 Selected
Presentations, Quotes, and Comments from
The George Washington University Conference on Y2K "Y2K: Local, National, Global Concerns
~
July 26 to July 30, 1999 |
|
Selected
Presentations, Quotes, and Comments from
The George Washington University Conference on Y2K "Y2K: Local, National, Global Concerns
~
July 26 to July 30, 1999 |
1.E-MAIL
MESSAGE DATED JULY 18, 1999 FROM ED YOURDON
TO PAULA GORDON PRIOR
TO THE Y2K CONFERENCE:
My gut instinct is that..all of
the top-level government and industry leaders are simply
unable to provide the kind of
leadership and inspirational rhetoric of, say, a Winston
Churchill rallying his nation
to face the acknowledged life-and-death threat of an imminent
invasion by Germany. Who
knows -- perhaps even Churchill would have had a
difficult time if the threat had
been "internal" rather than "external."
It's very difficult to acknowledge
that the threat you're facing is your own damn fault,
and that it can't be blamed
on an evil enemy; perhaps the most clever political
approach to all of this would
have been to blame Y2K on Saddam Hussein, and to call
upon every man, woman, and
child in the country to seek out all of those evil Y2K bugs
and crush them...The reality,
unfortunately, was best summarized by Pogo: "We have met
the enemy, and they is us."
One of the scariest things about
this is the possibility that official government reaction to Y2K
will resemble the reaction
to the 1929 stock market crash. Not only did all of the top leaders
adamantly deny that such
a thing could happen BEFORE the crash, but they continued to say the
same thing for at least a year
AFTER the crash. Lots of politicians continued making speeches
well into 1930 that
essentially blamed consumers and the public for maintaining such a bad
attitude about the consequences
of the crash. The gist of the message was: stop whining and
complaing, be happy, and increase
your level of confidence; if we're all feeling confident,
then everything will be
okay. Meanwhile, Washington did little or nothing to rectify the
situation throughout 1930,
1931, and 1932.
FDR obviously took strong
measures once he was sworn into office in early 1933,
but that was approx 3.5
years after the "trigger event" of Black Tuesday in October...
It's bad enough that the
lack of leadership prior to Jan 1,2000 is going to make the
consequences far worse than
they had to be; but if we continue to see dithering and
dawdling and blame-casting during
the immediate aftermath, it could turn a "5" into a "9"
on the Y2K
Richter scale.
Ed
***************************************************************************************
2. MESSAGE TO THE CONFERENCE FROM ROBIN GUENIER:
I am sorry that I am not able to
join you this week: the conference sounds
unusually interesting - and it
could just make a difference.
When I first got involved with
this extraordinary and bizarre subject,
largely inspired by my friend
Peter de Jager, I was optimistic about the
outcome. That was back in mid-1996.
It seemed to me then that the threat
was so obvious that all we had
to do was communicate what was going on to
the most senior people in the
economy - in Government and business - and
get it to the top of their agendas
and the rest would follow. They would
ensure it was fixed. That's how
things get done in our society.
Of course, the process of communication
was not going to be easy: even at
the end of the twentieth century,
a surprisingly high proportion of senior
people are technology averse.
And, at first sight, the threat seemed so
unlikely. That didn't really worry
me - I, a lawyer with no technical
background, had been running high-tech
businesses for 25 years, had not
heard of the problem before and was
initially sceptical. But it didn't
take much to persuade me.
We started well. With tiny resources
we got close to 100% awareness in
months. To use that dreadful phrase,
we were "on track" for a successful
outcome. I was even arrogant and
probably foolish enough to think that
Britain could derive enormous
relative benefit from all this - to get it
right when others were failing
could not be all bad.
But the initial momentum was dissipated
and my early optimism has gone.
Unlike Peter, who seems to have
gone from foreboding to qualified optimism,
I am pessimistic.
What went wrong? And what can be salvaged from this mess? Both huge questions.
The essential answer to the first
is that we simply failed to get the issue
to the top of those agendas. And,
critically, it's not there even now - not
here in the UK nor, I suggest,
anywhere in the world. What matters now is to
do whatever is possible to avoid
the worst outcome.
Some observers say that it is plainly
too late: the world's infrastructure
is a web of interconnected systems
that no one really understands - we are
facing an inevitable systemic
failure. Others say No, history shows that,
however severe the difficulty,
humans are good at dealing with emergencies
- they will, by improvisation
and good sense, rise above this one. I have
sympathy with both. But the trouble
with the former is that it accepts
disaster. I refuse to do that.
Yet the trouble with the latter is that the
emergency is here now and I cannot
see enough of the improvisation and good
sense that are required.
That has to change. And, in particular,
the governments of the developed
world have to publicly recognise
that we are facing an emergency. If this
conference can somehow work a
miracle and trigger that change, it will have
been immensely valuable.
I doubt if it will happen - but I cannot accept that it is wholly impossible.
I wish you well.
Robin Guenier - Executive Director,
Taskforce 2000
July 1999
Robin Guenier - a profile
Director, Guenier Ltd.
Executive Director, Taskforce
2000
Associate, Technology Consulting
Ltd.
Guenier is a businessman, writer
and speaker. After twenty years as chief
executive of various high-tech
businesses, he founded his business
consultancy in early 1995. He
became concerned about the century
date-change issue in 1996 during
an assignment as Chief Executive of the
British Government's Central Computing
and Telecommunications Agency and
was asked by the Minister for
Science and Technology to set up Taskforce
2000 - a non-profit business.
It is now fully independent - and has become
a key focus for date-change expertise
and opinion.
