[As posted in TB2000 regarding 28 Nukes with Y2K Remediation]

Lets put this in perspective. Major nuke hardware/software upgrades are often done during outages. For example, Plant Monitoring Computer is a major upgrade- and there is a potential for major bugs in a "first time" upgrade of a unit. Y2k bugs are typcially minor, and a lot more serious bugs can be found that aren't even date related. Having said that, a number of Nuke plants HAVE upgraded their plant monitoring system in recent years (I have been involved with two), and problems are often found, unfortunately often after a restart.

The risks are no greater for these plants than have been experienced in years past. Why do you guys insist on assuming that Y2K DATE BUGS are the "worst" bugs? Industry findings indicate quite the opposite! If a major software upgrade is performed BECAUSE of Y2K, you can bet the farm that the worst bugs found won't be date related.

Now the good and unreported news - look at www.nei.org for the latest status for each nuke plant - you will see than many of the "major" upgrades have already been performed on another unit at the same plant. For these upgrades, the risks are low, since the bugs have already been dealt with.

Get outside the Y2K box. Think. Common sense works for Y2K bugs too.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, September 07, 1999

Answers

FactFinder,

Please note the Title to this forum. By design it was intended to focus on Y2k problems in electric utilities. I have no doubt that what you say about upgrading software, in general, is correct and accounts for big headaches. But we can't focus on that issue here. We are more like an emergency room in a hospital, and saying that all we talk about is emergencies, when there are so many more types of illness, is missing the point. You just have to get used to this being a spotlight on the Y2k side, even if that looks singleminded.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 1999

FactFinder,

Just another thought. Actually, this forum does stray from the staight and narrow a bit from time to time, and I appreciate Rick's tolerance in that regard. As the saying goes, "All work, and no play, makes Jack (but not Bonnie and Rick of course) a dull boy." However, I still do find any LOL comments attached to a serious issue to be disconcerting. Just had to throw that in, you understand. But, I *am* working harder on that personal tolerance issue you mentioned. ;-)

-- Anonymous, September 08, 1999

Factfinder, it seems to me you've just presented a point in favor of Year 2000 instabilities, not against. You mentioned "a lot more serious bugs can be found" [than date ones] during and/or after a major upgrade. Any consultant I know who's been involved in any kind of major upgrades would be saying wryly, "Tell me about it," while rolling their eyes and stifling a shudder.

You may not consider it important that upgrades, replacements, and patches done for Y2K purposes can cause myriad other non-date problems, which can often be ongoing for months, or crash a system completely -- but many of the rest of us factor this in as part of the entire Year 2000 picture.

My husband worked this Labor Day even though he should have had it off. Why? Because part one of the implementation of a major manufacturing system was going live the next day and everybody was at the breath-holding stage, ready to combat the problems they knew would occur. They didn't know problems would happen because they weren't ready for the implementation. They "knew" just because there are _always_ problems. If you get lucky they're small ones and not gut-crunching ones. And they _expect_ to be debugging this system for weeks, if not months.

The fact that this new system is Y2K compliant means no date problems are even being dealt with in this case, but that's a far cry from saying Y2K isn't a large part of the reason for its implementation to begin with. Or that bugs other than date related ones can't throw a monkey wrench into the whole shebang.

These types of implementations, concentrated into a small time frame, are going on ALL OVER the country and the world right now, because of Y2K. And the companies who need these systems to work properly won't give a fig if any problems which mess things up are date related or not. It's a case of the cure sometimes being as bad as the disease. And the last time I checked the NRC list of plants with work still to be done, there were various heavy duty systems scheduled to be replaced, including Plant Monitoring Systems at four different sites.

Did you think the government and NERC deadlines had nothing to do with giving facilities time to debug and deal with problems which almost always arise from new implementations? Originally that time line was a year to deal with these things. Now we're looking at six months, six weeks, or even less, not just for utilities but for nearly everybody.

I think I am outside the box and thinking. You're the one who can't seem to see the forest for the dates.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 1999

Gordon, Regarding "tolerance', I confess to being the kettle that called the pot black....I really shouldn't play "topic" police...

Bonnie, Actually some months back I made a post stating that I expected to see more problems due to Y2K in 1999 that during and after the rollover, due to the difficulties with Y2K testing and problems with upgraded software. I have never believed that Y2K would be problem free, its been a major headache, in 1999! I tried to search for my post on this subject, but I am terrible at searching the Lusenet database, if anyone has any hints I sure need them!).

I can relate to what your husband was preparing for, I have been there too. In one case, our new "Y2K Compliant" software was so unsatisfactory to the users, we actually put back the old "Y2K Ready" software (a minor date display problem that didn't affect usage) with adminstrative controls on it.

"It's a case of the cure sometimes being as bad as the disease." I couldn't agree more than in some cases this is absolutely true.

"I think I am outside the box and thinking. You're the one who can't seem to see the forest for the dates." I will try to do better...

Regards,

I

-- Anonymous, September 09, 1999