'....Skip, I went to NSP show and tell 1-2 weeks ago and they said the same
thing; in the Q&A, I said "seems like you are only defining the
Y2K embedded systems problem as only being limited to tiny chip
devices, yet the Inst. of Electrical Engineers in the UK who've
been on top of this problem longer than anyone else have given
the classic defn of any software-driven device that is an
integral part of operating a facility or piece of equipment--by
that defn, NSP has to define their Energy Mgmt System (EMS) and
SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) as embedded
systems. I asked "do you mean to tell me you have not had to
make ANY changes to your EMS or SCADA systems in the last couple
of years because of Y2K?" They both said, "by that defn, we
plead guilty, we have had to make changes to both of those systems
due to Y2K." (not an exact quote--none of these are--they are
very close to what was said).
NSP and other American utilities have been defining their
embedded systems problems in such a manner as to not make it a
problem. It is a very cheatful, deceitful tactic. (It may have
not been intentionally made with that goal in mind though.) Then
the NSP Y2K gas division project manager got up and said they had
had to make changes to their SCADA systems to become Y2K ready.
I have long informed my readers and listeners since the Spring of
1998 that the utilities were finding that it was their larger
embedded systems that were causing the problems not their tiny
embedded chips, generally speaking. They might be some
exceptions but I don't know of them yet--insofar as any chips
causing plants to shut down. I reference my Cutter IT Journal
article where I wrote:
'What Do We Mean by "Embedded Systems"?
First, for the term "embedded systems," let's use the UK
Institution of Electrical Engineers' definition. This group
defines embedded systems as electric-powered
"devices used to control, monitor, or assist the operation of
equipment, machinery, or plant. 'Embedded' reflects the fact that
they are an integral part of the system. In many cases, their
embeddedness may be such that their presence is far from obvious
to the casual observer, and even the more technically skilled
might need to examine the operation of a piece of equipment for
some time before being able to conclude that an embedded control
system was involved in its functioning. At the other extreme, a
general-purpose computer may be used to control the operation of
a large complex processing plant, and its presence will be
obvious.1
The above definition includes more than just embedded chips,
although it does include those.2 This definition encompasses the
"showstopper" devices that the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) has reportedly confirmed can sometimes shut down power
plants if they are not Year 2000 compliant. Fred Swirbul,3 who is
working inside utilities with this problem, reported to fellow
Year 2000 researchers in May that he had just attended an EPRI
Year 2000 conference at which over 75 organizations, mostly
electric utilities, were represented. He reported that:
"It is starting to appear that it takes a fairly high-level
embedded system to really screw up and lock up. A DCS [digital
control system] or DAS [data acquisition system] can possibly
fail in this manner. Even if 50% of all high-level digital
systems have a Y2K problem (i.e., one of their many components is
not Y2K compliant), it is starting to look like only 1 in 10 will
fail so bad as to trip a plant, whether it is a electric plant or
a refinery."'
See ourworld.compuserve.com
for the full article. It was published October 1998.
[resuming this posting now...]
The Y2K project managers said that part of the problem is that
the EMS and SCADA systems are to them considered I.T. domain
issues (information technology) and to them they don't consider
them embedded systems. It's too bad that the utility Y2K project
managers are not reading the Y2K classic literature guides that
the general Y2K critics are relying upon for their understanding
of the problem, such as the IEE guidelines. I think the IEE has
it right--to the lay person, they don't care if it is a little
computer chip or a big computer system that causes them to loose
power--to them it's a Y2K electronic control problem that needs
to be avoided.
Some utilities are being forthright with the public in
recognizing the above; Alliant is. NSP was honest, at least,
when confronted with the specific question. I'm sad to hear that
NSP's other spokespeople are perpetuating the myths that there
are no Y2K problems in the utilities. It really does a
disservice to those (perhaps some of their smaller manufacturing
customers) who have embedded systems that have not been
looked at yet.
I'll tell you what you should have asked him--what about the fact
that on page 21 of the January NERC report only 40 power
generators have been fully upgraded and fully simulated,
plant-wide, for a Y2K test -- yes, all of them have past the test
-- but that only represents .38 of one percent of all power
generators in the USA (assuming they are talking about generators
versus plants--some plants hold multiple generators). The exact
quote in their report is:
"Of particular interest are the results of integrated tests
involving the entire power station. More than 40 units at more
than a dozen utilities have been tested while operating on-line
and producing power. These tests consist of simultaneously moving
as many systems and components as possible forward or backward to
various critical dates. These tests require an extraordinary
level of preparation and coordination to ensure the safety of all
systems and that the impact to the electric system would be
minimal should a unit trip during the test.
Of all the integrated unit tests reported to date, not one test
of a fully remediated unit has resulted in a Y2k failure that caused
the unit to trip."
I went out to the DOE web site to find out how many generators are in
the USA and did the math--I misplaced the URL--one had to use the DOE
search engine for keywords like "number, generators" or something like
that. It took awhile.
Now the retort in the utility industry is that since these utilities
did not find problems in the REMEDIATED plants that other plants do not
need to do such tests. That is like saying because the "A" students
got "A's" on their exam, the rest of the class do not need to take any
tests. That is so full of logical holes I can't believe we're being
asked to accept this nonsense. On page 23 of the January NERC report
it states:
"One issue moving forward is how much of this integrated generator
testing is appropriate. The answer is not simple because the
preparations to conduct such a test on a unit are extensive and
the results continue to indicate that a unit properly tested at
the component level does not exhibit problems at the overall unit
level. The experience with this type of testing will continue to
increase in the next quarter. More detailed results from these
tests should be shared across the industry to evaluate whether
further integrated testing is appropriate, or if it is simply a
challenging exercise with little incremental value."