Guenier has made hundreds of speeches
and has written many articles about
the subject. He is a regular contributor
to TV and radio programmes. In
1998, he was voted "IT Personality
of the Year" by the readers of Britain's
leading computer journal, Computer
Weekly. He maintains a wide network of
international contacts.
He can be contacted at: Taskforce
2000, 90 Fetter Lane, London
EC4A 1JP
tel: +44 (0) 7071 83 2000
(direct)
+44 (0) 870 240 0301
(PA: Karen Moore) fax: +44 (0)
870 240 0302
+44 (0) 1582 832827 (direct)
email:
guenier@taskforce2000.co.uk
*******************************************************************************************
July 29, 1999
Introduction:
I am very pleased to represent
the United Nations Development Programme
at this gathering and to
join such a distinguished panel. Let me first
thank the George Washington
University for organizing this conference
and Professor Paula Gordon
for inviting me to this panel discussion on a
topic, which is as vital
for those living in advanced and
technologically sophisticated
countries, as for the rest of the world in
less priviledged circumstances.
I will confine my presentation
to a description of UNDP's mission and
the modest role we are playing
in addressing Y2K issues in partner
programme countries. In
addition, I will share with you our perception
of what further steps are
needed to prevent and/or mitigate any crisis
situation in those countries
and offer some suggestions on what we could
do together to avert global
and national crises.
Context/Definition of Y2K:
After 3 days of discussion,
I am sure that there is now a common
understanding of the problem
and need not spend time redefining it.
In any case the three circle
illustration, so eloquently articulated by
Professor Gordon in her
working white paper, sums up the problem pretty
well for us to continue
our discourse.
Indeed the Y2K is a complex,
inter-related problem. While IT/CT is at
the core of the problem,
understanding the magnitude of the implications
of date-sensitive computer-chip
embedded systems provides us with some
kind of a picture of what
we face. The fact is that modern life as we
know it in the developed
and developing world is almost totally
dependent on these embedded
systems. At the same time, the
ever-increasing inter-linkages
if not interdependence among all
countries, borne out of
globalization make all countries vulnerable in
varying degrees to the otherwise
simple technology problem of Y2K.
Put differently, globalization
of the world economies have progressed so
rapidly that disruptions
in one region create repercussions upon others
and isolation is now virtually
impossible, and undesirable.
Hence, the Y2K problem will
have global, national, as well as local
impacts on economic stability,
social order, political systems, and even
the physical environment.
In other words it will touch every aspect of
human lives.
The nature of the problem
is also not time bound as it is likely to
roll-over and linger well
beyond year 2000, if measures are not taken
sufficiently ahead of the
actual occurrence of the event.
Today, as we continue to
discuss the issue, we are but only 155 days
away from ushering the "new-millenium"
and experiencing, in real life,
the "millenium-bug" - the
other name for Y2K. However, we will begin
to experience it even before
31 December as some people will start the
mass panic to take preventive
but narrowly focused measures. Time
therefore, is very short
and the task ahead is gigantic.
What is UNDP doing?
UNDP's mission is to provide
technical grant assistance to developing
countries around the world
(The current number of countries, which
receive UNDP assistance
is 134). The goal is to help build their
national capacities in governance
for:
· Promoting human development
· Reducing poverty
· Maintaining sustainable environment
· Ensuring gender, social and economic equality
· Promoting human rights
· Interventions in
crises countries and promoting post-conflict
recovery.
We do all these in partnership
with recipient and donor countries as
well as other donor organizations,
like the World Bank, Regional
Development Banks and other
UN Agencies.
In the five regions in which
we operate we have taken the following
action programmes as a contribution
to address the Y2K problem.
In Africa, we are assisting
a regional programme called National
Planning for Africa for
the Year 2000. The aim of the project is to
have majority of African
countries prepare their respective national
plans to ensure the provision
of basic services, in case of Y2K related
disruptions and failures.
More specifically, this project is helping
to:
· Raise awareness
of the key decision-makers to the potential
consequences of Y2K and
the need for Y2K national plans.
· Build capacity of
Y2K national coordinators to design and implement
national plans of action
to mitigate the effects of Y2K.
· Prioritize national
sectors, such as energy, and communications, to
help countries focus on
specific remedial measures that must be applied
quickly and in a strategic
manner to have the most effective and
beneficial impact in the
shortest possible time; and
· Increase cooperation
among UNDP, World Bank, and ITU, in coordinating
and supporting Africa's
Y2K national planning and implementation
efforts.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, UNDP has helped set up a
a.) Foro Y2K America del
Sur: comprising 10 countries: Argentina,
Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia,
Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador,
Chile) to help:
1. Develop a Web site for the Foro
2. Organize the first meeting of experts in Energy in Buenos Aires.
3. Organize the first conference of the Foro in Lima, Peru
4. Develop the second meeting
of the "Group de Energía" in Washington
D.C.
5. Develop the second Conferencia del Foro 2000 for South America.
6. Develop an Auditing Y2K Workshop in Santiago, Chile (26-27 May)
7. Support National Coordinators
in reference to technical and
managerial matters
8. Hold weekly telephone conferences with all countries in South America
9. Coordinate with the sectoral
global organizations such as IATA,
Global 2000, International
Telecommunications Union.
10. Support the coordination
of the International Y2K Cooperation
Center with South America
11. Manage and implement the Y2K related development agendas.
12. Present the work done
by Group of Energy of the Foro at the United
Nations.
