<< COMMENTS RE THE JIM LORD "PENTAGON PAPERS" EPISODE
by Laurence J. Victor 8/20/1999
(Ron-looks more and more like you are about 4 months off from being back in uniform again!!!! "Attensssssiiiiiiioooooonnnn!" !!!......
Yssssssssss Sir"!!!!!)
azstarnet.com
An Excel spreadsheet file, Navy-Master Util 8_4.xls (with some minor variations of file name as it moves back and forth on the Internet) was attached to an email from Leon Kappleman, along with the supposed text of Koskinen's response. Properties of the file indicate it was created: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 1:13:32 PM, and printed-to-file: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 5:53:49 AM, and Last Saved By: Bob Gilmer. This means this spreadsheet was a work sheet started 10/23/98 and printed-to-file 8/11/99. The whole spreadsheet is now available html.
It lists US Naval bases around the world and the estimated status of their host city's utility readiness for Y2K as to electricity, water, gas, and sewage. A copy of one row, New London, CT with headings is given below, followed by the legend key.
INSTALLATION/BASE
ELECTRIC
STATUS
LIKELIHOOD
OF FAILURE**
WATER
STATUS
LIKELIHOOD
OF FAILURE**
GAS
STATUS
LIKELIHOOD
OF FAILURE**
SEWER
STATUS
LIKELIHOOD
OF FAILURE**
TOTAL
PARTIAL
TOTAL
PARTIAL
TOTAL
PARTIAL
TOTAL
PARTIAL
SUBASE NEW LONDON
CITY GROTON/EASTERN UTILITIES
IC/IC
1&1
1&1
CITY GROTON
IC
1
1
YANKEE GAS
IC
TOWN OF GROTON
IC
1
LEGEND
LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE
C = compliant or assurances received
0 = Not likely to occur
I = Interim response received
1 = Occurrence is improbable
IC = Interim response/web site indicates compliance by year 2000
2 = Occurrence is probable
P = Pending, awaiting response
3 = Occurrence is likely to occur
NOTE: The spreadsheet has 3 = Occurrence is likely to occur,
while Koskinen has
3 = occurrence is likely to occur OR no information.
This is a VERY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. For military readiness, NO information on critical issues must be treated as possibly worst case, even though future information may reveal its OK. Were there other files associated with this? Was a summary that filtered to Jim Lord prepared that collasped "NO information" with "likely to occur", which led to Lord's inclusion of so many cities with his worst case category "total failure is likely". Where did this terminology origninate?
In Jim Lord's document, New London, CT is listed as "total failure is likely" in all four utility categories. Yet, in the example from the spreadsheet above, there are no 3's for New London. New London has blank boxes (no info) for gas and for partial sewage. Did this earn New London a "3" (Koskinen) and then a "total failure is likely" (Lord)?
I cannot find any entry for New York City on the spreadsheet, and only a row for one boro, Bronx; yet Lord gives New York City a "total failure is likely" rating for water and sewage. Bronx has many blanks.
NRC BRONX
CON EDISION
IC
1
1
CITY OF NEW YORK
IC
1
1
CIT OF NEW YORK
IC
1
The tables in Lord's document listing Electrical and Gas utilities "likely to fail" must have been constructed from the spreadsheet data. By whom? Why?
My biggest concern about Lord's tabulations are that they imply that each city has the same level of readiness for ALL four utilities - which is NOT given in the spreadsheet. Each city can have 0 to 3 ratings, independently, for all four utilities. In our example of New London, above, the utility profile is 1-1-noinfo-1, but because of the "noinfo" it got put in "3" as 3-3-3-3.
I am very concerned about cities at Y2K, and personally don't plan to be in one at 1-1-2000. I want to see the population alerted and prepared. Yet, I am concerned that no one seems to notice the distorted nature of this information. Putting cities in the three categories that Lord proposes (for ALL their utilities) is, for me, a red flag that the information is NOT TO BE TRUSTED. This is MORE than a simple difference of opinion.
My opinion at this time, is that Jim Lord has done the Y2K preparedness movement a great dis-service in pushing this highly suspect information. He may have been played a patsy by those who wish to discredit us. The actual spreadsheet data tells us little more than we already know - as it depends on unreliable data itself, the reports from utilities as to their readiness. I cannot take as accurate claims that any utility is today complient; note that "C = compliant or assurances received". On the "surface" the spreadsheet data makes US cities look pretty good re Y2K, if we trust "assurances". There are actually very few 2 and 3 ratings.
Can this episode be used to our advantage on alerting the population about the UNCERTAINTY of Y2K, and because we have no assurance that disasters may happen, we should prepare - as we do when investing in auto and health insurance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>Date sent: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:46:39 -0400
>From: Jason McNamara <Jason_R._McNamara@WHO.EOP.GOV>
>Subject: U.S. Navy Report
>
>To all:
>
>The note below is a direct response from John Koskinen, and
>includes an attachment of the last report which was on the
>USN website. I hope this sets the record straight. This
>will be my last message on or discussion of this subject.
>
>Thank You,
>
>Jason McNamara
>
>____________________________________________________________
>
>>From John Koskinen, Chair, President's Council on Y2K Conversion:
>
>The short of the story is that the information Jim Lord has
>released today with great fanfare was on a web site
>accessible by the public until August 10. (It was actually
>brought to my attention by a member of the public who had
>some questions about it.) So there hasn't been any
>suppression of disturbing evidence. Throughout the earlier
>months, updates were regularly sent throughout the Navy
>which was probably what Mr. Lord's "June report" was. The
>report went up on the web at the request of a Navy workshop
>since many fleet users wanted to facilitate access to the
>most current data. (The document was taken down so that it
>could be updated and the information more clearly explained
>since people found it hard to understand.)
>
>Second, the ratings were based on anecdotal information
>that was updated over time. Most significantly, which Mr.
>Lord does not note and may not have known (although he made
>no inquiries that I know of ) the instructions were to put
>a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information was
>not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and
>others were trying to determine the status of local
>infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much
>information available, which is why there were so many
>"3"s.
>
>The lack of local information was one of the reasons we
>launched our "Community Conversations" initiative in May
>and why DoD has a related initiative they have asked all
>their base commanders to lead in their local communities,
>either by supporting the community's own conversation or
>helping to organize one in the absence of any other
>facilitators.
>
>Third, the people the leadership at DoD and the services
>care most about are their troops. The advice, which Mr.
>Lord finds inconsistent, which was sent to the troops by
>the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything but alarmist
>-- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by the
>department leadership. (But they did recommend personal
>preparedness and continue to do so.)
>
>Finally, in response to requests, here is the report as it
>was last available to the public on August 10. While it is
>much less exciting than the "June report" cited by Mr.
>Lord, it should still be borne in mind that the scoring
>was:
>
> 0 = not likely to occur
> 1 = occurrence improbable
> 2 = occurrence probable
> 3 = occurrence is likely to occur OR no information
>
>As we move through the fall, we have enough interesting and
>important matters to pursue that we don't have to also be
>making mountains out of public molehills. Therefore, I
>would appreciate it if you would send this memo along to
>all those you sent your earlier message.
>
>Many thanks. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
>
>(See attached file: Master Util 8_4.xls)
_ _ _ _
>The following section of this message contains a file attachment
>prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
>If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
>you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
>If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
>
> ---- File information -----------
> File: Navy-Master Util 8_4.xls
> Date: 19 Aug 1999, 22:36
> Size: 322560 bytes.
> Type: Excel-sheet |
