Want to be mind-boggled, download this powerpoint presentation by clicking here. You will need to have Microsoft Powerpoint to view it.

It took me a second run to verify that the choices of cards from the first set of six you is different from the second set of five cards. The first set is King of hearts, Jack of spades, King of spades, Queen of diamonds, Queen of clovers, and Jack of diamonds. The second set is Queen of hearts, King of clovers, Jack of hearts, Queen of spades, and King of diamonds. In many ways, this represents to me how government, organizations, and the media are downplaying the risks of the Y2K problem.

Let me give you an example from the North Americam Electric Reliability Council) NERC June 1999 survey results. Download the results by clicking here. You will need to have Microsoft Excel to view this document.

16 (supposedly) nuclear generation facilities returned NERC surveys; the organizations represented all 10 regions (according to the summary). Totally, we are told that they represent 100,398 MW.

In answer to survey question 4. "Have you completed an integrated test of the facilities listed in [question] 2... ?"

5 responded N/A, 4 responded "yes", and 6 responded "no".

In other words, only 15 responded to this question, 11 have not completed testing, and 4 say they have completed testing. Based on this data, NERC estimates that as a group nuclear generation facilities were 98% completed with testing by end of the second quarter 1999 and they will be 100% completed with testing by the third quarter of 1999.

In answer to survey question 5. "Have you completed contingency planning for components/systems in [question] 2...?"

10 responded "yes", and 5 responded "no".

In other words only 15 responded to this question, 10 say that they have already completed contingency planning and 5 have not. However, this says nothing in regard to whether or not those 10 (or 11?) respondents have more than plans on paper... or if they have completed stockpiling of oil, coal, etc. in the event of Y2K problems.

Sincerely,
Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 03, 1999

Answers

Yes, and Hoff and the pollies are like the guy who keeps re-running the slide show again and again saying "AMAZING!"

-- a (a@a.a), August 03, 1999.

Number one.... The Larch....

;^)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 03, 1999.

The NERC assessment is not based on the data reported on the spreadsheets, but by data supplied by the NEI, representing 100% of nuclear generation.

From the NERC report:

3.2 Nuclear Generation

Nuclear facility Y2k programs are closely coordinated within the overall enterprise Y2k program. However, to take advantage of substantial work and leadership in this area by NEI, NERC requested that NEI provide an assessment of Y2k activities in the nuclear sector for incorporation into this report. The assessment by NEI is provided here.

In Generic Letter 98-01, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested that each operational nuclear generating plant submit a report by July 1, 1999. The report was to confirm that your facility is Y2k ready, or will be Y2k ready, by the year 2000 with regard to compliance with the terms and conditions of your license(s) and NRC regulations.

NERC requested readiness status of nuclear plants based on mission-critical items. The scope of nuclear generations Y2k readiness program was much broader than the NERC reporting requirements. The nuclear program encompasses many additional items considered important by the nuclear plant managers. This summary is based on plant readiness reports submitted to the NRC and NEI. Status is reported based on the full scope of the nuclear program.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

Which is it NEI results or NEI and NERC results? If you review the NERC survey results since last year, it seems unlikely that they could come up with 98% completion rate by the end of the second quarter. One question that I have regarding the surveys is whether or not some respondents are the same or if the roughly 16 that send back their responses every month or so are different nuclear generation facilities. Now, there may be a way to determine this based on data in the excel files, if someone decoded the id numbers for the facilities. Another question I have is how many nuclear generation facilities exist in North America. Do you have the answer to this question?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 03, 1999.

P.S. Thank you for pointing out that those touting to be completed with testing are only claiming this about their mission critical equipment.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 03, 1999.

Stan, the report says explicitly it is based on the NEI and NRC reports. As for overlap, since the NEI and NRC data covers 100% of nuclear generation, yes, there is overlap. Frankly, I don't think NERC uses the data supplied in the spreadsheets at all in their nuclear assessment.