UNDP has also set up another forum called:
b.) Foro Y2K Mexico & America Central:
The type of support that
UNDP provides to Central America and Mexico
consists in the funding
of key regional meetings. Some Caribbean
countries also participate
in these regional meetings.
In Asia and the Pacific region,
UNDP is assisting requesting
governments with advisory
services for risk assessment and contingency
planning.
In the Arab States region,
UNDP is committed to provide advisory
services relating to Y2K
matters to requesting governments in the
region.
In Europe and the Commonwealth
of Independent States, UNDP has helped
to set up a Y2K cooperation
center in Sofia, Bulgaria to address Y2K
related issues for the region.
In close collaboration with
the United Nations Secretariat, we have just
completed a survey of the
Y2K related risk situation in our programme
countries. Although this
exercise was primarily meant for United
Nations internal office
planning purposes, its results would be useful
by mapping the degree of
risk for each critical sector in each of the
134 countries. This will
add to the information available and upon
which further work and actions
can be envisaged. A simple example is
that such an exercise would
help in focusing donor support to high risk
areas.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we
recognize that this is not enough. Unfortunately our meager resources do
not allow us to go much
farther.
What We Must Do Together?
What therefore must we all do together?
As we all know, time is limited;
knowledge on the issue is confined
largely to the developed
countries, with the United States leading the
rest; and resources are
insufficient. It is therefore, imperative
that, national and local
governments, business and private sectors,
civil societies, international
organizations and NGOs must join together
and make a combined and
determined effort towards addressing the issue.
Recommendations:
From all the discussions
here, it is evident that only a combined and
coordinated effort at the
global, national and local level will minimize
the negative consequences
of Y2K. The recommendations should therefore,
be seen, in this context.
First, urge all national
governments, to reinforce appropriate Y2K
national Task Forces, through
resources, authority and knowledge. Where none exists, to create such
groups as a matter of urgency.
Second, a rigorous Awareness
Creation Campaign must be launched at
national and local levels.
The thrust of such campaigns ought to be to
educate responsible authorities
and the major stakeholders on the
inter-connectivity of the
Y2K problem, its likely impacts, and measures
that must be taken to address
the problem.
Third, a serious effort must
be made by all national governments to
prepare national contingency
plans and inventories of all priority areas
of concern for preventing
and minimizing Y2K related events that would
pose the greatest of risks
to humankind. A long list is given in the
white paper and includes
nuclear weapons systems, biological and
chemical laboratories, nuclear
power plants, electric power grid among
others.
Fourth, every national government
must lead the initiative to test those
high priority and high risk
areas and prepare appropriate action plans
for Y2K eventualities in
those areas.
Fifth, mobilize all government
resources, civil society, action groups
to launch vigorous drives
to address the issue.
Sixth, to encourage governments
to allocate appropriate financial
resources, national contributions
could be matched by donor funds to
address Y2K related issues
such as those mentioned in the white paper.
Seventh, use the internet
facilities to launch a global
awareness-creation, and
preparedness campaign.
Eighth, emerge from this
conference with a comprehensive proposal,
which should be shared across
the globe with national governments,
private sector, civil societies
and international organizations for
taking appropriate measures.
Ninth, explore with the World
Bank and other major donors, the
possibility of preparing
a practical hand book, which could be used by
national governments and
others concerned as practical guidelines to
respond to possible Y2K
related eventualities.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the
UNDP with its network of offices in almost
all of the developing world,
and its experience in dealing with
countries in crises is prepared
to make available this network for any
coherent and coordinated
action this meeting will recommend. One
possibility that comes to
mind is the identification of a minimum list
of critical functions per
country and an assessment of the cost of
maintaining these. With
goodwill to mobilize resources we should be
able to quickly provide
the support necessary.
Post Event Recovery:
Some experts are of the opinion
that the Y2K is a rolling problem and
that system malfunctions
caused by it will have to be dealt with well
beyond year 2000. Depending
on the magnitude of disruptions and
malfunctions, serious effort
would need to be taken to restore/replace
the affected computer based
systems to bring back normalcy to the
society-based services.
For this, governments/private businesses and
other affected parties will
require access to expert groups, consulting
firms and computer industry
to help them rectify the problems. They may
also need substantial funding
from donors to implement practical
remedial measures and solutions.
UNDP, World Bank, United Nations,
United Nations Agencies
and other major donors have significant roles to
play in this and should
prepare for such post event activities.
Conclusion:
In closing, I would like
to say that as we look to the future in the new
"millenium," we must take
lessons from the past. History tells us of
innumerable sufferings and
miseries of humankind from natural
catastrophes and man -made
conflicts. But human genius, patience and
endurance have always withstood
challenges and turned them into
opportunities. After every
challenge humankind emerged more resilient
and advanced to even higher
standards of living. Once again, as we are
at the threshold of the
new millenium, we are faced with a new
challenge, the likes of
which we have not experienced before. Let us
pick up the gauntlet. I
am confident that our combined and determined
effort to address this challenge,
and the opportunities offered through
global cooperation will
move us to even greater heights.
Thank you.
******************************************************************************************
NOTE: The UNDP's INFO21
Site for IT-Related Issues
http://www.undp.org/info21/index.htm
INFO21 serves as UNDP's knowledge
broker site for IT-related issues. It is
designed as a one-stop shop
for telecentre users and UNDP's development
partners. Through structured
hyperlinks, the site offers access to a
plethora of sustainable
human development-relevant content material,
curricula and best practices
as well as to topical issues such as electronic
commerce, the Y2K problem,
internet governance and human rights and the
internet.
