Electric Utilities "Y2k Ready" Listgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
NERC will be issuing a report listing the utilities that have declared themselves "Y2k Ready".
In the interim, I've been collecting a list of public announcements. These are what I have to date:
Southern Co: Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power and Savannah Electric
Also, ComEd has a news conference today, where I expect them to announce as well:
More to come....
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999
www.cplc.com
-- zap (zap@zap.zap), June 30, 1999.
Hoff:Don't you know the CODE IS BROKEN! It CAN'T BE FIXED! This is government PROPOGANDA. Do you WORK FOR CLINTON? What about the EMBEDDED CHIPS...etc, etc. Just some of what you will be hearing - I'm sure...
p.s. and how about those blue and white UN signs on the highway...snicker
-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 30, 1999.
Baltimor e Gas & Electric
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
Lies! Lies I tell you!All of those companies saying that they are Y2K compliant! What a load of BS! How many of those company CEO's have been interviewed by Jeff Rense, huh? How about Art Bell? None, huh? If legitimate media sources like that will not even talk to these people, how can you trust what they say?
And saying that they started their projects in 1995 or 1996 -- more BS. NOBODY even recognized the Y2K problme existed until Ed Yourdon started talking about it! Only through his and Gary North's efforts have people figured it out so how could they have been working on it before then!
And what about that Cinergy release that says they rolled their clocks ahead to the year 2000 and left them there? That is impossible! Everyone knows that the whole problem is systemic and one bad piece of data will start a whole domino sequence. How could they possibly operate with dates that don't match the rest of the industry and world? More lies!
-- Do You See (howstupid@doomerslook.com), June 30, 1999.
On rolling clocks ahead:http://www.pacificorp.com/news/newsrlse/r990405.html _____________________________________ April 5, 1999
Pacificorp Plants Producing Year 2000 Electricity
Salt Lake City, Utah -- PacifiCorp has announced that its electric utilities Pacific Power and Utah Power are advancing the control system clocks ahead and operating all its thermal generating units in the Year 2000 from now until the end of the first quarter of the year 2000. The same is taking place in its transmission and distribution systems and is one of the final steps to having all critical systems ready for the Year 2000 by July 1, 1999.
"These are the systems that affect all stages of electric production from generation to delivery at the point of service for each of our customers," said David Register, Year 2000 project manager, PacifiCorp. "Making the transition now will help our customers and the public to have the same confidence we have about the extent and reliability of our preparations."
Register explained the plants have already gone through months of inventory, assessment, remediation and testing and all have operated successfully during critical date rollover tests.
"More than 25 percent of our thermal generation units are already operating and producing power dated in the year 2000," said Bob Augenstein, generation Y2K project manager. "Our commitment to be ready for Y2K is now nearing reality."
Augenstein went on to say the critical systems clocks at all these facilities have been tested through a multitude of troublesome dates associated with Year 2000 and the equipment has passed each test. The formal program of setting the dating systems and clocks ahead and leaving them ahead began early in March and will continue through June. Each unit will have the date advanced while it is off line for regular maintenance or during off-peak hours this spring. Next year, the clocks will be reset to the correct calendar date.
According to Register, dates are being advanced in the transmission and distribution systems this spring as well.
"This move is just one more step to ensuring reliable electrical service for our customers," Register emphasized. "We want our customers to know we are making every reasonable effort to provide them with the best possible service. We expect to be conducting business as usual Jan. 1, 2000, and beyond."
PacifiCorp began its Y2K preparations in 1996. During the past two and one-half years it has conducted a comprehensive, systematic program to prepare for the Year 2000 and has dedicated significant resources and manpower to the effort. It also recognized that the Y2K problem is a business issue rather than a purely technological one. Accordingly, it looked at all its business processes as well as its methods of transacting business with others.
PacifiCorp serves 1.5 million electricity customers in Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho and California. It has one of the most extensive transmission systems in the U.S. and owns 8,400 megawatts of low-cost thermal and hydroelectric generation. PacifiCorp also serves 550,000 electricity customers in the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales.