The report also states there are 103 commercial nuclear power reactors.

As for mission-critical, it isn't completely clear whether the nuclear assessment is based just on mission-critical systems, or on the much broader scope referred to. In any case, also keep in mind the NERC definition of mission-crtitical:

Mission Critical  Mission critical describes a system, component, or application whose misoperation could directly contribute toward the loss of a 50 MW or larger generating resource, the loss of a transmission facility, or interruption of system load. Another concept for determining which items are mission critical includes those that impact the ability to keep customer lights on or impact the safety of the public or employees. The NERC report template lists component categories that should be considered mission critical.

Irregardless, the NERC assessment is based on 100% of nuclear generation, and not on the 15 or 16 you mentioned in the spreadsheet.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

If there are 103 nuclear generation facilities and at least 11 have not completed testing on mission critical systems (per Question 2), does this still come out to 98 percent testing completed?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 03, 1999.

With the percentages, NERC is reporting the average percent complete, not percentages of plants that are complete.

Actually, there are 35 nuclear facilities with work still to be done.

The list is available here:

http://www.n ei.org/library/y2k_readinessreport.pdf

It lists each plant, ready or not, and if not, what's left to be done.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.

__________, ________ _______, and statistics.

-- jes' a math challenged footballer (nighttr@in.lane), August 03, 1999.

Stan:

Here again...I'm going to ask the same question I asked on another thread (addressed to whoever is willing to reply.) Folks have asked over and over on this forum why failures didn't occur in January, April, or July as predicted by numerous Y2k "experts." The answer given was typically, "It's called the Y2k problem for a reason. It's NOT the 1999 problem." That's fine with me. However, what I DON'T understand is why the same folks who said it's NOT a 1999 problem insist that everything be compliant NOW. There are still 5 months left before Y2k. I know some folks here don't think that's a lot of time, but I've worked software remediation and 5 months is a LOT of time. You're out of time if you want to have a baby and start now, but you're not out of time if you want to finish testing and start now.

I don't want to hear simple responses like, "But they said they'd be done..." because the Y2k "experts" ALSO said stuff that didn't happen. Let's keep the game fair, eh?

P.S. If no one answers this time, I'm going to hunker down into a corner with Ray somewhere, because I'll know how he feels when the "pollies" don't answer his questions. [grin]

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 03, 1999.

"However, what I DON'T understand is why the same folks who said it's NOT a 1999 problem insist that everything be compliant NOW."

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 03, 1999.

Anita,

Of course, I can only explain to you my personal interest in wanting reassurances that Y2K compliance has been achieved by now. As I understand the argument, projects often push back a deadline, January 1, 2000 is an immovable deadline. If early deadlines are not met, actual completion appears to be less likely. Additional challenges may be faced including aquisition and delivery towards year's end as anticipation of Y2K problems drive consumer stockpiling.

Not taking these deadlines seriously may also lead to a late start in taking action on contingency problems. Again, pre-Y2K supply disruptions may delay or prevent such actions. Shipping and trucking is already feeling a strain from the stockpiling that is going on.

Finally (or most importantly), remediation is not just about the success or failure of the company remediating its systems. It is also about the existential and economic well-being of human beings that depend on these services being provided without failure. A cavalier attitude about deadlines and contingency plans ain't just problematic.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 03, 1999.

As I understand the argument, projects often push back a deadline, January 1, 2000 is an immovable deadline. If early deadlines are not met, actual completion appears to be less likely.

Projects DO oftentimes push back a deadline, but it doesn't necessarily equate to an actual completion appearing less likely. As I expressed on another thread, I'd prefer that they stretch the testing phase to the max. Then again, I may not be familiar with the argument to which you refer.

Additional challenges may be faced including aquisition and delivery towards year's end as anticipation of Y2K problems drive consumer stockpiling.

I don't quite understand this. Are folks stockpiling embedded chips? Outside of chips, we're talking SOFTWARE changes, right? What's there to stockpile there? Not taking these deadlines seriously may also lead to a late start in taking action on contingency problems.

