From a local NBC affiliate site, located at:

http://www.msnbc.com/local/KYTV/43343.asp

I especially like this quote: Youll never get us to say that CU is 100 percent Y2K compliant, said Brenda Putman, the chairwoman of CUs Y2K task force. This is a huge problem.

City Utilities plans to shut down power plant because of Y2K

SPRINGFIELD  On October 15, 1998, City Utilities plans to shutdown the Southwest Power Plant. The downtime should last for about two weeks, as workers scour the station for possible Y2K problems.

Y2K is shorthand for the Year 2000 computer bug. When the calendar rolls over to 2000, some computers wont be able to tell the difference between 2000 and 1900. Thats because they use just two digits to identify the year, so 1994 is 94 and 2000 is 00. Identifying a Y2K problem is relatively easy in personal and main frame computers. Its much harder in embedded systems. Embedded systems are, in essence, miniature computers. They hold pre-programmed instructions that tell an appliance or system what to do. Sometimes these systems need to know what time it is. If the chips have a Y2K problem, they might lose the correct time, causing a system to malfunction or shutdown. The Southwest Power Plant  and indeed the countrys entire electrical infrastructure  is full of embedded chips. Finding them all and figuring out if they have a Y2K problem has become a priority for City Utilities. Weve identified about 215 different systems that may have a Y2K problem, says Gary Stueve, the Southwest Power Plants Electrical Maintenance Supervisor. Embedded in there somewhere is a little clock thats looking at the calendar date. Thats the one youve got to be concerned about. Concerned is an understatement. The theories and predictions circulating through out the country are downright scary. One scenario says that the nations entire power system will crash if only 15 percent of all power plants suffer a Y2K shutdown. It will, in effect, be like a row of dominos. As one plant goes down, the resulting power loss will cause other plants to make up the difference. Problem is, they wont be able to make up the difference and, in turn, will crash. Most reasonable peoples basic question about embedded chips is why is it so hard to figure out if a chip has a Y2K problem. There are several reasons: 1.) Estimates put the number of embedded chips in the world at between 30 billion and 50 billion. No one knows where all of them are. 2.) Many embedded systems are manufactured in a way that might best be described as haphazard. Suppose you have a system that keeps track of maintenance in an electrical transformer. This system will have lots of different chips, all made by different companies. Some of those companies are out of business so theres no way to track down the specifications for their chips. That leaves the question of whether there is an embedded clock in that chip. There probably isnt but its hard to tell for sure, because . . . 3.) Chips are often made to be used in all sorts of different things. Sometimes a chip keeps track of time even though the appliance using the chip doesnt need to know what time it is. A hypothetical example is that the same chip used in a clock radio can also be used in a stereo amplifier. When its used in the clock radio, it keeps track of time. But when its used in a stereo amplifier, theres no reason to keep track of the time. Then, the Y2K question that comes up is whether the chip still is keeping track of time, even though its in the stereo amplifier, which doesnt care what time it is and isnt using the time-keeping function. If that chip has a Y2K problem, will it quit working when 2000 gets here? Will the amplifier continue to work? If reading these reasons gave you a headache, youre beginning to understand how the people at City Utilities feel. They think things will work when 2000 gets here but they just cant be sure. Youll never get us to say that CU is 100 percent Y2K compliant, said Brenda Putman, the chairwoman of CUs Y2K task force. This is a huge problem. Putman has spent the past two and a half years leading CUs Y2K efforts. She says CU plans to have all possible Y2K problems identified by the end of 1998. 1999 will be spent working out any problems. But even with all this effort, Putman says a lot of CU employees will be on call the evening of December 31, 1999, ready to come in, just in case systems start to crash. Shutting down the Southwest Power Plant is not an unusual occurrence. Its done on a regular basis for routine maintenance. But CU officials say this shutdown has just one purpose: looking for Y2K problems. Stueve says workers will check the entire plant for Y2K problems. Then all the clocks will be set ahead to the year 2000. The plant will then simulate a start-up. Well see what happens, said Stueve. Despite all of CUs efforts there is no way for CU officials to be sure that other electric utilities will be Y2K compliant. If another Midwest utility goes down on January 1, 2000, it could take CU down with it. To counter that possibility, CU has a contingency plan. Putman says, if it has to, CU will cut itself off from the nations power system and try to generate electricity on its own. To that end, CU plans to have a stockpile of coal by the end of 1999 that is large enough to generate electricity for three months. Its a huge and expensive safety measure but its one that CU feels it has to take.