******************************************************************************************
"Y2K, Nuclear Power Plant Safety and the
Electric Power Grid"
Sponsored by the Y2K Group and
Hosted by The Washington Post Company
at The Washington Post
July 28, 1999.
August 4, 1999
Recently, I attended a 5-day
Y2K conference at George Washington University in Washington, DC,
organized by Dr. Paula Gordon,
Director of Special
Projects of the University's
Research Program for Social and Organizational
Learning. The conference
included an evening session sponsored by the
Washington Post, on the
topic of Nuclear Power and Y2K.
This session on Nuclear Power
was eye-opening and alarming. The presenters included a
representative from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Energy Institute (which is the
trade association for the
nuclear industry), and representatives from nuclear "watchdog" agencies.
The industry reps painted
a picture of near-100% compliance at the nation's nuclear reactor plants.
Jose Calvo, Branch Chief,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electrical & Instrumentation Controls
Branch and Jim Davis, Director
of Operations at the Nuclear Energy Institute discussed the July 7
NRC announcement on the
Y2K status of the nuclear industry. This announcement reported that all
of
the emergency systems at
all of the 103 operational nuclear plants in the U.S. were Y2K ready, but
that some of the support
systems at 35 plants were not yet Y2K ready.
Mr. Calvo and Mr. Davis assured
the audience that the industry is well on track to meet the Y2K
challenge. They stated that
items yet to be remediated at the 35 plants were minor. Mr. Davis reported
that since the original
status announcement was made on July 7, six of the 35 plants had completed
their additional work, leaving
only 29 plants with remediation work to accomplish.
Following this, representatives
from the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Nuclear Information
and Resource Service delivered
their more cautious reports. These reports questioned the reliability of
industry assurances that
nuclear power plants pose no threat to public health and safety during
the
Y2K rollover.
Paul Gunter, Director of
the NIRS Reactor Watchdog Project, began by discussing the gravest
problem Y2K poses to nuclear
plants, the potential loss of electrical power. As a December 1998
report prepared by NIRS
explains, "A little-known reality of nuclear power is that atomic reactors
need a steady source of
electricity to cool their cores and irradiated fuel pools even when they
are shut
down. Without this cooling
ability, even closed reactors would melt down; fuel pools would boil dry
and release their highly-radioactive
inventories."
It is well known that one
of the chief risks of Y2K is to the continuous, stable operation of the
electrical power grid. As
the February 24, 1999 Senate Y2K Committee Report stated, "local and
regional [power] outages
remain a distinct possibility." The potential for a prolonged nationwide
blackout, while considered
to be unlikely, also cannot be ruled out. Mr. Gunter spoke about the
ramifications of electrical
power loss to nuclear plants. The following comments are taken from his
prepared text:
"In the event of a grid failure
and loss of offsite power, nuclear power stations attached to disrupted
grid systems will automatically
scram with the rapid insertion of control rods. The reactors cease
producing of electricity.
Nuclear power stations are neither designed nor capable of 'black start'
or the
ability to operate independent
of available offsite Alternating Current (AC) electricity.
"Once scrammed, a nuclear
power station must address the tremendous amount of heat generated by
the atomic reaction within
the fuel core. With the loss of offsite power a substantial number of systems
normally used to cool the
reactor are also lost and unavailable."
Because the nuclear reactor
fuel will melt with catastrophic results in the event of a power failure
and
subsequent loss of cooling
capability, nuclear power plants are required to have backup power
sources. These are normally
giant diesel generators, as Mr. Gunter explained:
"Emergency power must be
generated onsite to maintain reactor core stability through the removal
of
this 'residual heat' via
a system of circulating coolant pumps and motor operated components.
Additional safety-related
monitoring and control systems require electrical power stored and generated
on-site. Emergency Diesel
Generators are designed to provide back-up electrical power and charge
onsite auxiliary batteries
necessary for the duration of any grid instability or failure."
The gravest danger inherent
at nuclear power plants is the simultaneous failure of both the electrical
power grid and the onsite
Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG). According to Mr. Gunter, this
condition, known as "station
blackout," is regarded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the
largest postulated contributor
to reactor accidents resulting in fuel damage. He explained,
"A station blackout of long
duration (in excess of 2 hours) leads to auxiliary battery depletion for
AC
conversion and subsequent
loss of vital instrumentation and control features. The uncovering of the
reactor core and its associated
hazards can occur within a range of 3 to 10 hours beyond the time of
battery depletion without
restoration of AC power...with the combination of grid failure, battery
failure
and EDG failure 'core damage
begins in approximately one hour as the result of coolant boiloff' or
uncovering the core for
some reactors. Core damage can be expected to proceed to a core melt if
effective and timely measures
to restore AC power and core cooling are not taken or available..."
Mr. Gunter continued, "NRC
studies consider a long duration blackout event in excess of two hours
to
be a dominant factor influencing
the likelihood of core damage or a core-melt accident. Long-term or
recurring grid failure as
a result of Y2K vulnerabilities has not been sufficiently studied."
What is the probability that
a nuclear power plant's Emergency Diesel Generators would fail to
operate if needed in the
event of a Y2K-induced electrical power loss? The most sobering information
released during the July
28 panel regarded the unreliability of these backup power systems.
Mr. Gunter reported that
ongoing evaluations of Emergency Diesel Generator reliability at our nation's
nuclear power plants reveal
cause for great concern; at best, the NCR says that they are 95% reliable.
Mr. Gunter stated that "multiple
events [of EDG unreliability] occur each month," and cited six recent
events of EDG failure at
various plants. He concluded his report by saying, "NIRS expects to see
continued problems with
EDG design, hardware failures, operation and maintenance errors and
failures related to support
systems to occur up to and beyond the Y2K susceptible dates."
