This was posted over at Time Bomb. It would be good if anyone could actually contact this engineer, to speak with him as to why he has built the bunker reported here. Seems if he really does work at such a high level, accusations of lunacy would not suffice to explain his actions.

This was originally sent out via Cory Hamasaki's email digest recently.

-- Walter S. Skold (wsvnsk2@juno.com), July 14, 1999

From: pemorris@digitalexp.com Subject: Southeast nuclear plant

Ron is a friend of mine here who is a y2k activist. He heads up our computer network but we are going to lose him because he has been selected as the new CIO for the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. Here is an interesting bit of evidence he told me about:

"Have a neighbor who built a house at the end of my road. Only house down there, faces away from the road toward the water, made out of concrete blocks, no windows in the front or side towards the road. Eight foot chainlink, razor wire at the top.

"I observed the house being built from time to time and marveled at the structure and who could want such a house. Neighbor moved in around May of 98. Didn't meet him until April this year. Didn't have a clue as to who he was, where he worked,etc. Keep completely to themselves. When I met him I discovered that he is a senior engineer at a certain nuclear plant. We discussed Y2K and the grid. He told me that there were approximately 5,000 embedded chips in a nuclear facility and that there was absolutely no way to know which chips might fail. He also said that the utility he worked for had publicly stated that they were compliant, however, teams from "his" facility had been traveling all over the southeast in a desperate attempt to bring other facilities far enough into compliance that perhaps they could get a waiver to continue operating.

"I lamely pointed down the road at his house and asked "do I take the structure of your house to indicate the confidence you have in the grid?" He replied, "you might say that". Last time I've talked to him."

Might want to email the source and ask for any updates?

-- Anonymous, July 15, 1999

Answers

Total laugher, not worth the trouble to check. Regards,

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

Now, now, FactFinder, you really don't have an option here. No time for laughing about these stories, because they are popping up all over the place, including electric utility management folks who are putting in their own portable generators and other alternative energy. So, when you finally stop laughing, get cracking and check these stories out in detail, from *inside* the industry. What else is a factfinder good for otherwise?

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

Quoting: "We discussed Y2K and the grid. He told me that there were approximately 5,000 embedded chips in a nuclear facility and that there was absolutely no way to know which chips might fail. He also said that the utility he worked for had publicly stated that they were compliant, however, teams from "his" facility had been traveling all over the southeast in a desperate attempt to bring other facilities far enough into compliance that perhaps they could get a waiver to continue operating." 1. "No way to know which chips might fail."
This shows true ignorance of y2k in embedded systems, often repeated on the internet - no true insider would make such a statement.
* There is no single "chip" that would fail - it takes the whole "system" (a single device, or many devices making a larger system such as a distributed control system). When working with embedded systems, industry "insiders" such as myself test devices and systems, not "chips". Devices with date functions typically have microprosessors, ROMs, RTCs, and various other "chips". Testing individual chips would prove nothing on a device/system level, and which chips would you test - the ROMs, EPROMs, the microprocessor? While there are single chip microprocessor based devices, I have never seen a single chip device with date functions, nor have I seen such in the industry information I have reviewed. And don't most of you claim we should be doing "integrated" end to end testing anyway? Be consistent..;)
*"No way of knowing"??? Hmmm...then what have we been doing all of these assessments on...lol
2. "the utility he worked for had publicly stated that they were compliant".
I would like to know which utility claims that they are y2k "compliant" - all the rest are Y2K Ready, which is what the industry has been asked to attest to.
3."approximately 5,000 embedded chips in a nuclear facility"
The only way I can come close to this number is to throw in everybody's desktop PCs, the faxes, the VCRs, and every other device with a microprocessor. After an initial review to determine true embedded devices with date functions, the "real" number would be more like 100 to 500 (embedded system devices with date functions). These are what have to have a detailed y2k assessment, a lot more manageable than 5000. And by the way, you might have 100 or more of the same device model (I know of several cases of this), and this makes the assessment and testing even more manegeable.
4. "teams from "his" facility had been traveling all over the southeast in a desperate attempt to bring other facilities far enough into compliance that perhaps they could get a waiver to continue operating."
Hmmm...can I get one of them there "waivers"? lol. Seriously, I have never heard, seen, read, or dreamed of a "waiver" for y2k in the utility industry. Who is granting them, the Wizard of Oz? 5. "Have a neighbor"
I found this part credible. Beyond that, this guy may indeed exist, work at a power plant, but this guy is not an "insider" working on y2k in the utility industry. Regards,

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

FactFinder,

Well, you have conceded to *some* of the charges at least. Then, you give us a rundown on what you are doing and admit to "batch" testing of some equipment, which is a no-no from the highest sources. Now, what I really need to know is if your glowing optimism has been validated by outside checkers? You know, the Gartner Group and other IV & V reports, that outside checks virtually always turn up items that were overlooked by those inside the remediation program. Is this you? Have you had such an IV & V team go over your *fixes*?

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

FactFinder, your comment on No. 2 above reads, "I would like to know which utility claims that they are y2k 'compliant' - all the rest are y2k Ready, which is what the industry has been asked to attest to."

Someone said not long ago, "It is according to what the definition of 'is' is." Does your statement mean:

1. None are compliant NOW 5 mths. before Jan.1?

2. None WILL be compliant by Jan.1?

3. None/some/all will be compliant but we have to guess which ones because you/they are not going to tell us?

4. You/the industry aren't/isn't using the word "compliant" because "compliant" means it will work and you/they don't know if it will work?

