[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: P2 and the Y2K "Bug"



Mike,
 I am still waiting, along with you, for your request to be filled.
So far I have seen 4 responses to Robert Butner's email message, but only   
1 (the locked door that no one had a key to) that even remotely addresses   
your question.

 ----------
From:  Callahan, Mike[SMTP:Mike.Callahan@Jacobs.com]
Sent:  Friday, December 11, 1998 7:18 PM
To:  'Butner, Robert S'
Cc:  'P2Tech'
Subject:  RE: P2 and the Y2K "Bug"

Robert,

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.

Mike.callahan@jacobs.com
> ----------
> From:  Butner, Robert S[SMTP:butner@battelle.org]
> Reply To:  Butner, Robert S
> Sent:  Friday, December 11, 1998 1:35 PM
> To:  p2tech@great-lakes.net
> 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   
P2TECH
> 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 a
> really well done piece from EPA-OW staff, and posted them to the
> ChemAlliance site:
>
>
>   
http://www.chemalliance.org/Columns/Regulatory/Will_the_Y2K_Bug_Put_You_Ou  

> 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   
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
>
> Scott Butner (rs_butner@pnl.gov)
> 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/
>