglia BMallet, Rll JBlaha SBurns FCongel THiltz JGrobe, Rlli i
JGiitter DSpaulding EMarinos JMauck GGrant, Rill MChiramal MWaterman RBlough, RI WLanning, RI AHowell, RIV SBozin 99-01 PNorry HJMiller, RI LAReyes, Ril KBrockman, RIV MSpringer DRathbun, OCA WKane JIDyer, Rlli EWMerschoff, RIV Central File (w/ original incoming) NRR Mailroom (GT #G19990092)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
HICB R/ File EELB R/F
'SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES *Previously reviewed by TECH ED as GT# G19990050 Document Name: A:\\FEINGO*.D1.WPD Tyeceive a copy of this document, indicato in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE
- HICB:DRCH
- TECH ED*
- C/EELB:DE
- D/DE ADT/h NAME MGareri BCalure JCalvo JStrosnider BShe DATE 03/04/99 02/19/99 03/05/99 03/05/99 03//f/99 1
s OFFICE f D/NRR sM DEDR l
NAME SCollins FMiraglia
'_DATE 03/f/99 03/ /99 i
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
7 Tha Honorabl2 Russ:ll D. Fringold United States Senator Washington, DC 20510-4904 j
Dear Senator Feingold:
j/
l am responding to the letter you sent to our Office of Congressional Affairs on February 12,1999, in which you requested information on a concern raised by one of j
your constituents about the preparations being made to peal with the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem at nuclear power facilities. We at,the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have been' working with licensees of operating power reactors in order to achieve Y2K redJiness at all nuclear power plan'ts. The NRC's aggressive position has been demonstrated in diverse ways, such aspromulgation of Information Notice 96-70,
" Year 2000 Effect on Computer System Software," December 24,1996; revision of Chapter 7 of the Standard Review Plan,,vshich recommended that back in August 1997 licensees should c<jdress Y2K concerns issuance of Generic Letter (GL) 98-01,
" Year 2000 Readiness of Computer' Systems at Nuclear Power Plants," May 11,1998; issuance of GL 98-01, Supplempnt 1, " Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Syrtems at Nuclear Power Plants," January 14,1999; and conduct of Y2K readiness aud'ts at 12 nuclear rower reactors,/
The NRC staff has exan3 ned your constituent's concernc and has addressed them i
need any additional in) formation. individually in the enc osure. Please contact m Sincerely, William D. Travers
/
Executive Director for Operations Enclos0re: As stated DISTRIBUTION w/attachmgrtt SCollins RZimmerman BSheron DMatthews LPlisco, Ril BBoger WTravers MKnapp FMiraglia BMallet, Rll JBlaha SBurns FCongel THiltz JGrobe, Rill JGiitter DSpaulding EMarinos JMauck GGrant, Rlil MChiramal MWaterman RBlough, RI WLanning, RI AHowell, RIV SBozin 99-0}DRathbun, OCA PNorry HJMiller, RI LAReyes, Rll KBrockman, RIV MSpringer WKane JIDyer, Rill E'NMerschoff, RIV Central File (w/ original incoming) NRR Mailroom (GT #G19990092)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
HICB R/ File EELB R/F
'Previously reviewed by TECH ED as GT# G19990050 Document Name: A:\\FEINGOLD.WPD To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C=Co]y w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy
'/
OFHCE HlCB:DRCH 5
TECH ED*
C/EELB:DE
[ D/DE A/ADTgNRR MGareri M BCalure JCal I
JStrosni r BSheron NAME DATE 03/ f/99 02/19!99 03/.fT99 03/ [/99 03/ /99
=
OFFICE D/NRR L IDR NAME SCollins FMiraglia lDATE 03/ /99 03/ /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
e
^-
rn
' fr
-0(
b
...)-
(!
Ah[f1 l
1 y..
5$l.
Q W (k2VQ
$Y r
h,.g
)
j EDO Principal Correspondence Control N
A ik -
(;'h FROM:
DUE: _03/05/99 EDO CONTROL: Gl9990092 Y
p[:f
~
DOC DT: 02/12/99
.-}
l.
FINAL REPLY:
Sanntd:d Russell D. Feingold h5 TOs
- d DbnisRathbun,OCA g
.FOR.S fNATUREOF:
r DESC*i ROUTING:
t <
s NRC',$ TESTING METHODOLOGY FOR THE Y2K READINESS OF Travers NUCIi!AR REACTORS AND EMERGENCY PETITIONS Knapp (Joh:'. M. LaForge)
Miraglia i
Norry g
Blaha Burns DATE: h/22/99 Congel, IRO s,
Springer, ADM ASSIGN 1D TO:
COlffACT:
Hiltz, OEDO F
_ Collins
\\e SPECIA"4 INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
1 f.