I agree that the deadlines should be taken seriously by the folks in charge of remediation. I'm just unclear as to why the average Joe should take them seriously at this point in time.

[rest snipped]

I understand your reasoning on the rest. Actually, I suppose I understand your reasoning in ALL of it. I just haven't seen Daffy Duck at the helm of remediation projects. Lots of the things that you worry about I've seen discussed LONG ago by the remediation folks.

Thank you for the reply, Stan. I really didn't want to hunker down with Ray. [grin]

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 03, 1999.

Clovers? I thought it was Clubs.

-- Carol (glear@usa.net), August 03, 1999.

"I agree that the deadlines should be taken seriously by the folks in charge of remediation. I'm just unclear as to why the average Joe should take them seriously at this point in time."

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 03, 1999.

As an average Joe, I need to take missed deadlines seriously as it may be one of the few indicators that help me to evaluate the risks to me and mine. Do I need to prepare for three days or three months-- whether it is the basics (heat, water, food, and light) or in economic terms (how much savings do I need if me and mine are not working during outtages or rationing). I need to know what's going on now.

But what if your power company lied to you? Thanks to Hoffmeister's link to the NERC Document listing uncompleted facilities, I know now that Virginia Power has mislead the local community and government. A Virginia Power spokesperson said that all is well at a Fairfax County Y2K town meeting last week. Now, how can I believe anything that they say on the subject? Anita, if it was your power company, you'd feel the same way as I do now. If Fairfax County government now decides not to put in any generators at the water treatment center (which is under their supervision) and at other key facilities including several health provider facilities that maintain dialysis machines... and there are power outages or rationing, this could be very bad for us.

Of course, I did glance over the NERC Contingency Planning Guide and noticed that there was a recommendation that Utilities "notify local authorities of expected worst case conditions by November 30, 1999." And what should Fairfax County government do in 31 days? Or any other County government? What can they do at that point? There might not even be a section in the County government contingency plans for power outages, rationing, etc. at that point. Why? Because, Virginia Power told them that all is well. Of course, I may be taking this a little too personally since it is my business, convenience, and safety at risk. Ill just assume the average Joe would have similar reactions.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 03, 1999.

Anita, the reason that so many people believe that we should see a large percentage of Y2K compliant claims within each industry is due to something called COMMON SENSE. It is obvious that some started early and some started late; some have a lot of code, some have a small amount; maybe some have lots of embedded chips, some don't have so many; etc., etc. Since the FIXED, IMMOVABLE DEADLINE is now less than five months away, one would tend to think that if indeed "everyone" is going to make it on time, that we would see some EARLY RETURNS here. (Like, you know, maybe the ones that started early and had a small amount of code, that sort of thing....).

What we have is a complete lack of Y2K success stories. (Well, OK, we know that Maria and Deano have their places 100% Y2K compliant, but OTHER than those two, its appears that nobody is done ... yet.) This just does not bode well. It makes any reasonable person get a bit nervous. Especially with those deadlines (remember that good ol' December-31-1998-and-a-full-year-for-testing?) that keep getting missed and sliding forward. With under five months to go, there is not much "wiggle" room, I'm afraid.

To ignore common sense, and just believe the continued happy-face "We are on track, we will be there on time, trust us" crap from the very people who have missed all those previous deadlines takes faith. A lot of faith. A lot of STUPID, MORONIC faith.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

"Are folks stockpiling embedded chips? Outside of chips, we're talking SOFTWARE changes, right? What's there to stockpile there?"

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 03, 1999.

Anita,

NERC provides a large list of things that various power generation facilities may need to replace before the rollover. The document is at ftp://ftp.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/inventory.pdf . I hope you were just being your playful self when you asked if people were stockpiling embedded chips.

