[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: P2 and the Y2K "Bug"
I would be interested in knowing if anyone has identified a "real" problem
with Y2K. All of the articles I have read to date, including the CEP
article, are vague in providing actual problems. For example, where would
you need to control a process based on the year and not the second, minute,
or hour ? Can someone give me an actual process control example of where the
assumption of 19XX instead of 20XX matters ? With all the money being spent
to address this problem, we should be flooded with concrete examples of how
potential upsets and releases were averted. So far, all i have seen are
urgent cries to spend more money reviewing code and replacing controls for
what is an assumed problem.
> From: Butner, Robert S[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Reply To: Butner, Robert S
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 1:35 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: P2 and the Y2K "Bug"
> Folks --
> Some time ago, a P2TECH subscriber (I think it was Catherine Dickerson
> PPRC) asked about the potential P2 implications of the "Y2K" bug.
> I thought it was one of the more interesting questions I'd seen on P2TECH
> some time, but candidly spent little time thinking about it at the time.
> Recently, though, a co-worker and I spent some time looking at material
> specifically related to the relationship between Y2K and the process
> industries, and the potential for unplanned releases due to failure of
> process plant equipment, monitoring equipment, etc. We've collected a
> number of references and links to online papers on the topic, along with a
> really well done piece from EPA-OW staff, and posted them to the
> ChemAlliance site:
> (Yeah, I know it's a ridiculously long URL )
> Though the emphasis of the article is on the impact of potential
> date-related glitches on compliance, I think that technical assistance
> providers working on P2 will find a lot of value in some of the tables.
> These include a list of common pieces of process equipment which are
> to have embedded microprocessors (and hence be susceptible) and a list of
> "other" Y2K dates (besides Jan 1, 2000) which are likely to lead to
> problems. So I thought I'd pass this along, as food for thought for those
> of you who are working with the process industries.
> Hope this helps. Happy Holidays.
> Scott Butner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> Senior Research Scientist, Environmental Technology Division
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> 4000 NE 41st Street, Seattle WA 98105
> (206)-528-3290 voice/(206)-528-3552 fax