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), September 17, 1998

Answers

AWESOME SOMEBODY is finally doing it right. Springfield WHERE??? This is about as fair and clear as we are likly to see, folks. I wonder if the people interviewed are still working there next week, after the REAL honsho's read the story?

cr

-- Chuck a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 18, 1998.

Gald to see this was posted. For any of you who think the Nukes do not have a problem, like Joe Bell, this should open your eyes. Why would a nuke plant stockpile coal if they were not worried?

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), September 18, 1998.

=Why would a nuke plant stockpile coal if they were not worried?=

Because they like the color? They plan on making diamonds? To throw at the invading hungry hordes? Just kidding Dave, I know what you meant.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 18, 1998.

=Why would a nuke plant stockpile coal if they were not worried?=

Did I miss something? Is the power plant in question coal-fired or a nuke facility? (This is what I hate about local news stories -- they assume everyone knows the background. I.E. Springfield where?)

More to the point, this testing is the first I've heard of, and welcome news. Only question is -- if they find they have a serious problem, can they fix it in time, especially if a particular chip's manufacturer is no longer in business or has discontinued that chip?

-- J.D. Clark (yankeejdc@aol.com), September 18, 1998.

I'll bet they are stockpiling coal for the same reasons our electric utility stockpiles coal: a)they have both nuclear and coal plants and therefore need coal b)they have a normal reserve (here it is about 3 months)but are considering increasing it to cover the possibility of failed rail service and/or increased demand on their coal plants. Good to see some utilities taking this seriously by shutting down and bringing up with 2000. They will at least have some idea of what they are dealing with - sounds like folks at CU are serious about wanting to provide power.

-- John Hebert (jhebert@co.waukesha.wi.us), September 18, 1998.

I thought that Dave must have meant "power" instead of "nuke" Dave, you did mean power, didn't you? Dave? Dave? (Is it just me, or do I sound like HAL?)

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 18, 1998.

Hold on to your hats folks, I think we'rw getting nukes and cokes mixed up here while applying valid lessons from each to other.

Now that I have everybody confueled up....

This original story talks strickly about one (evidently) small "City Utility" with "one" coal powered plant. They have recognized the y2K problem, and are aggressively doing something about -- AT LAST!!!!

Their "aggressive" solution includes shutting down and restarting their plant (the coal powered one) from scratch. (Everybody now: "HURRAH!") Another of their contingincy plans is to be prepared to isolate from the grid, and to stockpile coal if transportation shuts down. (By the way, I'm suprised at their level of storage, it is much more thatn I'm used to seeing.) All these preparations and testing means they will more likely to recover, and possibly even be able to stay in service, whenthe troubles start than any other utility in the nation.

Fantastic, more power to them.

One reader then added a comment to show that this is why "nukes" (in general) are a great concern. They also have embedded chips and even more complex control systems than coal plants. In this he is absolutely correct to show how the solutions and testing being done for this coal plant need to be done also at nukes. (That program is underway....but not finished. See other threads.)

Further confounding the confusion is that many (most) nuclear-running utilites also run coal plants, though rarely at the same site. So you if hear also of a "nuclear utility" storing or stockpiling coal, it could be the same "utility" doing it at two or three or six different plants.

So everybody is right. Except the rest of the utilities who aren''t this far along in fixing the problem.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 18, 1998.