For further information Margaret Kesler, 801-220-2592 _______________________________
No new news release on "readiness" since June 1 posted. http://www.pacificorp.com/news/y2k/index.html
-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), June 30, 1999.
Northeast Utilities: The Connecticut Light and Power Company, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
Stop! Stop! You're taking all the fun out of Y2K! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
-- cd (artful@dodger.com), June 30, 1999.
Florida Power
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
Thanks for the info. I needed some good news.'course, I'm still making preps.
Hope for the best and keep your...
-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), June 30, 1999.
Orange and Rockland Utilities
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
Update, was right about Commonwealth Edison:Co mEd
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
Good news. Thank you for the connections. If they are as correct as they believe, then the problems "left over" can begin to be solved. After the "short outages" are over with.Let's hope these companies are correct in their optimism.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 30, 1999.
Hoff,I appreciate your legwork on this. Now, anybody want to take a stab at posting the first "region" of the grid with all major utilities therein saying "We're ready?" THAT could be a piece of work.
For example, Detroit Edison is in ECAR, I believe. What are the other major utilities in that portion of the grid, and how many of them are "ready" (with massive contingency plans)?
:)
-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), June 30, 1999.
These unverified self-reported claims are at least the first step towards hoping that the juice will indeed flow come Y2K. But with a mere six months until 1/1/2000, I sure wouldn't bet on it. Especially with the additional problem of ensuring that all of them will be compatible with the power grid. And, of course, the third party suppliers that they depend on.
Thanks, Hoff, this is a good "tickler" for me. I do need to make another diesel fuel run for my generator.
{Aside: The way that I am stockpiling diesel fuel is I'm using a horse trailer that can hold four 55 gal drums, which I simply tow in back of my pick up truck. I pretty much wait until just about dark, then buzz out and stop at four different gas stations, filling one drum at a time. Then, after I get back home, I unload them via a wooden ramp that I constructed. Anyone else have a more efficient way?}
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 30, 1999.
Using their address from their webb page, this is what I asked the Southern Company. Other may have similar questions to company's that are "complete."When (if) I get an answer, I'll pass it along:
<<
I salute you for your claimed success(es) in removing the potential Y2K failures next year. However, I remain very skeptical of progress in several areas that will affect your operations.
1. The city of Atlanta is woefully behind in its remediation, its inventory, and has not yet begun to test any of the city systems you rely on to operate your headquarters. Failure of these would not only affect you (in the Southern Company directly) but also all of your employees you need to continue operations. City employees and county operations are directly threatened by the potential failures in city of Atlanta systems. (These systems would include: water, power, sewage, natural gas, police, fire, taxes, phones, 911, court records, city pay, city services, nearby hospitals, etc.) After all, if people fear to go downtown because of these potential problems, or cannot work downtown because one or more critical services have stopped, how can you maintain your operations successfully?
What are your contingency plans to keep the Southern Company in operation if (when ?) the major Atlanta services collapse? What is the potential impact of not being to mail billings statements, or process your bills downtown if these services collapse or stop for more than a few hours?
To those of us outside the city limits of Atlanta (and Fulton County itself), what is the impact of the probable loss of City of Atlanta services upon natural gas distribution and billing?
2. How many of your plants are natural gas fired, and how many are coal-fired? What are your contingencies if natural gas supplies (or oil production and distribution) are stopped due to failures outside of your jurisdiction? For example, if power is lost in Louisiana or eastern TX, how long can your plants remain in service? If coal distribution is interrupted (due mining, loading or rail problems) how long are your plant's capable of remaining on line?
3. What are your contingency plans for supplying power to/feeding from the EMC's and Ogalthorpe Power system if there are unresolved problems with the national/state grid?
4. Many hundred "experts" at the national level are busy telling everybody that we should expect "short interruptions" - always repeating the "winter storm" warnings. If troubles last more than a couple hours, how long will you be able to keep "emergency teams" supported? I've operated plants manually and in emergency control modes - it's extremely tedious and very much prone to errors - errors of omission, of commission, and of fatigue and simple "slowness" as people try to communicate and operate things manually they have never used before.
