The story is at:

http://www.cbn.org/y2k/insights.asp?file=990223c.htm

I'm sorry, but I'm too rushed (duh) to add more detail or hotlink the reference. You'll have to suffer through cut & paste (life sure is tough, I know :)

-- Anonymous, February 23, 1999

Answers

Drew, Thanks for the information, looks very interesting. Since this is secondhand information, we should of course verify (which you may have done before putting this on CBN). Do you have the name of the plant way over in England that shutdown on a y2k test? In addition to confirming that the platn actually shutdown on y2k testing, we should make sure that the testing itself didn't induce the failure due to methodology and was a valid y2k induced shutdown.

Thanks, FactFinder

-- Anonymous, February 23, 1999

Drew,

You really should do more research before making such reports. The story of a power plant going down because of a temperature sensor in a smoke stack has been floating around since early 1998. Please just verifiable facts......

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

Thank's for taking the time to post this...

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

I just noticed this:

"So far, no safety-related problems have been found. Some Y2K bugs have been uncovered in radiation monitoring and security computers."

Why isn't "radiation monitoring" equipment considered "safety- related?"

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

????,

Are you saying that you think Allan Thoms, chairman of the Iowa Utilities Board, is misinformed? Are you suggesting that the reporter didn't hear Allan Thoms? Please explain.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

Drew,

With all due respect, this should be given all the consideration of a full blown rumour until a link that directly reports the incident can be posted.

Anyone have any links to direct evidence of this alleged incident?

(I hope this doesn't make me agnostic!)

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

In response to Reporter's question regarding why radiation monitoring equipment is not considered safety-related: Keep in mind that the term "safety related" has a very specific definition at a nuclear power plant. As an example here is our definition for "Quality Class 1" (which in essence translates into safety related) - "Any nuclear system, structure, subassembly, component, or design characteristics that prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public ... All Quality Class 1 items meet the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B."

Many radiation monitoring systems are not safety related because they serve a monitoring function, as opposed to prevention or mitigation.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

With respect to this question of the factuality of Mr Thoms' statement: first, there is such a thing as a good witness. If the head of the Iowa Utilities Board (or whatever his exact title is) is not such, please explain who is. That does not guarantee that he is correct, however, Mr Thoms is clearly someone who does not believe Y2K is going to bring darkness to the land. He is someone who recognizes the problems exist. Insofar as "verifying" such things, it's not like I can travel to England myself & check this out, can I? The best one can say is that Mr Thoms said it. Perhaps I should have phrased it that way- that this is according to Mr Thoms. But anyone who says "facts only please" needs to realize that no one person- whoever it is (and especially someone running a daily Website singlehandedly) - can run all over the world tracking down reported incidents. Some people's reports have to be considered at least worth passing on.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

Drew,

Don't you have to take into consideration the where your reliable source got his information? For example, if Rick Cowles said he has uncovered a problem, he is considered a reliable and credible source. Reliable and credible sources can repeat things from less reliable sources. If Rick's mentions something his barber's sister- in-law heard, then Rick isn't really the source. Did you ask Mr. Thom where he learned of this incident?

May I ask another question that is a general journalism question? Somehow I have grown to have the perception that journalists require 2 verifications from independant sources before reporting something as fact. Is this a myth that I got from the movies, or is it something that was once true but has been slowly abandoned by journalists over time. I will never forget my amazement at seeing Wolf Blitzer reporting from the pentagon saying, as best I can remember, "I have received confirmation that there is a rumour circulating at the Pentagon that the ground war has begun." Rumour is new? Sorry, just genuinely curious.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

The "two sources" idea has been around for quite some time; it is more required on certain types of stories than others. As I recall, it gained a lot of notoriety during Watergate with Woodward & Bernstein (considering what they were dealing with, after all). It is not considered mandatory, depending on what subject one is dealing with, and the reliability of the original source, and various other factors.

When one is reporting that "so & so said," that's a different story. You're just saying that "so & so said," which, arguably, is how I could have phrased what Mr Thoms said. However, keep in mind, that in linking stories on the Web, one is not reporting them, but rather commenting on them. When I am doing a story myself, I am stringent on facts- to the point of driving some of our reporters a bit nuts from time to time. Of course, then you can get into problems in certain situations with who will say what on the record, and so forth; numerous difficulties arise. It depends on what is under discussion.

I will say, though, that some people hide behind the idea of "facts" as an excuse for their unbelief of any particular given subject. Quintuple verification wouldn't satisfy them. It quite reminds me of the story of the fisherman who kept hearing stories of two-foot-long fish. "Can't be true," he told his friends, who claimed to have caught such creatures themselves. Then one day he caught a *three* footer. "Just another lie," he said, and threw it back.

The converse of that is that you can accept facts which support your preconceived views. This is equally bad.

After this thread, I went back & looked at what I wrote on our site. Since I did not originally say "Mr Thoms says," and "reportedly," etc, I changed it to reflect that. Normally I am very careful with that (look at the title fo the MCI/Sprint story, for instance). This time I may have simply gotten sloppy in the midst of my 70-100+ hour weeks with little sleep, since, as I say, I am normally very careful with such things.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

Perhaps this may shed some light--located in appendices of Paula Gordon's White Paper on Embedded Systems:

Electric Utility Embedded System Problem

Sunset for the British Empire? Source: Electric Power Research Institute Proceedings from EPRI Embedded Systems Workshop, Proceedings dated 10/4/1997

Y2K testing was conducted on a generator temperature control system at a power plant in the United Kingdom. To test for Y2K compliance, the control system clock was set to just prior to midnight, Dec. 31, 1999. Twenty seconds past midnight, the unit tripped on high generator temperature. It turns out the process value for the control valve for generator cooling is integrated over time for smoothing and when the time moved past midnight from '99 to '00, the PV was integrated over infinity. The valve closed (fail safe), tripping the unit on high generator temperature. If this were an isolated incident, the industry would evolve through the year 2000 with little difficulty. However, the algorithms used in this control system are common throughout Europe and most systems are vulnerable to the problem. Loss of numerous generating units simultaneously in the United Kingdom could be devastating to the country.

located at:http://www.year2000.com/y2karchive.html

-- Anonymous, February 25, 1999