In light of this situation,
last December NIRS petitioned the NRC to require nuclear power plants to
install additional backup
power onsite. To date, Mr. Gunter reported, the NRC has not responded to
the NIRS petition.
David Lochbaum of the Union
of Concerned Scientists also spoke at the July 28 panel. Prior to joining
UCS in 1996, Mr. Lochbaum
worked as a nuclear engineer in the U.S. commercial nuclear power
industry for over 17 years.
His presentation addressed the process used by the NRC to determine
"Y2K-readiness" of the nation's
nuclear power plants. In a July 7 article entitled "Y2K and Nuclear
Safety," Mr. Lochbaum stated
that this process, consisting of NRC-conducted audit tours and surveys
completed by nuclear plant
operators, was unreliable and insufficient:
"NRC inspectors conducted
audits of Y2K preparations at nuclear power plants...The inspectors have
been told what to examine,
but they have not been provided acceptance criteria. Therefore, these
audits--which are more precisely
termed sightseeing tours--cannot determine if the nuclear plants meet
minimum safety standards."
In his July 7 article, Mr.
Lochbaum explained that some nuclear plant owners are reporting to the
NRC that their systems are
Y2K compliant when they may not be:
"NRC inspectors went to the
Brunswick nuclear plant in North Carolina and learned that the plant's
owner relied exclusively
on certifications by companies supplying its hardware and software.
Brunswick did no testing
when it had a piece of paper saying that a computer system was Y2K
compliant. The NRC inspectors
then traveled to the Salem nuclear plant in New Jersey. At Salem, the
plant owner tested some
of the hardware and software that had been certified to be Y2K compliant.
Some of the certified systems
flunked the tests."
In this same article, he also questioned the NRC's lack of compliance standards:
"The NRC knows that some
nuclear plant owners are relying heavily on paperwork instead of testing.
The NRC has documentation
that this paperwork cannot always be trusted. The NRC is not unhappy
about this situation. Why?
Because in the NRC's eyes, no nuclear plant can be below Y2K minimum
standards because there
are no standards defined. Everyone passes an NRC test because there is
no
answer key."
The General Accounting Office
has also chastised the NRC for lack of compliance standards. In a
January 1999 report entitled
"Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission," the GAO said,
"NRC's regulations and other guidance do not define, for either a
licensee or the public,
the conditions necessary for a plant's safety; therefore, determining a
plant's
safety is subjective."
Another issue of concern
addressed by Mr. Lochbaum was NRC press release No. 99-153, issued
July 22, 1999, entitled
"NRC Issues Interim Enforcement Policy on Y2K." In this press release,
the
NRC announced their approval
of an interim enforcement policy allowing the use of "enforcement
discretion" under certain
circumstances for nuclear power plants during Y2K transition periods. In
his
prepared statement for the
July 28 panel, Mr. Lochbaum explained the meaning of this interim policy:
"The NRC is preparing to
allow nuclear plants with broken emergency equipment to continue
operating. Remember that
just last month the NRC announced that the emergency equipment at every
nuclear power plant in the
United States is Y2K ready. That's what they say. Actions speak louder
than words. The NRC has
taken steps to allow plant owners to continue operating plants with
emergency equipment disabled
by Y2K by simply picking up the phone and calling a friendly NRC
agent for special dispensation."
As Mr. Lochbaum told the
audience, Technical Specifications, or Tech Specs, define minimum
standards that must be met
for plants to operate. For example, when a piece of emergency equipment
is found to be broken, the
Tech Specs might require it to be fixed within 72 hours. If it is not fixed
in
time, the plant must be
immediately shut down.
He said, "For Y2K, the NRC
wants to set aside the Tech Specs and allow plants with broken
emergency equipment to continue
operating...the NRC will be gambling with the lives of millions of
Americans. The catastrophic
accident at Chernobyl was caused when plant workers deliberately
disabled emergency equipment
before a test. The test went badly and the plant literally
exploded--twice--because
its emergency equipment was disabled. The core meltdown at Three Mile
Island was caused when plant
workers intentionally turned off emergency equipment. The NRC now
appears willing to allow
plants to operate with emergency equipment disabled by Y2K. The NRS
apparently assumes that
the emergency equipment will not be needed. If it is..."
Mr. Lochbaum's final analysis
is that the NRC is acting "irresponsibly." It's hard to come to any other
conclusion but this, given
the above information.
Many Y2K analysts and observers
are deeply concerned about the possibility of potentially
catastrophic Y2K-induced nuclear
events. Dr. Paula Gordon, the organizer of the above mentioned
Y2K conference, has written a widely
read White Paper covering these concerns [A Call to Action:
National and Global Implications
of the Year 2000 and Embedded Systems Crisis,
http://users.rcn.com/pgordon/y2k/].
I believe we have to be very
cautious about self-generated reports of compliance coming from within
the various industry sectors.
The July 28 discussion panel reconfirmed my conviction that behind these
assurances of Y2K readiness
lie stacks of conflicting data, arguing against a smooth transition to
the
Year 2000.
Unfortunately, the vast majority
of the American public are receiving only the soothing industry
assessments. Given the information
obtained at panels such as this, the current widespread levels of
complacency and unconcern
about the Year 2000 problem would be difficult to maintain.