What are your specific training and manning plans for long-term emergency services? When will you test these contingency plans?
5. If you cannot bill properly (either can't mail the bills, can't process the bills, can't print the bills, or can't receive the bills, or the banks fail to process the bills correctly and promptly, what are your contingency plans for keeping your customers provided with power?
>>
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 30, 1999.
Florida Power and Light------
Don't have time to track down each website. But as far as being "unverified", I think 53% were using outside verification, and 29% internal audit functions.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
Impressive.Regards,
-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 30, 1999.
Which one of you guys is Heckle and which is Jeckle?
-- Jeff (laughing@theseguys.com), June 30, 1999.
Jeff:Who are you referring to? The power companies declaring compliance, those with the courtesy to post the links, or those covering their eyes and claiming they can't see anything?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 30, 1999.
Hoff is trying to win the contest just announced bu Rick Cowles.
-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), June 30, 1999.
Yeah, Baby!25 or so out of 3000+.
Oh, behave!
-- Dan Webster (dan_webster@flashmail.com), June 30, 1999.
Dan:*Hoff* has posted 25 or so. How many have *you* found?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 30, 1999.
Decker,Less than 1%. Less than 6 months left. Self-reported results. Partial, offline testing. That's what you call impressive? Geez I wish my wife were as easy to please as you.
-- a (a@a.a), June 30, 1999.
Hoff,Take your results over to Rick Cowles' euy2k.com forum- he has a contest going for actual announced results as of June 30. The thread is titled "Contest! Big Prizes! (Ha!)"
The url is:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0011SR
(I shall now return to hiding...)
-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), June 30, 1999.
Hoffmeister,Another utility to watch is TXU (used to be known as Texas Utilities) as they have been reporting 93% remediated/tested within the past month.
http://www.txu.com/
Regards,
-- william holst (wholst@hotmail.com), June 30, 1999.
Excuse me....Minnesota Power? Ready? I don't think so. Upon reading the l0Q's & l0K, I have serious doubts. First, they went on-line with a new, expensive, customer information service in 1994. In their l0Q for the first quarter, '99, they state, "these systems should require minimal remediation efforts because of their recent implementation." So...that part is not remediated yet.Second, in their 3rd quarter, 1998 10Q, they stated they "readiness plans were established in March, 1998." Through the 3rd quarter, 1998, they had spent $600,000 on remediation and as of Nov.6, 1998, their remediation was 15% complete. Their estimated remediation costs were $6million to $10 million more.
Third, in their 10K, at the end of the year, 1998, they had spent an additional $600,000. Now, they were 17% remediated. Their remaining costs, they said, were $5 million to $9 million.
Fourth, in their 10Q ending first quarter, 1999, they spent $500,000 making a total of $1.7million, with $5 million to $7 million remaining. Now, they suddenly changed HOW they are reporting....from % remediated to 57% of systems remediated as of May 7, 1999.
Wahlah!! It's June 30, 1999. We're done, we're finished! Give me a break!
Just to let some of the strange people on this forum know that this is taken seriously in the COLD part of the USA, here are some ACTUAL temps. recorded in my town in Jan., 1997.
Jan 2 -6 Jan 3 -25 Jan 4 -15 Jan 5 -31 Jan 6 -33
Jan 7 -33 Jan 18 -14 Jan 19 -39 Jan 20 -41 Jan 21 -9
Jan 22 -19 Jan 23 -35 Jan 24 -23 Jan 25 -37 Jan 26 -37
Jan 27 -23 Jan 28 -27 Jan29 -19 Jan 30 -37 Jan 3l -36
Feb l -50 Feb 2 -51 Feb 3 -42 Feb 4 -35 Feb 5 -25
Some of those days, the high temperatures were only -23 to -27 for the day. Y2K HAS to be taken seriously for people here in the northland for heat, water, and food.