(.'
Y U
'Yl h
{$
OC.UWb.' Lbkulf $01999 A
_ CTION i
b l,
t
&)!
l4 g%'a.a.)'
DY J A Sf 4)l/ ka< uryrG U
$:}
[, '
. l ;,
L A
.4 j
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER-NUMBER:
CRC-99-0155 LOCGING DATE: Feb 19 99 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AI: THOR:
RUSSELL FEINGOLD AI FILIATION :
U.S.
SENATE ADDRESSEE:
DENNIS RATHBUN, OCA LETTER DATE:
Feb 12 99 FILE CODE: R&D 19 COMPUTERS
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS RE NRC'S TESTING METHODOLOGY FOR THE Y2K READINESS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS AND EMERGENCY PETITIONS ACTION:
Signature of EDO DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN SPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK CONSTITUENT:
JOHN LAFORGE NOTES:
DATE DUE:
Mar 5 99 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
EDO --G19990092 i
~.
-~
"RUSSELt D. FEINGOLD couwma on mi svoice, WfgCONSIN Couume ON Fcinerom Ruaras de Hart Senats Oncs 8vittnNo WAsHwa rom. CO 20510 ciAL Couuma m Amho L==.
Tim,ttd States Etnatt
- ~ ~ - - -
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4904 I
l l
February 12, 1999 l-l
'Mr. Dennis Rathburn l
Director, Office of Congressional Affairs l
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l
Dear Mr. Rathburn,
i One of my constituents has contacted me regarding the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's testing methodology for l
the Y2K readiness of nuclear reactors and three emergency petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
I have enclosed a copy of my constituent's letter which outlines these concerns.
I would appreciate it if you would forward any JD ormation you may have concerning this matter to the attention f
- M 8'tif Matthew Farrauto in my Washington of fice so that I may forward that information to my constituent.
19 FE3 99 8 :dhnk you for your assistance.
Sincerely, l
Russell D. Feingold United States Senator l
i i
i i
i i
l 5'1% Edar~a A"L*r**"^**"*
i"t"e$"'"
in;# 5""
A",12 $2&o, i m !'ili b..
%^r40 5"*'
Mete *a""
it#4fa""'
j
.Nuo -cvcuo rma 49etuw a_ 3,,4 i
p
'l 1
' January 13,1999 9 - M.M 2 0 I.h 3 N l
t Senalor Russ Feingold United States Senate Washington DC Re. NIRS emergency petitions for rulemaking -
Dear Senator Feingold,
L I mn writing about my concerns regarding Nuclear Regulatory Commission's intention to test only 12 nuclear power reactors for their Y2K " readiness " The NRC appears satisfied with this paltry sampling (there are 104 operating reactors in the U.S.), arguing that it is testing four reactors from cach of three different reactor designs now used in
',. C the United States.
ed to citiid, e cooling water necessary to cool the extremely hot waste fuel i
l.
In ptrticular, the back-up genera rods in cooling ponds are kno to be unreliable. i the case of Y2K related shut down or loss of electric power to
(
l the utility, these back-up get rators must be w ible in order to prevent a terrible cooling pond accident.
I support the Nuclear Information an Resource Service (NIRS) in Washington, DC, in its December 10,1998 submission of three emergency petitions for rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The petitions call for:
- 1) the shutdown of all reictors that are not demonstrably Y2K compliant through full testing, by December 1, 1999 until they are compliant; l
- 2) Installation of additional scurces of back-up power to replace of supplement the axisting diesel generators. These may i'nclude solar, wind, natural gas, hydro or other dedicated power systems; and
- 3) A requirement that every nuclear utility test a full-scale emergency plan during 1999 with a scenario that includes a Y2K-related component.
l l_
1 urge you to support the adoption of the three rules suggested by the NIRS [(202) 328-0002,142416"' Street NW,
- 404, Washington DC 20036, nirsnet?nirs.org] Copies of the petitions are available from NIRS.
Finally, I wish you to demand continued congressional hearings on the nuclear industry and Y2K in order to prevent repetition c,f the nuclear industry's accident-prone history.
Sincerely, W
m M. LaForge l
Co-Director l
Nukewatch I
r i'
i The Progressive Foundation, P.O. Box 649, Luck, WI 54853, (715) 472-4185, F V3@n.brightnep