*********************************************************************************************
5. An
Exchange Between Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Paula Gordon,
July 28th Panel on "Y2K and Emergency Preparedness",
George Washington University Conference on Y2K July 26 - 30, 1999
PAULA GORDON: I brought up in the last panel.... the hypothesis that
perhaps the reason
the President and the Administration have not moved
forward on (Y2K) before
(now is that they have made) a conscious decision
(not to do so). (They
may have decided that) it is possible that increasing
the awareness of the
public concerning this issue could be very disruptive
with respect to the
economy for instance, and perhaps a conscious decision
has been made not
to risk that kind of upset. (Perhaps they have) instead
(decided to) wait
until after the (rollover) and then come in and respond in
the recovery. The
(establishment of the) ICC ~ the Information Coordination
Center.... (is compatible
with) that hypothesis because that's what it's
focusing on. It's
focusing on gathering information, assessing things.....
focusing on continuity
planning, (response) and recovery in the aftermath.
I(Do you think that
that is the case? And,) if that is the case, do you think
that there is any
way to move the Administration from that position so they
could see that we
would have to pay more.... if we were to wait to (act).......
It's more economically
reasonable and wise, I think, to put resources into
preventing and mitigating
the infrastructure disruptions and technological
disasters that we
could expect in this county as well as abroad ~ than to
wait until the rollover
and come in and pick up (in the aftermath).
CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH:
I think that the answer to your question is
"Yes" and it's "Yes"
because it becomes self evident. I'm concerned that the
moment for national
leadership has been passed over. If you go forward
right now and call
(Y2K) to the public's attention, the person who does that
whether it's the President,
the Vice President or some other leader
takes ownership
and then if something goes wrong, you know ~ it's still
politics: "You did
it ~ You're Mr. Y2K". And, you know, there is an
election in the Year
2000. (And) you can bet there's been some
discussion about what
happens if there is a failure in voting machines.
I would say that it
is unfortunate that the decision has been made to take a
rather low profile
approach.
PAULA GORDON: Do you understand why that's (the case)?
CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH:
I would guess......it doesn't get too
complicated: there's
an election in 2000 and I don't think that anyone wants
to risk having this
issue to carry on their back if something goes wrong.
What they do is to
say enough about it so that they can go back through
newsreels and say
something about it: "...We got together at the National
Academy of Science
(which they did ~ I was there.) "We were part of a
United Nations effort."
(They were...I was there.) "You know we did all
these things through
what John Koskinen has done. We did everything we
(could). We weren't
on the stage all the time..."
But I think that that
belies a greater challenge here which is to step up to
responsibility and
claim leadership of a nation and say what we have to do
as a country and rally
(the) country around it and (that's) not being done, as you say,
(it's) purposefully
(not being done). And I think that the
consequences can only
be adverse. By the way, and I say this with only
the greatest respect
for the Administration and having been a supporter of
the Administration
in many things: I think they're missing an opportunity
here and I think the
consequences for the country will not be happy.
However, almost four
billion dollars in resources have been devoted to Y2K
at the Federal level,
most of it to make sure that all of the systems are being
reworked. More money
will be dedicated, but down the line, out of
Washington, across
the country, there will be system failures, people will
not understand it.
There will be a lot of confusion.
In fact, the Small
Business (Administration) does have a system set up to
tell people what they
can do to run a routine...analysis of their small
business.
We had a Year 2000
preparedness Act which would have helped raise the
public awareness of
the implications of Y2K and solutions to Y2K problems.
You know, we need to
do more though, and that more has to come out of
the White House, plain
and simple.
So we'll still see.
Is there still time? Yes, even now, even at this late
moment, there's still
time. (But).... just like anything else, the less time
you have the greater
the intensity goes and sometimes you don't get it done.
I would say the Administration
would do well to check with some of those
who are working (in)
emergency preparedness... at local community (level)
and just talk about
the massive effort that goes into just the community.
But communities need
help and we need some direction;
we're not just thousands
of different communities. We're an American
community. That's
what my concern is.
So more can be done,
but you are absolutely right, there was a decision
made not to do it
and with all due respect to John Koskinen who's probably
pulling his hair out.....
PAULA GORDON: Congressman,
I have written a White Paper on
Y2K.....It proposes
the establishment of a Special Action Office for Y2K
along the lines of
the Federal Energy Office (at the time of ) the Federal
energy crisis. It
would be crisis-oriented and action-oriented ~ unlike the
present effort (that)
is just (focused on) information sharing, coordination,
monitoring, and assessment,
and (that) does not have anything to do with
taking action to get
communities prepared (and minimizing impacts). One of
the things (the Office)
would focus on (would be) making sure that there
are as few technological
disasters as possible.....I've confronted Mr.
Koskinen at every
opportunity I've gotten for the past year.....and brought it
up again in May. That
is, I think that there has to be an effort by the
Federal
government to identify
those most hazardous sites, plants, facilities,
pipelines, refineries,
etc., and make sure......that everything humanly
possible has been
done (so) that there's (will) be a minimum of Bhopal's
and Chernobyl's here
and abroad. "I (also) have real concerns about
nuclear power plants.......
The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the Nuclear Energy Institute are
not adequately attending
to these issues: the embedded systems issues,
particularly; the
safety issues; the back up diesel generation capacity
issues and all of
that. It's very much in question.
(Does) the idea (of
a Special Action Office for Y2K)...... appeal to you
or....... the other
initiative of trying to focus in on....technological
disasters
and making sure that
we don't have technological disasters on top of
infrastructure disruptions?
CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH:
I would say we have an existing structure, if
John Koskinen was
empowered to reach into that level, he could do it.
PAULA GORDON: He doesn't
want to. I've talked to him personally. He
finds it totally anathema
to his view of the role of the Federal government.
CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH:
Yeah, I would say, he could do it, but he
won't....
I'm congenial to advancing
that again in more of a legislative venue. I would
welcome, by the way,
any participation from this panel or others who are
working on this so
that within the next month, we could craft some
legislation to have
it ready closer (to the rollover)... As they get to
November, they might
be even more interested.......
When it comes to the
American community beyond those things which are
directly related to
the Federal government, supporting the communities.....
has not been done
and I'd be willing to give it another try....
*********************************************************************************************
6.
Comments by Professor Stuart Umpleby on the July Conference on Y2K at GW
The y2k conference at GW in late July, which was organized by Paula
Gordon, was a very educational event for those who attended. My conclusion
is that key officials still do not understand the problem and hence
are not
preparing adequately. For example, Federal Reserve System Governor
Roger
Ferguson is aware of the liquidity problem (bank runs) but not the
loan
portfolio problem -- if a lot of companies cannot function and hence
cannot
repay loans, banks are in jeopardy. He is the Fed governor in charge
of
increasing awareness of y2k among bankers! At the close, he said that
the
discussion had been useful....
In the session on nuclear power, I was not reassured by the replies
from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear industry. The
nuclear industry apparently views the questions raised by nuclear activists
as the same issues they have raised for years. It is not clear that
the
industry and the NRC see y2k as a special time with increased risks.
In the panel on education the speakers from MIT and Penn State described
how their universities are fixing internal equipment. I was the only
one who
connected y2k to the education, research, and public service missions
of
universities. With very, very few exceptions this pattern holds across
the
country.
The majority of officials seem to be expecting disruptions at the level
of 1,2,or 3.
This is the future they are planning for. If disruptions turn out to
be at the level of
5 or greater, their organizations will be unprepared. There is a saying,
"Hope for
the best, prepare for the worst." Regarding y2k we are hoping for the
best and
preparing for the best.
I did not expect that at this late date the level of public and official
concern with
y2k would be at such a low level. Yagmur Denizhan in Turkey recently
told me
about a Navajo proverb, "It is not possible to awaken someone who is
pretending to be asleep."
I heard the following quotation by Albert Camus at a conference in Germany
last week.
"They were able to do so much, but they dared to do so little."
It reminded me of what Paula Gordon has been saying about government
officials.
August 10, 1999
CONFERENCE AGENDA
Y2K: LOCAL, NATIONAL, & GLOBAL
CONCERNS ~
WHAT FURTHER ACTIONS ARE NEEDED?
George Washington University
July 26 - 30, 1999
Sponsored by the Research Program for Social and Organizational Learning
of
the Department of Management Science, School of Business and Public
Management, George Washington University. With special thanks to the
Nathan
Cummings Foundation for their support for our Y2K efforts and for making
the
videotaping of the conference possible.
Monday, July 26
Day 1
8:15 AM: Introductory Remarks: Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
9:20 AM: Panel:
“The Scope of the Threats and Challenges of Y2K and the Embedded Systems
Crisis What More Needs to Be Done? What More Can Be Done?
Moderator: Stuart Umpleby, Professor, Department of Management
Science and Director, Research Program in Social and
Organizational Learning (RPSOL), George Washington University
Panelists: John V. McIsaac, President & CEO, Market Partners, Inc,
Philadelphia
Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
Karl H. Müeller, head of the Departments of Political Science and
Sociology at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS), Vienna
Media Questioners: Gail Evra, Producer-in-charge of Y2K Coverage,
Moneyline News Hour, CNN
David Franke, World Net Daily
12: 30 to 1:30 PM LUNCH
1:30 - 3:30 PM: “Y2K Health and Quality of Life Issues ~
What More Needs to Be Done?”
Presenter: Margaret Anderson, Director of Policy, Center for Y2K &
Society
3:30 - 3:45 PM: Break
3:45 - 5:15 PM: Panel:
“Y2K Environmental and Public Health and
Safety Issues in the US ~
Additional Actions Needed”
Moderator: Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
Panelists: Lois Epstein, P.E., Environmental Defense Fund
Erik Olson, Natural Resource Defense Council
Mary Olson, Nuclear Information Resource
Center
____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, July 27, 1999
Day 2
Morning Plenary Session
8 - 9:20 AM: Panel: “Embedded Systems ~ Key to Understanding the
Seriousness of Y2K”
Moderator: Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
Panelists: Gary Fisher, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Mark A. Frautschi, Consultant, Shakespeare and Tao Consulting
Commenter: Stuart Umpleby, Professor, Department of Management Science
and
Director, Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning
(RPSOL), George Washington University
9:20 AM ~ 12:30 PM: Panel: “Status of Global Efforts ~ What More Needs
to
Be Done?”