Last winter, we had a bad wind storm. It knocked out power to folks living out in the country who are served by an electric co-op. Their power was out for 5 to 14 days. We were lucky, at the time, because Minnesota Power served the town and we HAD power, so the people from the country, came into the town. However, the officials here would have been in real trouble if BOTH power co.'s would have been out. Now, when I read the SEC filings from MN Power, and see this latest, bizarre press release, how can anyone wonder if WE will have power. I say NOT!
-- Karen (barbinst@wcta.net), June 30, 1999.
Flint, I don't give a rat's ass if Hoff posts a thousand links to Year 2000 Ready Statements. That's still only 33%.
June 30. More than 3000 power companies should be saying, "We're good to go." Hoff finds 25 or so. What the hell does it matter if I find another 50? In the interest of quality assurance, I clicked through to a few of Hoff's links. I've never seen such a load of bovine feces self reported back slappin' PR claptrap in my life, for the most part.
-- Dan Webster (dan_webster@flashmail.com), June 30, 1999.
Here is a link to Rick Cowles' www.euy2k.com forum thread that is having the contest. Go get yourself a free T-shirt, Hoffmeister!
Link
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 30, 1999.
Do you see,Your true colors are flying. You take incomplete reports that are self-reported by less than 5% of the industry and you are ready to proclaim arrogant I-told-you-so's. You and the rest of your ilk are doing exactly what you accuse the doomers of doing....taking some partial information and ....well that is what makes you a polly.
You fail to see the big picture. A few positive reports and you pollys have an orgasm. We always knew that one third might make it. Yourdon has always said, one third on schedule, one third seriously behind, and one third started way too late. When the figure gets over 50% let the doomers know. Then we'll have some news.
In the meantime, the rest of the world is in deep do do. The trains aren't compliant on and on. This has always been the achilles heel of the polly, their blind spot, you see... YOU SEE, even if all 100% were compliant, you must ask, what about their venders and suppliers? Do you see.... You must ask if Russia is forced to move up her attack plan because of y2k and smoke these utilities even if they are compliant. Do you see?
Yes we will listen to SELECT shows on Rense like Mike Adams. We will pay attention to SELECT articles on worldnetdaily, North, and those posted on Youdon's forum. We will pay close attention to what Cory has to say. And we will listen to the positive news as well. Believe it or not we really don't want a meltdown. We truly hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
He's up to 25 BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA
-- yes we see (thefullpicture@you.moron), June 30, 1999.
Hoffmeister, nobody in their RIGHT MIND would put together a bunch of hogwash like this unless they were being paid to !!Your Pal, Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 30, 1999.
Let's give Hoff the benefit of the doubt on these electric companies. Let's hope we start to see more companies coming foward. But here is what concerns me. What if one of these plants burns up a critical bearing in their equipment that needs to come from overseas? What if the factory that produces them can't get the raw materials because the supplier is having problems? What if the bearing factory has no electricity or telecommunucations? What if the trucking industry in the country that produces the bearings is down? What if the overseas shipping industry is not operating? What if the international banking system is screwed up? I could go on and on. Interconnectivity is a bitch!
-- John (...@...), June 30, 1999.
I'm impressed as well. What impresses me is that a handful of compliance reports are issued, and the doomers go into paroxysms of denial. It's self-reporting! It's lies! It ignores interconnections! It's paid hogwash! It's a dumb contest! It's a meaninglessly small number! But whatever it is, is's not good news! There is no good news! We won't LET it be good news! AAAACK!!!No wonder folks around here have been such suckers for the hoaxers. If God Himself did the verification, he'd be called a stooge of upper management.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 30, 1999.
Robert,Great questions! Please let us know what they have to say. I am interested in what they say about Oglethorpe Power, since I am on an EMC that receives power from them. Oglethorpe's information on the Georgia Public Service site, indicated they would not be ready until September of 99. Hope Georgia Power isnt banking on their compliance if they need anything from them. That would fall under the category of counting your chickens before they hatch, wouldnt it?
-- Dian (bdp@accessunited.com), June 30, 1999.
Naw, got enough t-shirts.Two more:
Virginia Power! (Sorry, but it IS my electric co.)
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
BC Hydro
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
Thank you Hoffmeister - this is best info I have seen in long while.
