[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: P2 and the Y2K "Bug"
- Subject: RE: P2 and the Y2K "Bug"
- From: "Hillenbrand, Steve" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:37:33 -0500
- Cc: "'P2Tech'" <email@example.com>, Charles McEntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Joseph Phillips <email@example.com>, Marvin Jarrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jim Mantooth <email@example.com>, Jon Loney <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lynn Brown <email@example.com>, Peter Scheffler <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ronald Williams <email@example.com>
- List-Name: P2Tech
- Reply-To: "Hillenbrand, Steve" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
One example: A company tested its software and found it could not get into
its building. A computer controlled its entry and even the president-CEO
did not have a key to the building. Not a major glitch, but an example.
Industrial Waste Reduction Engineer
Process & Prevention Services, Tennessee Valley Authority
(423) 632-8489; (423) 632-3616 (fax)
TVA P&PS HomePage www.tva.gov/orgs/iwr/iwrhome.htm
> From: Callahan, Mike[SMTP:Mike.Callahan@jacobs.com]
> Reply To: Callahan, Mike
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 6:42 PM
> To: 'Butner, Robert S'
> Cc: 'P2Tech'
> Subject: 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,
> or hour ? Can someone give me an actual process control example of where
> assumption of 19XX instead of 20XX matters ? With all the money being
> to address this problem, we should be flooded with concrete examples of
> 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:email@example.com]
> > Reply To: Butner, Robert S
> > Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 1:35 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: RE: P2 and the Y2K "Bug"
> > Folks --
> > Some time ago, a P2TECH subscriber (I think it was Catherine Dickerson
> > from
> > 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
> > in
> > 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
> > really well done piece from EPA-OW staff, and posted them to the
> > ChemAlliance site:
> > t_
> > Of_Compliance.htm
> > (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
> > likely
> > to have embedded microprocessors (and hence be susceptible) and a list
> > "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
> > of you who are working with the process industries.
> > Hope this helps. Happy Holidays.
> > Scott
> > Scott Butner (email@example.com)
> > 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
> > http://www.seattle.battelle.org/P2Online/
> > http://www.chemalliance.org/