Moderator: Stuart Umpleby, Professor, Department of Management Science
and
Director, Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning
(RPSOL), George Washington University
Panel Keynoter: The Honorable Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, Inspector
General,
U.S. State Department
Panelists: Joyce Amenta, Y2K Program Director, World Bank/InfoDev
Bruce W. McConnell, Director, International Y2K Cooperation Center
(IY2KCC)
Karl H. Müeller, head of the Departments of Political Science
and Sociology at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS),
Vienna
Discussant: Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
Richard Kerby, United Nations Development Program
Media Questioners: Gail Evra, Producer-in-charge of Y2K Coverage,
Moneyline News Hour, CNN
David Franke, World Net News
Closing Comments: Harlan Cleveland, President, World Academy of Art
and
Science and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
12:30 - 1:15 PM Lunch
Sector Analysis Presentations
1:30 - 2: 15 PM: Maritime/Ports/Tankers:
Presenter: Commander David Rounde, United States Coast Guard
2 - 2:45 PM ~ Rail Transportation
Presenter: Mark Frautschi, Consultant, Shakespeare & Tao
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM Break
3:45 - 4: 45 PM: International Health Concerns
Presenter: Antonio Hernandez, Pan American Health Organization/World
Health
Organization
____________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, July 28
Day 3
8:45 - 9:30 AM: Presentation: Karl Mueller
Reflections on Y2K and Eastern Europe
9:30 - 9:45 AM: Break
Sector Analysis Presentations
9:45 - 10:45 AM: Water
Presenters: Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council
Russ Kelly, Y2K author
10:45 - 11:30 AM: Food Supply and Distribution:
Presenters: Charles Riemenschneider, Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO), United Nations
Anne Reed, CIO, US Department of Agriculture and Chair,
President’s Council Food Supply Working Group
Jennifer Hatcher, Food Marketing Institute (invited)
11:30 - 12:30 PM: Energy ~ Oil and Gas Pipelines
Presenters: Lawrence E. Gallegher, Mobil Oil Corporation and
the American Petroleum Institute
Lois Epstein, Environmental Defense Fund
Patrice Kaufman, Y2K author and researcher
12:30 - 1:30 PM Lunch
1:30 - 3:15 PM Panel on Community Preparedness
Moderator: Phil Bogdonoff, Center for Y2K & Society
Panelists: Michael Nolan, City Administrator,
Jay Golter, Northern Virginia Year 2000 Community Action Group
NOVA Y2K
Canon Carter Echols, Washington National Cathedral
Discussant: Paula Gordon Independent Consultant
3:15 - 3:30 PM Break
3:30 - 5:30 PM Panel on Y2K, Emergency Preparedness Planning and
Implementation
Moderator: Phil Bogdonoff, Center for Y2K & Society
Key Note Speaker: Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Panelists: Joseph Licata, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fort Lee,
New Jersey
Lt. Ronald Orso, Fort Lee New Jersey Police Department
Robert Chartrand, Senior Information Specialist on Emergency
Preparedness
Douglas Kinney, Crisis Management Team Leader, National Foreign
Affairs Training Center, U.S. Department of State (invited)
Discussant: Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
____________________________________________________________________________
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM: “Y2K ~ Nuclear Power Plant Safety”
at The Washington Post, 9th Floor, Community Room, 1150 15th
Street, NW (15th and L Streets, NW), Washington, D.C.
Panelists:
~ Mary Olson, Nuclear Information Resource Service
~ Paul Gunter, Nuclear Information Resource Service
~ David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists
~ Jose Calvo, Branch Chief, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electrical
&
Instrumentation & Controls Branch
~ Jim Davis, Director of Operations, Nuclear Energy Institute
Discussant:
~ Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
____________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, July 29
Day 4
8:30 - 9:30 AM: Presentation: "Maintaining Public Confidence in Year 2000"
Speaker: Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Member of the Board of Governors of
the
Federal Reserve Bank
9:30 - 11 AM: Panel: “Social and Psychological Aspects of Y2K”
Moderator: Stuart Umpleby, Professor, Department of Management Science
and
Director, Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning
(RPSOL), George Washington University
Panelists: Dr. Jerrold Post, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Political
Psychology and International Affairs, GW University
Philip Bogdonoff, Center for Y2K & Society
Paula Gordon Independent Consultant
11 - 11:15 AM: Break
11:15 AM - 12:15 PM: Panel: Y2K and Universities
Moderator: Gayle C. Willman, MIT Year 2000 Team, Massachusetts Institute
of
Technology
Panelist: Stuart Umpleby, Professor, Department of Management Science
and
Director, Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning
(RPSOL), George Washington University (tentative)
12: 15 - 1:45: Lunch
1:45 - 2:45: Panel: "Y2K and the Media"
Moderator: Stuart Umpleby, Professor, Department of Management Science
and
Director, Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning
(RPSOL), George Washington University
Panelists: Phillip Hay, Media Relations Manager, World Bank
Professor Tony Bryan, University of Miami (invited)
David Franke, WorldNetDaily
Discussant: Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
2:15 - 3:45 PM: Report on 7/29/99 Hearing on the Information Coordination
Center, recently established by the President's Council on Year 2000
Conversion
Discussants: David Franke, WorldNetDaily
Mark Frautschi, Consultant, Shakespeare & Tao
3:45 - 4 PM: Break
4 - 6 PM: Panel: “The Roles That International Organizations and Other
Agencies are Playing in Addressing the Y2K and Embedded Systems Crisis
and
the Roles They Might Play”
Moderator: Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
Panelists: Charles Riemenschneider, Food & Agricultural Organization (UN)
John O’Keefe, Special Representative for Y2K, US Agency for
International Development, U.S. Department of State
Antonio Hernandez, Pan American Health Organization
Herbert M'cleod, United Nations Development Program,
____________________________________________________________________________
Friday, July 30
Day 5
8:30 AM - 10:30: David Gershon
New Developments in Y2K Preparedness
10:30 - 10:45 Break
10:45 - noon Summary Panel and Comments from the Floor
Moderator: Paula Gordon, Independent Consultant
Panelists: David Gershon, Global Action Planning Group
Philip Bogdonoff, Center for Y2 & Society
Stuart Umpleby, Professor, Department of Management Science and
Director, Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning
(RPSOL), George Washington University
END OF CONFERENCE
*********************************************************************************************