-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), June 30, 1999.
LoserWire is such a joke. Business must be hurting; I see they discounted the "subscription" price.Gee, ya think they use the term "Y2k Ready" because they're reporting to NERC, and that was the goal? Naw, must be a "conspiracy".
BTW, the definition of that "content-free phrase":
Y2k Ready Y2k Ready means a system, component, or application has been determined to be suitable for continued use into the Year 2000.
Note that Y2k Ready is not necessarily the same as Y2k Compliant, which requires fully correct date manipulations. The definition of Y2k Ready requires that the primary function(s) of the system, component, or application will continue to be provided reliably into the Year 2000. Although fixing or replacing a deficient system, component, or application to make it Y2k Compliant is one solution, achieving Y2k Ready status may also be accomplished through remediation. Remediation may include, for example, a software patch to display a correct date to an operator. Remediation could also be procedural, such as providing a highly reliable alternative that allows continuation of the primary function of the system, component, or application. Being Y2k Ready requires verification that each function necessary to reliably produce and deliver electricity is very likely to:
1. Not be impaired by a Y2k failure,
2. Continue performing satisfactorily into the Year 2000, and
3. Be sustainable indefinitely into the Year 2000.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999.
Northern States Power
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
Niagra Mohawk
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
Why does it have to be binary?Several dozen report some sort of Y2K readiness. Good news.
The rest of several thousand say nothing. Very bad news.
It might be that hundreds more are "ready" but aren't saying anything. Or two thousand are. That doesn't help me with respect to preparing for Y2K since I can't assume silence is "readiness."
Ordinary IT experience does suggest that a percentage of those reporting Y2K readiness have their heads up their behind. That isn't suspicion, just two decades-plus of experience. What percentage? I haven't a clue. Probably 25%.
I would interpret published claims of readiness by, say, 1,000 providers as authentic good news, even discounting 25%. Since all are "suppposed to be ready," we could be extremely charitable and assume that the other 2,000 had difficulty getting their releases out. Am I missing something or are we a long way from that as of July 1, 1999?
Why is this a doomer problem, rather than a Y2K remediation shortfall, GIVEN THE DATE ON THE CALENDAR?
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 01, 1999.
GPU Energy
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
So, let's agree that if NERC gives the names of 1,000 providers in their soon-to-come report and asserts formally that the other 2,000 are also ready (names to be forthcoming) that we are in the presence of "good news". We'll hope that the likely 25% with their heads in the position previously defined will then put their heads in the proper position by the end of the year.Then, we can begin wondering about the remediation status of utilities around the WORLD, who, everyone agrees, are in far worse shape. Last time I looked, many countries were reliant on electricity and a surprising number use up-to-date "automated" equipment for critical functions.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 01, 1999.
Oh, I forgot. The rest of the world is primitive and "doesn't matter."
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 01, 1999.
Like I said at the top, BD, I'm just collecting these in the interim until the NERC report.Not all show up on the various searches. So I don't think that those missing are necessarily not there. And my guess is many will wait for the NERC report.
But the fact that you, or anyone else, sees these reports as a "problem" speaks volumes...
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
Kansas City Power and LightWait! Not THE KCP&L?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
Hoff:Thanks for the Niagra Mohawk, and the rest. My mom will have power if NiMo tells the truth.
2) to a@a.a: If I take a group of 15 engineers in the same discipline, from different companies, and put them in 5 rooms, 3 to a room, I will get the same convergence of statements/verbiage. These guys all THINK in the same critical terms, so they are going to use them in press releases.
SHEESH
C
-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 01, 1999.
You know Hoff, I was pretty hopeful until you posted KCP&L. Back up contingency = natural gas? explosions, fires, frantic restorations of abandoned facilities. Now I KNOW we're being mooned. Who else has their drawers around their ankles?
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 01, 1999.
Hoff said, [I reply]"Not all show up on the various searches. So I don't think that those missing are necessarily not there. And my guess is many will wait for the NERC report."
