Good News

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

Got this from Yahoo financial site on Dominion Resources, parent of Virginia Power. Looks like good news.

Wednesday March 31, 10:39 am Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: Virginia Power Virginia Power Year 2000 Readiness Program at North Anna Called 'Well-Implemented' by Federal Regulator RICHMOND, Va., March 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Virginia Power's program to assure that nuclear safety and operations computer systems at North Anna Power Station are not susceptible to the Year 2000 computer problem is ``well- structured, well organized, and well implemented,'' a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) audit found.

In its March 24 audit report, the NRC also stated that ``the high level of dedication and expertise of the Y2K project team and staff, and the commitment of resources by senior management were apparent.'' The report stated that the project is on schedule and will be completed by July 1999, except for a few items that can only be worked on during a September refueling outage.

``The NRC report confirmed our belief that our program is, in fact, comprehensive and thorough. Our nuclear stations and personnel will be ready for the Y2K rollover,'' said Bill Mistr, vice president-Procurement and the head of Virginia Power's Y2K initiative.

Virginia Power volunteered last year to have the NRC audit its Y2K program at North Anna. A NRC audit team reviewed records at Richmond and interviewed the Y2K project team in January. Virginia Power is implementing the same Y2K preparedness program at its other nuclear power station, Surry.

In its report, the NRC audit team noted that strong senior management support for the Y2K readiness effort was ``clearly evident and demonstrated.'' The report said the company's self-assessments were ``meaningful and informative,'' and had already pinpointed issues that the NRC audit team broached for discussion.

Virginia Power Nuclear approached the Y2K issue following guidelines developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group based in Washington, D.C.

As part of its continuing Y2K preparation efforts, Virginia Power will participate April 9 with about 200 other utilities in a nationwide drill coordinated by the North American Electric Reliability Council. Service to customers will not be affected.

Virginia Power is the principal subsidiary of Dominion Resources Inc. (NYSE: D - news), an international energy company with headquarters in Richmond. Information about Virginia Power can be obtained on the World Wide Web at www.vapower.com.

This news release can be obtained from the Internet at http://www.vapower.com/news/releases/releases990331.html.

The NRC audit report will be posted on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/Y2KNRR.html.

SOURCE: Virginia Power

-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999

Answers

The NRC Audit report of North Anna is available at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/Audit/Y2K50338.html

The press report does look like good news, but then press releases are not exactly known for giving bad news. North Anna's audit did appear to have gone much better than some of the other 11 plants audited, but to give balance to the Virginia Power press release, here are the two deficiencies the Audit Team found at North Anna:

"The Audit Team found that one detailed evaluation package prepared by the Plant Support Team, for the check valve diagnostic equipment, did not have the same elements/characteristics which were found in the packages prepared by the Permanent Plant Equipment Team. For example, the initial conclusion was that this equipment was compliant based on the manufacturer's response letter without onsite testing. Later, the manufacturer sent a letter stating the equipment was not compliant. The Audit Team learned that the licensee had previously conducted a self assessment of their Y2K readiness program and had already concluded that evaluations performed by the Plant Support Team would be reviewed." The report also stated that additional testing and evaluations would be performed. [I found it strange that they didn't mention remediation/replacement based on the manufacturer's non-compliant statement, but perhaps their own testing must come first.]

The second problem identified by the Audit team was: "The audit team reviewed the licensee's test reports as part of the readiness assessment. It was observed that not all of the Y2K test-dates, as identified in the guideline, were used when some of the permanent equipment was tested, during the "infant stages" of the licensees Y2K program. During discussion, the licensee indicated that their internal audit already identified this issue, and that they are in the process of addressing this issue." ["addressing the issue" appears to be a polite way of stating they have to re-test and assess some systems for the dates missed previously. Hopefully, nothing will be found which requires action which would delay their completion time frames, but this possibility was not mentioned in the report.]

For those interested, more system details and progress charts are available in the report.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999


Bonnie,

Perhaps for some balance you should look for the positive in you own response, that isn't exactly looking for positives that the NRC didn't mention.

1. Va Power (according to your clipped text from the audit) had not one, but TWO teams looking at the same equipment.

2. In addition your post mentions an ADDITIONAL internal audit.

3. It appears they volunteered and requested the NRC come in to audit them.

4. Before the NRC audited them, it appears they decided on their own to increase the level of testing.

Perhaps Rick can comment, but is the valve diagnostic equipment even mission critical? Can you tell from the audit report if the equipment failed or was just Ready (nuisance, non-operational problem) vs. Compliant?

