Veilig het jaar 2000 in?...FWD:Y2K AND ENERGY

[Ak Malten]

Beste Mensen,

ter informatie. Deze E-mail is speciaal bedoeld om de discussie 
over de millennium bug weer aan te zwengelen.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Peace,
or saved by
the pigeon,

Ak Malten,

Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance

---origineel bericht in het Engels (sorry!) volgt---
Excerpt from "The Millennium Reckoning", September 1999 Update (Free
copyright with attribution).  Go to: http://www.trendmonitor.com for full
report

RISKS / ENERGY

IMPLICATIONS

If the Russian natural gas pipeline supplying both Eastern and Western
Europe is interrupted, as Russian experts say it almost certainly will be,
it will be a very difficult to start the gas flowing again with an
uncertain electricity supply and sub-zero temperatures. Oil stops flowing
at freezing temperatures which means that pipelines and refineries are at
risk, even if there are relatively short power outages. In the US, which is
far ahead of Russia in its preparations for the energy sector, "major" oil
companies are reported adopting a fix on fail (FOF) policy on wells,
pipelines and refineries.

Another reported implication is that if the electricity fails, some nuclear
plants may have difficulty cooling their cores if they are to be shut down,
creating a real danger of accidental melt-downs.

The economic, environmental and social implications of the failure of the
Russian gas and oil pipeline network are so enormous - for Europe and the
rest of the world - that the necessary resources must be made available on
an international level to ensure that:

i. the operation of the Siberian gas pipeline network is made secure,
ii. nuclear reactors everywhere have sustainable back up electrical systems
which do not depend on national grids,
iii. as many alternative local electricity sources are built as possible.

All the countries of Europe and all the people of Europe are at risk of
having to deal with the consequences of severe energy shortages and
consequent energy price increases.

Although it is not certain that this scenario will come true, even if no
remedial action is taken, the seriousness of the multiple risks warrants
emergency action now on a "just in case" basis. A huge investment in
sustainable energy systems is required, both for deployment around nuclear
sites and within communities. The task could be doable in the time
remaining if an international crash programme were to be implemented in the
next few weeks. It is a question of mobilising people and money to secure
the future very quickly. Not only would the short-term problem be solved,
but also the implementation of an economical long-term solution could be
accomplished at the same time. A first step would be a comprehensive
upgrade and support programme for Emergency Diesel Generators worldwide.

Continuing denial by governments and the media of the possible magnitude of
the risk to key energy systems is the greatest danger at the moment because
it is preventing people and companies from making appropriate contingency
preparations.

STORIES

Oil and Gas

An April 1999, article in Computer Business Review quotes Professor Andrey
Terekhov, a Russian Y2K expert, saying "the gas and electricity started
work so late that their systems simply will not be ready in time". The
article concludes that this news has "ominous implications", not just for
Russia, "but also for the countries in Europe which are dependent on
Russian gas". [1] In August 1999, it is reported in Computer Weekly that
the total money spent "so far" in Russia was $80 million (£48 million).
[11] Yet, a report published in a French industry publication Enerpresse in
March 1999 quotes a Gazprom executive saying that his company had virtually
solved the "probleme du bogue" with new control software. [No mention was
made of embedded chip systems.] [12]

In March 1999, UK energy companies are seen as well prepared, according
both to their own spokesmen and to Action 2000's colour coding scheme. [2]
However, in June 1999, the Financial Times reports that the energy industry
is still "spending heavily to ensure that their complex computer systems
suffer no ill effects" from the millennium change over. The article warns
that "anticipation of chaos" is liable to push up the price of oil as the
end of the year approaches. The article also questions the well publicised
confidence of the energy sector citing Chevron which said "it could not
tell whether it would suffer significant business interruptions, including
the shut down of its entire oil and gas production", although the company
expected disruptions to be "localised". [3]

Sources within the US oil industry are quoted in an Editorial appearing on
the Golden Eagle Website saying: "Overall, these sources estimate that
based on prior limited testing, they are expecting a 10 to 20% ratio of
failure, or multiple embedded systems going down on each oil well. There
will be no parts to fix them and no replacement systems available for quite
a long while. These sources tell me that the major oil companies have
adopted a FOF policy (fix on fail), because it is the only affordable and
practical approach."

"The bottom line: Most oil well embedded systems were never, and are never
going to be checked or tested for Y2K compliance. Its a virtual
impossibility PLUS... And even if they did, most likely the parts to
replace them will no longer be available. It's now become very difficult to
find anyone who can supply a replacement system before 1/1/2000. Some
easier testing was done on more accessible systems, which are usually
newer. Understandably, fail rates have soared 25% in some areas. On the
subject of oil and gas pipelines, the author says, "The same that was said
about the well heads and embedded systems is true for the pipelines. It's
just too complicated - and the major companies decided to adopt the FOF
policy - and wait to see what breaks down and to subsequently try to fix
it. Another consideration is loss of electricity for any significant length
of time." The other point made in the article is that the oil industry --
like so many others -- works on the basis of a just in time supply
principle. Consequently stocks of oil and natural gas are very low. [4]

This perception is confirmed by the International Energy Authority which
says in a July 1999 report, "One of the most important findings is that
just-in-time energy supplies present the greatest risk of failure. These
energy supplies, electricity and gas, are dependent on a complex delivery
infrastructure". The report says "Vulnerabilities still exist at all levels
of the oil supply chain".