[I thought I also said/implied that. I merely said that their absence (I'm thinking forward to the report) cannot be taken by ME as good news when it comes to my own preparation.]
"But the fact that you, or anyone else, sees these reports as a "problem" speaks volumes..."
[If you're referring to my comment that there will always be some percentage of "incorrects", I can only say that is a no-brainer. Otherwise, I explicitly acknowledged the reports as good news. It's not my fault that NERC claimed EVERYONE would be ready by this date. Perhaps they are. We shall soon see. What speaks volumes is the asinine nature of the remediation process and the continual schedule shortfalls, EXACTLY as many of us predicted.]
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 01, 1999.
Dayton Power and LightPP&L
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
No reply (yet) from the Southern Company about my questions.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 01, 1999.
(snip from the doom-meister) The July 1 NRC Reports Are Not Based on Submittal Under Oath or Affirmation. But They'll Be Truthful! Link: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/99-10.htm Comment: On July 1, two things are scheduled at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:1. Y2K reports filed by the nation's 103 nuclear plants are due.
2. NRC chairman Shirley Jackson's resignation becomes official.
The summary of the NRC's actions will be released on July 7.
I want you to read the NRC's press release of January 21. Pay particular attention to this phrase, which I place in bold face: "this information does not require submittal under oath or affirmation."
* * * * * * * * * * *
No. 99-10
January 21, 1999
NRC REQUESTS INFORMATION FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSEES ABOUT OVERALL YEAR 2000 READINESS
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has requested all utilities operating nuclear power plants to inform NRC of steps they are taking to ensure their power plants will be able to function after January 1, 2000, to maintain stability of the national electric power grid.
The request for information is broader in scope than previous requests for information. The new request includes systems necessary for continued plant operation which are not covered by the terms and conditions of the plant's license and NRC regulations. Consequently, this information does not require submittal under oath or affirmation. Utilities have a choice whether they report by July 1 on their plants' Y2K readiness for systems within their license and NRC regulations or all those systems required for continued operation.
The "Year 2000" or Y2K problem refers to computers' potential inability to recognize dates beginning with January 1, 2000, and beyond. It is caused by computer programs that use two-digit numbers to represent a calendar year (such as "98" for 1998). If the problem is not corrected, vulnerable computer systems will read "00" as 1900, rather than 2000, possibly causing some systems or equipment to malfunction.
Earlier this year, NRC notified all utilities to provide detailed information on steps they are taking to deal with the Year 2000 computer problem in order to ensure that key computer systems will continue to function properly after January 1, 2000. Since that time, however, increased public awareness and government attention to the Year 2000 problem have resulted in concern over not only public health and safety of nuclear power plants, but also over their ability to continue to provide power.
In September, the NRC started conducting Year 2000 audits at 12 nuclear power plants. These audits, which will be completed by the end of this month, evaluate the effectiveness of measures licensees are taking to identify and correct Y2K problems at their facilities. Audit results will be used to determine if NRC needs to take further regulatory action and will be made available on the NRC web page as they are issued. Results of the first six audits have been posted.
The text of the letter sent to all utilities operating nuclear power plants will be posted on the NRC Internet web page at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NEWS/year2000. This site has additional information relating to steps NRC is taking to deal with the Year 2000 problem.
Link: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/99-10.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- `
-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 01, 1999.
Duke Power
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
Utilities Say They're Y2K Ready, Though Blackouts Expected
-- a (a@a.a), July 01, 1999.
I remember the days when the folks on this BB lived for JUST ONE electric company to come out and claim Y2K readiness. Now, all these have, and you call them lies. What, exactly, are yall wanting to hear?? I think I know the answer to that one, but I'm curious anyway.Ray - I was paid to post this. Quite generously too.......... thinking about a 3rd SUV. Think I should??
Add the JEA (Jacksonville Electric Authority) to the list. They've been ready for over a year.
Deano
-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), July 01, 1999.
Poppycock and balderdash. I, for one, accept most of the statements at face value (though I would certainly prefer "compliant" to "ready"). However, with only 6 months to go, 50 (or so) out of 3000 (or so) is pretty poor indeed. That's less than 2% declared "ready" by my calculations. I'm sure the NERC report will have more detailed info.