While some one may be stockpiling them, my point is that there are already supply and transportation problems due to the international stockpiling of raw materials and manufactures in general (beyond the utilities) and this may effect the acquisition and delivery of a variety of things that may need to be replaced prior to the rollover. If a utility doesn't know that they need something until November, this may be problematic.

In terms of contingecy plans for loss of equipment and fuel shortages, utilities need to be stockpiling things now as opposed to later when global stockpiling of raw materials and manufactures really gets going -- especially fuels such as natural gas, coal, etc. In fact, it will be cheaper for them to do it now than wait to do it later -- unless they just don't plan to follow through on their contingency planning.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 04, 1999.

"Frankly, I don't think NERC uses the data supplied in the spreadsheets at all in their nuclear assessment."

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

This is an interesting supposition, Hoffmeister. Why do think this?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 04, 1999.

From Stan:

Of course, I did glance over the NERC Contingency Planning Guide and noticed that there was a recommendation that Utilities "notify local authorities of expected worst case conditions by November 30, 1999." And what should Fairfax County government do in 31 days? Or any other County government? What can they do at that point?

This is exactly what the Berkeley, CA Y2K chief, Bob (Bolton?? forgot his last name) was lamenting so loudly earlier this year... PG&E won't tell the municipalities until 30 days before rollover if they REALLY expect to have power or not. At that point, the cities are helpless - it's too late for any contingency planning. This means they have to plan for no power at all, since it is too risky to wait till the last 30 days to start preparing for outages.

-- (they're.scared@berkeley.ca), August 04, 1999.

Stan, King of Spain:

Thank you for your honest replies. I've also been carefully monitoring my electric company for over a year now. I've had discussions with my local utility director for over a year. If the power stays up, I'm now confident that we'll have water. I wouldn't have said the same last year. This is to what I refer when I mention the timeframes involved. Remediation moves along quite quickly (believe it or not) and old information is oftentimes useless.

I'm covered by TXU for electricity and gas, and engaged in some work at TXU when it was still T.U. The remediation efforts were "full steam ahead" at that time. The reports put out by NERC are positive for TXU, but I know from the SEC reports that there are still some tests that will be done when they bring the system down for scheduled maintenance in September. I would think they'd find problems at that time and I have prepared for that possibility. In addition, TXU is on the ERCOT grid, so I don't need to review the status of perhaps 15 states to determine possible other faults in the system.

Thanks again to you both for providing your opinions. King: I've not worked on remediation for one company or municipality yet that publicly stated they were complete with remediation even when they were. They simply consider it another maintenance project. We do the work and move on to the next. It WOULD be pretty cool, though, huh? The headlines would read, "Anita and her team of 4 save city from potential Y2k collapse." Heck...my mom might even stop telling folks that I'm a computer operator. [grin]

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 04, 1999.

Not to be crude after such a nice discussion, but to KOS:

Have you ever asked Anita if she mud wrestles?

It was probably a while ago, huh.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

I don't know, Stan.

Possibly because the state in the report that the assessment is based on the NEI and NRC data?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 04, 1999.

Nothere:

Of COURSE he did...yes...it WAS a while ago.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 04, 1999.

Anita (and others)

I have been watching the Y2K situation from a non tech standpoint since Jan. 98 and it amazes me the statements that come out from companies and government officials. They seem to have a less than developed sense of the Y2K picture as a whole.

I will point out two things

One, the 600 billion that it would take to fix the problem. As you well know the stat. is from Gartner and is an estimation of the loc that had to be remediated. Well it seemed to be the mantra regardless if it was right (??) and the Embedded issue was an unknown at the time. In my mind the statement was outdated early last year yet it was the rule of thumb for the cost of global remediation. Even receintly I have seen it writen that it is the cost of U.S. remediation.

Two, the estimation of the embedded systems affected. I beleive it was Harlen (??) that boiled it down to the .003 of all systems and from what I have seen (and this includes BC Hydro my electical supplier) that was an accurate guestimate. Now there has been lots of talk about the embedded systems not being the problem everyone thought it was. Yet the stats. indicate that Harlen was damm close. And that was last year. The exception seems to be the Health industry where the precentage of failure is higher. Why the great disconnect.