5. If electricity fails and law suits are filed you/they can say, "We never said we were 'compliant?'"

Based on the above, does it make sense to store water, food, medicine? Yes, Yes, Yes.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Gorden and Marcella, I appreciate your questions, I have heard and addressed some of them before, but what I really need to do to give you a better picture of the y2k efforts in the utility industry is to describe the typical processes, the definitions of Readiness vs. Compliant, etc. I will try to find the time to do this and post this in the forum. I also will give examples of y2k bugs, etc. Since it may be a while before I can go into depth, here's the short answer:

Generally, the terms "Y2K Ready" and "Y2K Compliant" are used in regards to computer software and embedded systems programming (firmware stored in some type of ROM, in some cases software used in computers that make up a larger "embedded" control system"). Definitions to the above I and others have posted here before. When talking about Companies, however, the term "Y2K Compliant" is generally not used, since a company is not "software" - company may have Y2K Compliant mission critical systems, but it is still just "ready" for Y2K, the company itself will not "properly process dates prior to, during the rollover, and after Jan.1, 2000". Companies are either ready for y2k or they are not, hence the term Y2K Ready or Y2K Readiness is typically used.

Yes, the y2k projects I have been involved with have had audits, internal and independent external, including NRC audits.

"Batch" testing - would you test every copy of Microsoft NT4.0? How about testing one copy and ensuring the rest are the same service release? Same with firmware - each ROM has a firmware version number. Test one, verify the version numbers on the remainder. For installed devices in the plant, we tested all devices that we remediated. Y2K assessments were in accordance with NEI/NUSMG 97-01, and I have complete confidence in these assessments. The "higher sources" you refer to are those who created the myths in the first place...

Keep in mind that almost all date usages we found were incidental date stamping logging. For the last project I worked at, had we not even replaced the non-Y2K compliant embedded systems devices, NOTHING WOULD HAPPENED BUT MINOR DATE ERRORS, all systems would have continued to function. I have heard this repeated again and again by those working on y2k at other plants....and have yet to get confirmation of a device/system that would have shut a major US nuclear or fossil power plant down. Rumors, yes, evidence no. Such is Y2K....

More later, Regards,

More on this later..

Regards,

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Gorden and Marcella, I appreciate your questions, I have heard and addressed some of them before, but what I really need to do to give you a better picture of the y2k efforts in the utility industry is to describe the typical processes, the definitions of Readiness vs. Compliant, etc. I will try to find the time to do this and post this in the forum. I also will give examples of y2k bugs, etc. Since it may be a while before I can go into depth, here's the short answer:

Generally, the terms "Y2K Ready" and "Y2K Compliant" are used in regards to computer software and embedded systems programming (firmware stored in some type of ROM, in some cases software used in computers that make up a larger "embedded" control system"). Definitions to the above I and others have posted here before. When talking about Companies, however, the term "Y2K Compliant" is generally not used, since a company is not "software" - company may have Y2K Compliant mission critical systems, but it is still just "ready" for Y2K, the company itself will not "properly process dates prior to, during the rollover, and after Jan.1, 2000". Companies are either ready for y2k or they are not, hence the term Y2K Ready or Y2K Readiness is typically used.

Yes, the y2k projects I have been involved with have had audits, internal and independent external, including NRC audits.

"Batch" testing - would you test every copy of Microsoft NT4.0? How about testing one copy and ensuring the rest are the same service release? Same with firmware - each ROM has a firmware version number. Test one, verify the version numbers on the remainder. For installed devices in the plant, we tested all devices that we remediated. Y2K assessments were in accordance with NEI/NUSMG 97-01, and I have complete confidence in these assessments. Not sure who the "higher sources" you refer to are, but if they are the ones who claim "all chips must be tested", these are the ones who created the y2k myths in the first place... Keep in mind that almost all date usages we found were incidental date stamping logging. For the last project I worked at, had we not even replaced the non-Y2K compliant embedded systems devices, NOTHING WOULD HAPPENED BUT MINOR DATE ERRORS, all plant systems would have continued to function. I have heard this repeated again and again by those working on y2k at other plants....and have yet to get confirmation of a device/system that would have shut a major US nuclear or fossil power plant down. Rumors, yes, evidence no. Such is Y2K....

A closing comment - interesting how the topic has shifted from the discussion of the validity of the "Bunkered Utility Engineer" report that started this thread. I will assume that I presented satisfactory evidence that the story as written obviously does not come from an "insider" working on y2k in the utility industry.

More later.... Regards,

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

FactFinder,

Who did the IV & V at your site? Which IT expert company? With all due respect, I can not accept the current statements of the NRC anymore than I can accept the statements of the FAA when they inspect an airline. Let's not forget that everytime there has been a tragic accident in aviation, such as Value Jet for instance, the airline was operating under current FAA inspection and approval. The NRC looks to me to be at the same bureaucratic level as the FAA.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

FactFinder, you said companies are "ready" or not, programs are "compliant" or not - BY JOVE, I THINK I'VE GOT IT! That means systems in pipelines are "compliant" or not, Pipeline Companies are "ready" or not, telecom programs are "compliant" or not, Telephone Companies are "ready" or not, systems in refineries are "compliant" or not, Refinery Companies are "ready" or not, train systems are "compliant" or not, Railroad Companies are "ready" or not, port systems are "compliant" or not, Port Companies are "ready"or not, tanker systems are "compliant" or not, Tanker Companies are "ready" or not, Saudi Arabia water systems are "compliant" or not, The Saudi Arabia Water Company is "ready" or not, their oil systems are "compliant" or not, The Saudi Oil Company is "ready" or not, Venezuela oil systems are "compliant" or not, The Venezuela Oil Company is "ready" or not, banking systems are "compliant" or not, The Banks are "ready" or not.....YES, I'VE GOT IT!

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999