-- regular (zzz@z.z), July 01, 1999.
Deano -The reason we remain skeptical is simple:
When 4500 declare themselves compliant based on adequate and thorough remediation and test programs, we can reasonable expect that 90-95% WILL actually be able to deliver reliable, high quality electric power - no better, no worse thatn they do now. The remainder will likely to have some residual problems, but probably can fix or bypass those few systems that they "skipped," forgot, or actually broke while trying to fix. In other words, those electric power companies that did a real, engineering valid effort, will manage to solve (minimize to solveable levels ) the problem.
The companies who actually is the work will complete in some random order with some random distribution about some industry-wide mean time, issue their own press releases with great fanfare as each success is earned, and be allowed to bask in the love and well-deserved admiration of the clients and customers.
When only 50-60 companies issue "identical" press releases at the same time, and when that time is the exact last-second day of the government's imposed deadline, and when there have been no industry-wide tests of the distribution and regulation networks, then something smells funny.
I cannot say these companies did nothing. Most probably actually are well on the way to finishing and some are probably doing (or have scheduled) realistic testing under realistic conditions.
Was the data "cooked" to meet the deadline? Wellll - ask yourself if 50 different companies could simultaneously finish any project lasting two or more years on the exact same date?
I can however conclude that Clinton's government ordered the date be set, ordered the surveys be run, ordered the compliance statements be issued, and ordered that the information released yesterday be published so the imposed schedule will be met.
Does it make the information itself invalid? Maybe, maybe not.
This government was elected on a platform of lies designed to match public opinion. they have stayed in office by matching public opinion, and have no scruples about changing any facts that don't meet their agenda.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 01, 1999.
Good point Robert.You may see the same type of 'media rush' with firms involved in the MBA testing. Most were waiting on completion of this testing before claiming Y2K readiness. Testing completed yesterday, so expect a lot of firms in the mortgage industry to come out soon.
I wasn't paid to say this though.........sorry Ray, this was a freebie.
Deano
-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), July 01, 1999.
Tuscon Electric PowerSan Diego Gas and Electric
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
I have performed Y2K tests on numerous mission critical T&D relays, RTU's and other protective devices. A Ready device is one that fails in a mundane way that does not impact operations.Example #1: A protective relay monitors line current and voltage to isolate damaging faults. The relay under test does not fail any Y2K protective tests, but the LCD readout shows the date as 01/01/:0. Did the relay pass - honestly no, it has an anomaly. Is the relay still going to perform it's critical function - YES.
Example #2: Another protective relay tests fine. All rollovers are good, and all inputs and output functions operate fine with one exception. One test calls for rollover with power off to see that the device roll over with just battery power. A second test calls for the power to be removed after the rollover to see if the device re- boots with the proper date. This relay has no battery backup. Everytime power supply voltage is removed the date must be reset. This does not meet the criteria of these tests according to the GM test plan. Is it a failure - NO. Is the device compliant - NO, not according to a strict interpretation of the test.
In both these examples, I designated the devices as READY, not COMPLIANT. Neither will impact operations. I will just dial the devices and reset the date the next time I dial it up. The date is used for sequence of events only.
These are 2 examples that are real, and I hope they illstrate the nature of the difference. I love analogies. This is equivalent to having a car that still starts, runs and drives perfectly, but the "seek" function of the stereo won't work.
-- cl (cl@sky.com), July 01, 1999.
American Electric Power (AEP)TransAlta
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 01, 1999.
OH MY GOD! GOOD NEWS! Quick everyone! Dogpile it like you did the geeky kid in grade school!Did anyone ever think they (the power companies) have better things to do like, oh I don't know generate power, than updating their websites with info on their completion?
And again, the age old question, go call your power company RIGHT NOW and ask them "Hey, can you gaurentee me power for tomorrow? How about next week? Next month?"
-- You People Make Me Laugh (openyour@eyes.com), July 02, 1999.