Of course my favorite is the educated and intelligent that state next year is the start of the millennium. If these guys can't get their story right how are their small minds going to get a grasp of the big Y2K picture.

I have a lot of concerns such as I have expressed above. The SEC filings themselves are a joke often with some being very dilligent and some waffling big time.

One would think that the leaders in their fields would care to get a handle on the Y2K problem. I believe that it is actually beyond their grasp to either understand it or get a grasp on all the conflicting information out there.

This is of course not only limited to the "polly" types but also the "doomer" folk. Lots of mistakes of understanding on both sides of the fence.

Maybe we need a difinitive Y2K 101 for everyone to read eh?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 04, 1999.

Brian:

You said:

"I have been watching the Y2K situation from a non tech standpoint since Jan. 98 and it amazes me the statements that come out from companies and government officials. They seem to have a less than developed sense of the Y2K picture as a whole."

Companies, in general, consider Y2k remediation just another project. They have NO IDEA that some of you are sitting here on the TB2000 forum waiting with abaited breath for their press release on how they've done. Regarding the WHOLE, I think it's a bit too early for companies to grow concerned. Companies know who their suppliers are. They don't get their information from press releases.

You went on to say:

"I will point out two things One, the 600 billion that it would take to fix the problem. As you well know the stat. is from Gartner and is an estimation of the loc that had to be remediated. Well it seemed to be the mantra regardless if it was right (??) and the Embedded issue was an unknown at the time. In my mind the statement was outdated early last year yet it was the rule of thumb for the cost of global remediation. Even receintly I have seen it writen that it is the cost of U.S. remediation."

I understand the confusion when the press releases outdated information. I'm still seeing articles posted on this forum that state that it takes 4 months for a nuclear power plant to shut down and others that state that the Chinese are insisting that their programmers fly.

You then wrote:

"Two, the estimation of the embedded systems affected. I beleive it was Harlen (??) that boiled it down to the .003 of all systems and from what I have seen (and this includes BC Hydro my electical supplier) that was an accurate guestimate."

Actually, I think it was the youngster of Rubik Cube fame from Great Britain that somewhat proved with his probe that .003 of the systems were affected. That may have been last year, but the news didn't hit the press here until early this year. The Rubik Cube guy was concentrating on utilities, so that may be where you see the disconnect between the utilities and the health industry. Harlan is pretty much retired now, but watches closely the data as it comes in.

Speaking further, you said:

"Of course my favorite is the educated and intelligent that state next year is the start of the millennium. If these guys can't get their story right how are their small minds going to get a grasp of the big Y2K picture."

LOL. This one has kindof been thrown into the "so what?" category. I suspect they use the term because it's easier. Some columnists now preface their articles with things like, "I don't want to HEAR from you purists who state this is not the millenium!" Folks KNOW...it just takes too much energy to nit-pick over this one.

You then said: "I have a lot of concerns such as I have expressed above. The SEC filings themselves are a joke often with some being very dilligent and some waffling big time. One would think that the leaders in their fields would care to get a handle on the Y2K problem. I believe that it is actually beyond their grasp to either understand it or get a grasp on all the conflicting information out there."

I haven't seen the SEC reports for the folks of which I'm familiar to be a joke. Of course I can't address the others. Again, however, they MUST state truths or be fined, and have NO CLUE that folks are now waiting for their latest or will choose to pick them apart as they've done here.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 04, 1999.

Anita

Thanks for the comments

In regards to the SEC Filings, some are very good Lehmans and Motorola come to mind. Very through and lots of insight into the problem and the solutions.

I do believe Texaco refered back to its last filing, some say nothing at all.

I like information. And it is hard to find the definitive stuff from the fluff. Press releases are irrelevant. A person should just use them as an indication that something significant has been noticed and find the source.

Drink from the source.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 04, 1999.