This should bring hoots of celebration from you folks begging for some real news. It looks like this utility is on the ball, but I kind of agree with the sentiment expressed by some that good new falls on deaf ears hearabouts.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999


Perhaps Rick can comment, but is the valve diagnostic equipment even mission critical? Can you tell from the audit report if the equipment failed or was just Ready (nuisance, non-operational problem) vs. Compliant?

i am not rick nor am i an engineer but i do remember the release valve that jammed open allowing the water to spill out from the reactor core...where was that you ask?

TMI on march 28, 1979.

now do you think that equipment might be important?

-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999


Bonnie,

I just finished reading the audit report and must add to my list of positives that the NRC missed and you didn't care to point out.

The Nuke Y2K program at VP is excellent, and the NRC noted that the T&D program that isn't required to meet nuke standards is similar in structure.

And marianne, the valve didn't fail, it was valve diagnostic equipment. Is this a test set? Or some sort of self diagnostic transducer? Either way, it sounds entirely possible that a failure would not cause an operational problem, but a concern that could be addressed as a normal maintenance issue.

Marianne and all, look for success as stridently as you look for failure. This report is, by any approximation, a huge success. What would it hurt to admit as much? Rick, feel free to step in and validate the impact of this audit for the people of Virginia.

Also, remember that hard, dedicated work deserves an attaboy. If you meet good, commendable work with skepticism and disdain, you could be impacting the morale of utility workers "lurking" here. I know that the morale, attitudes, and loyalty of utility workers has been raised as an issue here. Now you can become part of the problem if you do not thank and congratulate VP.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999


This should bring hoots of celebration from you folks begging for some real news. It looks like this utility is on the ball, but I kind of agree with the sentiment expressed by some that good new falls on deaf ears hearabouts.

there is something that i do not understand. why would anyone imagine for one moment that someone on this forum would welcome bad news.

i find that, at best, incredibly naive, and, at worst, totally deluded.

have you ever lived through an evacuation? try it sometime and let me know how you feel. that is what happened where i live... right down the road from TMI.

this is not fun nor is it humorous. what we are talking about here could be a life or death situation if one of the nukes melt down. the fact that our government and most industrial leaders are less than honest in their analysis and press releases does not bode well for any of us.

i do not believe that anyone on this forum takes the situation lightly...nor should they.

when you are factoring your probabilities don't forget to address the human equation. in a trying, tense, and stressful situation we have operators that must respond immediately in a less than ideal environment.

remember what happened at TMI. those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

what the people who frequent this board are searching for are answers.

and btw a release valve did jam open and the diagnostic equipment opened other valves to allow water to pour in in order to replace water that was flowing out. an operator thought that the second valve allowing the water to flow in was in error and overrode the second valve closing it off and the water that would have prevented a meltdown. the error was discovered two hours later.

this happened on a normal day, in a normal world, with everything else functioning normally.

now add y2k to the mix.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999



Art, there was no need for me to reiterate the positive in my response since the posted press release had already stated the successful points of the audit.

Contrary to what you seem to think, "good news" about Year 2000 projects abounds. Every government agency and every business declares they will meet their deadlines and problems will be few or non existent. Of course those deadlines have been put forward over the last year and half, as initial ones were missed, but we're not supposed to count that, right? And somewhere in the last two years, full compliancy went out the window and now the good news is that those deadlines are for critical systems only. And there have already been recognized year 2000 software problems occurring, but those shouldn't matter either because the news reports are all so upbeat. And who cares that half the world has barely even heard of Y2K, let alone done anything about it? The good news says we can do without all those overseas suppliers, assemblers, and imports if we have to.

It is not the good news which has the potential to cause problems for people. It is not the average individual who decided to ignore the Year 2000 problem until it was too late to do a proper job of full remediation of all systems, with lots of time for testing afterwards. I personally see no reason to jump up and celebrate the good news now when any and all 2000 date problems should have been fixed years ago. The very fact that they weren't doesn't inspire a lot of trust in the powers that be which issue press releases.

Yes, I am skeptical. Yes, I look for what is not reported in press releases as well as read what is reported. It's what doesn't get in those press releases that has the potential to cause problems. That's why it's anything which can't be considered "good" which is what's important. I'm a customer of utilities and my taxes support those government agencies. By golly, I'm not going to happily thank them for putting us all in the position of waiting and wondering in the first place. The fact of the matter is that there should be nothing BUT good news at this point in time. There should be NO negatives to be found if the job had been started when it should have been.

That is not to say that I don't appreciate the hard work of industry people. Many times on this forum I have applauded their efforts and reassured others that those in nuclear facilities are just as concerned (if not more so) as anyone else that their plant operate safely. I feel just as badly that they have to be under the pressure of a deadline and sometimes have to add Y2K work to their regular work load, as I am angry that it didn't have to be that way. I hate the fact that employees in various industries can't take vacation over the 2000 holidays, or will be working when they should have been off and spending time with their families. My heart sinks when I get e-mail from concerned wives whose husbands are worn out with the double work load, or whose husbands are policemen and have already been told to pack ten days worth of clothes for the transition period because they're not expected to be able to get home. I hate the fact that my husband is still urging manufacturing IT people to *begin* checking their systems.

