Perspective, anyone? Overview with details of the electric, natural gas, banking, and telecom Y2K situations as of 10 mo. ago - from minutes of a NERC Workshop.

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

At this point in time, I think it might be very interesting to get readers views after they read the Minutes of a NERC Y2K Workshop in Oct., 1998, ten months ago. An Adobe Acrobat reader is needed. Go to:

ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/workshop-minutes.pdf

Some excerpts for those who can't access .pdf files:

"The next panelist was Michael Donnelly from AT&T who is in the Year 2000 program office. He described the process AT&T uses to find and resolve Y2K issues. ...Mr. Donnelly indicated that AT&T is using a logic-based (windowing) approach to handling existing databases rather than data expansion. He stated that AT&T's Y2K program started in August 1994 and is targeted to be 100% Y2K Ready by December 31, 1998."

"Brent Giles represented the banking industry. ....Its target is to have all Y2K testing complete by December 1998."

"Charles Siebenthal from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)....He indicated that testing of distributed control systems can give ambiguous results; system tests are very difficult to perform in power plants; and system tests are almost impossible in the Transmission and Distribution areas."

"Bob Newell from Alliant presented his utility's approach to Y2K contingency planning. It starts with the assumption the one or more (component) Y2K failures are almost certain. There is no guarantee that remediated equipment will not fail."

"Joe Megginson from E.I. Dupont helped the workshop participants view the Y2K issue from the load (customer) side of the equation. He said that the potential effects of a Y2K disruption effect Dupont in the following areas: global electric supply, control/monitor processes, plan production, cash receipts, exchange data, receive and ship goods, payroll checks, pay bills, and office systems. It is extremely concerned about safety, because many of its processes deal with some very 'nasty' chemicals."

"Charles Siebenthal (EPRI) made a second presentation on customer communications and interface issues. .....He told us that 'Trust Us' won't work anymore."

I hope you'll take the time to read the entire Workshop Minutes document. There's a LOT in it -- too much to duplicate it all here. Then let me know what you think of the perspective between 10 months ago and now?

-- Anonymous, August 04, 1999

Answers

Bonnie,

Thanks for the URL for these "old" meeting notes.

I read through them and found a couple of things that interest me, (I'm not directly associated with the Power industry just now- I am in mainframe programming, but have worked in Data Processing departments in both electric and oil and gas companies in the past - now I write and maintain vendor supplied software). Maybe someone else can comment on the two questions that I have after reading through the document. I copied the fuller context of statements that cause my questions below my questions:

1) Jim Davis from the NEI said that nuclear contingency planning "assumes that Y2K remediation will be completed".

I thought that contingency planning was based on the assumption that perhaps some remediation issues might possibly slip through the cracks. ???

---

2) Larry Brown of EEI said of the then-pending "Good Samaritan" legislation : 7 Communications (such as those given to NERC) of information cannot be dragged out of that party's (NERC's) hands _ nor from DOE, even under the Freedom of Information Act. This feature is available only to the electric industry.

I wasn't aware that this "the public can't see what you told folks like us" thing was unique to the electric industry. Has the legislation actually turned out with this protection in it ????

... below excerpts copied from: ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/workshop-minutes.pdf ...

Jim Davis from NEI described the nuclear generation contingency planning process. This process is performed on a unit level basis and assumes that Y2K remediation will be completed. The result should be an integrated contingency plan that gives the plant operator a procedure to help keep the unit on-line. However, there is no absolute right answer, because the absolute answer has an infinite cost! The planning process includes evaluating internal risk (under plant control) as well as external risks - wherein you must evaluate others readiness, will require some estimates, and may need to use boundary analysis. The goal is to reduce the risk of losing the plant. The latest nuclear generation contingency planning document NEI/NUSMG 98-07, is available from the NEI website at www.nei.org/library/year2000 or the NERC web site, www.nerc.com/y2k. It has 13 pages of text and provides 39 examples of contingency plans.

...

Larry Brown of EEI (connected to the workshop via conference call from Washington, D.C.) described the evolution and passage of the "Good Samaritan" legislation to protect the electric industry from litigation over sharing of Y2K information within the industry. Mr. Brown told us the bill has been passed by both the House and the Senate, and is awaiting the signature of President Clinton. He went on to highlight the following five shields to information given to others in good faith i.e., not to deceive:

7 If the information is in writing and is labeled as "A Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure," it cannot be used in litigation

7 Y2K Statements written/oral/not labeled pertaining to Y2K issues cannot be the basis for the finding of liability if what you said was not true (give incentive to share information)

7 If someone claims a statement disparages its product, that company has a very high hurdle to jump to win a case (you know it was wrong or reckless) [First Amendment]

7 Temporary anti-trust exemption _ not a group boycott subject to treble damages _ give comfort that you can share information

7 Communications (such as those given to NERC) of information cannot be dragged out of that party's (NERC's) hands _ nor from DOE, even under the Freedom of Information Act. This feature is available only to the electric industry.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 1999


Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act

-- Anonymous, August 05, 1999

Dennis, I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on the legal intricacies of the Disclosure Act. However, since at the time Larry Brown made these statements the bill had already passed through both Houses (and therefore was in its final form) and was only awaiting the President's signature, I would think that Mr. Brown's statements _would_ apply to the bill as it is now. The Workshop which the minutes are from, was held on October 6-7, 1998 and the President signed the Disclosure Act on Oct. 19.

Also, on the EEI (Edison Electric Institute) web page at:

http://www.eei.org/issues/y2k/news/y2kreg.shtml

there is this statement about the Disclosure Act:

"The Act's strongest protections are reserved for ongoing industry Y2K programs such as the NERC / DOE Electric System Readiness Assessment."

On that same page Larry Brown is also listed as EEI's legal contact. I'd say it's a good bet he knew exactly what he was talking about.

One of the things in the Workshop Minutes which struck me was that both the stated AT&T and banking "targets" were missed.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 1999


this was a 'particularly' comforting morsel.

Jim Davis from NEI described the nuclear generation contingency planning process. This process is performed on a unit level basis and ***assumes that Y2K remediation will be completed.***The result***** should be*** an integrated contingency plan that gives the plant operator ***a procedure to help keep the unit on-line.***

However, there is no absolute right answer, because the absolute answer has an ***infinite cost!***[let's all try to guess what the right answer to this question would be.]

The planning process includes evaluating internal risk (under plant control) as well as external risks - wherein you must evaluate others readiness, will require some***estimates,*** and may need to use ***boundary analysis.***

****The goal is to reduce the risk of losing the plant.**** The latest nuclear generation contingency planning document NEI/NUSMG 98-07, is available from the NEI website at www.nei.org/library/year2000 or the NERC web site, www.nerc.com/y2k. It has 13 pages of text and provides ***39 examples*** of contingency plans.

now here is my question... how much of this crap does one have to read before they realize that we are indeed... in deep yogurt?

why do we sit here calmly, like sheep, discussing the nuances and apparent contradictions of all of these documents, testimonies, and outright lies... and do nothing?

if i told you 'they' were planning to build a nuclear waste containment center 2 blocks from your house... what would you do?

now, tell me. what is the difference?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