It seems to me that the utility industry is very concerned about the
cost of these tests and the amount of time it takes. Moreso than
every utility gets an "A" on the test prior to 1-1-2000.
Also, at the NSP show and tell, I asked them specifically where
their railroad suppliers and their coal mining suppliers were
with their Y2K embedded systems project and they had nothing
definitive to state about their coal mining suppliers and nothing
additional to state about their railroad suppliers beyond what is
on the railroad company's web site--with the exception they said
that BNSF had done component level embedded systems testing and
finished by Dec 1998 but that their integrated system testing
would not occur until Sept 1999.
They also said that if a winter is very bad (lots of snow)
between here and the coal mines that the trains are unable to
make their full loads daily (about 4 train loads a day--their
Sherco plant alone uses 3 train loads a day according to their
own web site) and that in one winter they almost exhausted their
normal winter stockpile of 4-6 weeks extra of coal. During other
winters they can see their stockpile never go beneath 3-4 weeks
left of coal. I was astonished that the Y2K NSP spokespeople
could not tell me how the winter was for 1988-1989 or 1977-1978
which are the winters for the last two 11-year solar flare
maximum cycles--the year 2000 is solar flare maximum 23 and the
odd number maximum cycle years are supposed to be more
troublesome for utilities than the even number one. This problem
bothered Minnesota Power (in Duluth) enough that they wrote a
paper on it; I was surprised that NSP was not on this problem (or
at least the spokespeople that were there).
Anyway, that's enough said for tonight. Talk to you later. I'm
sharing this with my listserv. It's a good exchange of thoughts
and observations. Bottom line, I tell people that NSP might just
be able to pull it off, but there's more to the problem than just
NSP to be able to not worry. I also mention that it only makes
sense what is alleged in the so called released National Guard
planning documents that if neighboring utilities are "down," that
neighboring utilities who are not down that they share their
electricity with their neighbors via rationing schemes. It does
not make sense to let an area totally suffer when they don't need
to. It is not the end of the world to undergo power rationing. I
tell my audiences that we have to get ourselves, utility wise, Y2K
ready as a multi-regional-state region or we're all going to be
a little inconvenienced. We're in this together and no one utility
is an island--besides their neighboring utilities--their is their
supply chain.
Oh yes NSP is concerned about the predictability of the consumer
power demand on 1/1/2000--that is a big unknown for NSP and other
utilities. No lie!
Anyway, I wish NSP all the luck in the world. They might just do it,
but I am not convinced beyond 95 percent that it's going to be smooth
sailing on 1/1/2000. I'm considerably beneath that number now and will
follow the ongoing data but in the interim I've prepared myself for the
winter. I had to make my preparation decision in 1998 because I knew
options would be fewer and more expensive in 1999 and the utility data
in 1998 was not anywhere promising. Remember Senator Bennett and his
40 percent prediction the grid would fail in 2000 last June? Heck in
their latest Senate report they state on page 153 (Appendix 1):
"However, 56% of the nation's 3,200 electric utilities have yet to
complete the most difficult phase of remediation and testing with
less than 5 months to go to NERC's self-imposed deadline of June
30, 1999. The report indicates that several utilities will not
make this deadline, including one-third of the nuclear
power-generation facilities."
--Roleigh
At 07:26 PM 3/5/99 -0600, you wrote:
Good evening Roleigh.
I attended the news conference that Mayor Norm Coleman held. The materials
they prepared will be up on their website pretty soon for anyone to down
load.
One of the people there was Loren Taylor, President of NSP Electric. (I
assume that that is different than NSP CO.)
I visited a little while with him and Ken Ehalt who confirmed that he knew
me so we had some fun with that but then later I asked Loren about the NERC
report and how the data showed that MAIN (Illinois mini-grid) of the 14
power companies, many had not done basics yet and were far behind.
Then he said the most incredible thing I have ever heard. He said "but the
executives at NERC are not nervous." and walked away as if that made
everything okay. I was flabbergasted. Such an arrogant remark to someone
who obviously knew the data. How else could I quote to him those numbers
as reported on your list?
This is arrogance at the highest levels.
Then when his spokesman answered a question about what had they found so
far, he stated that they had not found anything that would have shut down
the system but just would've date stamped things wrong. Then he sited two
examples which of course evoked laughs.
I visited briefly with a St.Paul police officer that was there and his glib
remark was that everything was fine and under control. He spoke as if he
was with the general public and not a group of very astute Y2Kers. I was
so angry that I had to just turn and talk to someone else.
Had a good visit with Mike O'Connors of gofast.net and his web site for
Y2Kers haven.com
I get so angry with government officials that think that they have to
protect us from the truth because we are so stupid that we cannot deal with
the truth.
SKip Baumhoefner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roleigh Martin ourworld.compuserve.com
( easy to remember alias is: webalias.com )
(A Web Site that focuses on Y2k threat to Utilities, Banks & more)
To subscribe to free e-letter, fill in the form at the bottom of the page:
ourworld.compuserve.com
To unsubscribe, send blank subject and blank message to
roleigh_for_web-unsubscribe@egroups.com
|