If you really think anyone likes this whole situation, then I think you're making a call that just isn't true. I would so much rather be reading all the lovely books I have waiting to be perused, or learning more about any one of hundreds of things which hold interest for me. But I'm going to keep looking at those potential Y2K problem areas, and pointing them out until there are NONE. That's how it should be, and that's when I'll celebrate.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 1999


OK, I'll stop lurking and add one more element to the excellent post Bonnie has made.

What we have right now with Y2k is something that I'll boldly call "The Clinton Factor."

Our nation's highest official has stood up in a court of law--sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth--and then lied repeatedly.

Why don't we trust each other? Hmmm.

But wait, there's more...

More than 70-percent of the American people supposedly didn't care whether their commander-in-chief was also their liar-in-chief.

Folks, with that as background we're getting what we deserve.

The one essential element in a nation facing a crisis is trust between leadership and the masses. Does anyone want to dispute that-- if there is a Y2k crisis--the first people who will panic and stop listening to Clinton, etc. will be those who were among the 70- percent who wanted a demonstrated liar to remain in office?

And if the highest in the land is able to lie with impugnity, what about all of us "lesser mortals" and companies?

Even the Senate report revealed that businesses privately told them they would rather face SEC fines than a drop in their stock prices. In other words, "We're going to lie in our official reports--you know, the ones the press touts as 'good news'--and if we have to pay a little fine sometime later... OK."

You can almost see the logic: "Let's see, if we tell the truth about where we are in our remediation effort, our stock price drops, we face financial cutbacks, and the Y2k work slows down even more. Since our only hope is to finish this race, we need to 'spin' the truth a bit since the most important thing is that we get as much done as possible. Yeah, so it's the moral thing to lie right now, so we have a chance at succeeding later."

Again, why don't we trust each other?

And in the end, after all the lying is done, they will blame US (those who took prudent action) for the problem. In fact, it's already happening, isn't it?

Bottom-line: those who fail to uphold justice and truth are doomed to eat the bitter fruit of their rejection of what is right and good. To use a term most of us avoid today, 'sin' has consequences.

If you want to minimize the fallout of Y2k--whatever it will be-- start telling the truth. Period. From top to bottom, start telling the truth and do not tolerate lies about anything from anyone.

To use another old word that has fallen out of favor, the key is "repentance"; turning from what is wrong to what is right. And beyond that, taking steps to heal the wounds that we have made by our failings.

We all want to hear good news about Y2k. The problem is, our national "trust account" is bankrupt at a time when we desperately need a surplus. If you want to know why people here (and everywhere) have trouble believing "good news" you don't have to look any further than the White House... and your own heart.

The question all of us need to consider is: Why should we believe anyone today whose self-interest (personal or corporate) is inextricably tied to the issue in question? And if your answer is that "life cannot be lived without a measure of trust between people" then you've arrived at one of my main points.

To paraphrase Dick Mills from a few weeks ago, we are on the verge of being "Damned by Lies." And I hate it as much as anyone.

To those who bear "good news" about the electric industry, keep bringing it forward. Just remember that we all have a right to ask ourself, "Is this person part of the 70-percent who think lying is OK in certain circumstances?"

We desperately want to believe you, and that you know something that applies to the entire Y2k picture. Please understand, though, that some of us are not willing to bet the lives of our families, friends and neighbors on it.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 1999


If I recall correctly, VP has been in the forefront of the Y2K effort. I think that they are one of the companies on the leading edge of the Utility Y2K project bell curve. I would feel better if they had disbanded their Y2K project team and were back to business as usual. Isn't it too late to be auditing Y2K computer programs anyway? Shouldn't they be auditing compliance to a well defined operations standard standard at this point?

-- Anonymous, April 01, 1999

I believe Art said "good news", not "good press releases", Bonnie. We have to learn to distinguish between true news, and fluff and lying.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 1999

Exactly, Walt. Which is why such a vital part of the distinguishing process is searching out what *didn't* get in the press releases, and recognizing that all businesses have a vested interest in keeping the negative under wraps. Not to mention keeping in mind that completion percentages are for critical systems only, or that the integration status between companies' computer systems and those of their banks, telecoms, and suppliers is rarely dealt with, or that testing time has been shortchanged, or the numbers of supply chain vendors which are "ready" isn't given or isn't known -- all of which have the potential to turn some internal good news into bad news fast.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