We are not concerned about "tommorrow, next week, or next month." they have done that before, and will probably be able to generate power tommorrow, next week, and next month.They have not yet tested their distribution systems based on delivering power next year. And, to date, the tests used so far, and the tests discussed nationally publically so far, will not adequately test the conditions to assure power next year.
I'm NOT saying there will be widespread,long-lasting blackouts next year - Mr Koskinian, the FEMA, National Guard, Red Cross, and local Emergency management agencies are saying there will be widespread local and regional blackouts. Who are you going t believe, me or the national government you so greatly trust?
I AM saying that if the industry did its job right and tested things adequately, that htese blackouts Mr K is predicting could be prevented in large part.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 02, 1999.
"there will be widespread local and regional blackouts"?Umm, got a reference for that statement, Robert?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 02, 1999.
Boston EdisonLower Colorado River Authority
Public Service Company of New Mexico
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 02, 1999.
SaskPowerSouth Carolina Electric and Gas
Public Service Company of Colorado
Southwestern Public Service Company
Nebr aska Public Power District
South Carolina Public Service Authority
Arizona Public Service Co
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 07, 1999.
My hot's off to you Hoff. Very impressive indeed. But it seems that the doomers still can't break out of their stale mental state. Don't you know without the guarantees, IV&V (even though most don't know the meaning of that term), and 100% of companies reporting Y2K compliance, we're doomed. It's obvious they can "see" as Eddie has told them to see (in a's case it's Milne) and can't think for themselves.
-- Maria (maria947@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.
USBR NorthwestHouston Lighting & Power - Reliant Energy
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 07, 1999.
Tennessee Valley AuthorityLA Division of Water and Power
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 08, 1999.
Carolina Power & Light is ready? They own the Brunswick Nuclear Power plant which isn't ready! It's on the list of thirty-five "problem" plants that the NRC may have to take action against.Hell, Brunswick was a "problem" plant BEFORE Y2K ever came over the horizon. About ten to fifteen percent of CP&L's generating capacity is in question and they're ready? I wonder if CP&L's Shearon Harris and Robinson nuclear plants are included in the "ready" equation either?
Maybe the electric industry is doing their math without including the nukes because they're covered by the NRC and not NERC. Wouldn't be the first time an arcane legalism such as "what the definition of is, is" was used to hide the truth.
WW
-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), July 10, 1999.
Hoff - well, the mocking 'Y2K must be a 10' seditionists are out in full force today. As is usual, they can't pick at anything but nits.Yeah - post 7000 links. An absurdity to request. Or you are getting paid for it. Makes me wonder if they are getting paid by one of the big time book or food vendors - getting paid to post is sure up at the top of their teeny minds constantly.
Lying seems to be right up there with getting paid - hmm - that one is on their minds a lot.
My mother always said you could tell what a person was doing by looking at what they claimed everyone else was doing. Guess she was right.
Keep up the good work. Me, I'm tired of dealing with the spamming nuts that pop up on every post over here and do their best to prevent any chance of a rational discussion. THEY are the ones who make it impossible to have a genuine discussion on the facts and consequences of Y2K. And the ratio seems to run about 5 doomer trolls to 1 polly. Of course, since the board moderators LIKE the doom trolls, they are never chided for interruptions.
Personally, if I was running this bit of bedlam, I would just start a category titled "Stupid Troll Ranting", and move every bit of trollish nonsense to it, with links to the trolling posted in the place of the original posting. Anyone silly enough to WANT to read the crap still could, while everyone else could get on with business. Of course, the moderators don't think posts implying every power company in the world has gotten together to lie to the public is trolling. And, of course, telling a poster you would not trust him with a pet snake is right on topic over here. (Got barbeque sauce?)
-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 11, 1999.
I have been watching the coal plants that are stockpiling...any good information out there?
-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 11, 1999.
It's unbelievable how otherwise seemingly articulate individuals like Hoffmeister, Flint, Davis et al cannot grasp the very nature of Y2K.Are you guys aware that no one on this thread has replied to Robert A. Cook's objections?
Don't you care?
-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 11, 1999.