Specifically, "Oil and gas pipelines have been identified as an area of
ongoing concern. Most potential problems lie in pipeline control and
monitoring systems and a vulnerability to disruptions in the electricity
supply." Offshore production is seen to be "generally at greater risk" than
onshore production "because of the accessibility problems encountered when
testing subsea equipment". [10]

Electricity

In both the US and the UK, there has been very little press concern about
the readiness of the electrical generation and distribution grid utilities.

However, a draft report by the US Army entitled Y2K Analyses for Complex
Systems of Systems, published in January 1999, provides a critical view.
The report concludes that the possibility of serious electrical power
disruption is very real despite what it describes as the growing optimism
of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Some of the
reasons given for this conclusion are that "industry deregulation since
1996 may have made the electrical power grid more vulnerable to Y2K", as
"competition produces far more inter-grid power wheeling, stressing
transmission stability beyond industry modeling and planning". The report
argues that the "unbundling of generation, transmission, distribution and
brokering makes coordinated exchange of information and action more
difficult" and large scale testing impossible.

According to the study, "the industry systems for modeling and analyzing
contingencies emphasize continued operation in spite of the "most severe
single contingency" making them inherently "far less capable of dealing
with multiple and dispersed contingencies". However, Y2K failures are
liable to be "multiple and geographically dispersed - even if not
catastrophic individually". Industry strategy is said to "to assume that
all required fixes or workarounds to the initial failure - can be made
quickly, thus allowing the system to reconstitute itself in hours or days".
The question is asked: "What if the Y2K fixes take weeks?" [19]

Nuclear

In May 1999 The Financial Times reports, "The French Institute of Nuclear
Safety reported that safety at France's nuclear power stations could be
jeopardised by the millennium computer bug. The institute said the plants
were threatened by failures from both their own computer systems and
problems with the French electricity grid. It found that between 45 per
cent and 80 per cent of internal systems "could be sensitive" to the Y2K
problem." [18]

On August 22, 1999, the Observer reports a study by nuclear engineer, John
Large, commissioned by Greenpeace, which suggests that "the millennium bug
could jeopardise the safety of Britains nuclear power plants" and "raises
alarming questions over the international nuclear industry's preparedness
for year 2000 computer problems". According to the report, "One of the
major concerns is that facilities linked to the nuclear plants, such as the
national grid and local telecommunications networks may fail at the time
when the plants need them most." The article quotes Frank Barnaby, a
nuclear physicist working for the independent Oxford Research Group, "There
seems to be a very strange complacency about the who Y2K issue within the
UK nuclear industry". Spokesperson for the UK's Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate is also quoted saying "They have nothing to worry about." [14]
On the same day, The Independent on Sunday reports that "Britain's nuclear
watchdog has issued a warning to atomic power stations about the dangers of
a millennium-like computer bug which is due to strike on 9 September." [15]

An article by Helen Caldicott is published in The Los Angeles Times on
August 17, 1999 which says that "at a White House meeting I attended
recently with John Koskenin, the head of the president's Y2K committee,
representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the
Department of Defense and four independent experts, the government
representatives dismissed concerns that were raised while providing no
substantive basis for confidence that we do not face potentially irregular,
and possibly serious, nuclear accidents on or after Jan.1, 2000".

According to the article, "Nuclear power plants are dependent upon an
intact external electricity supply to maintain the circulation of about 1
million gallons of water per minute to cool the radioactive core and also
to keep the spent fuel pools cool. If a section of the grid goes down, the
approximately 100-ton fissioning uranium core in the affected reactor will
melt within two hours if the two back up diesel generators--whose
reliability has been estimated at 85%--fail." The point is also made that "
Unlike the reactor cores, most of the spent fuel pools, which hold four to
five times more radioactivity than the core, have no back up power supply
nor containment vessel, and thus could melt within 48 hours if the reactor
has been recently refueled; if not, they would melt within two weeks
without cooling water. Twenty-six U.S. reactors are scheduled for refueling
before Jan. 1."

While Koskenin is reported admitting the possibility of "random power
outages" in the US, "he did not address the issue of the precarious back-up
generators nor the fact that the NRC requires only one week of diesel fuel
at each reactor site, even though local power outages could last longer."
[17]

According to a database called "Diesel Generator Defects at US Nuclear
Plants" compiled by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reports from
January 1, 1999 to the present "show that defects and problems occur on a
weekly basis in the US nuclear power industry. There are 27 reports
affecting 41 plants; or 40% of all US commercial nuclear plants so far this
year." Scott D. Portzline of Three Mile Island Alert comments in "The
Weakest Link: Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs)" that during a "station
blackout" (loss of offsite power) these generators "supply the electricity
needed to bring the plant to a safe shutdown". If they fail, it is said
that the chance of an accident "approaches certainty". Former NRC Chairman
Dr. Shirley Jackson is also quoted saying, "NRC reviews in recent years
have left no doubt that a station blackout at a nuclear power station is a
major contributor to reactor core damage frequency." Although the NRC is
reported to be claiming a 97.5 per cent reliability, "watchdogs say it is
lower". [9]

Reuters reported from the US on June 18, 1999 in an article entitled "US
proposes stock piling radiation antidote", that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) had proposed the stockpiling of potassium iodide, which
helps "prevent radioactive iodine from being lodged in the thyroid gland,
where it could lead to thyroid cancer or other illness". [5]

A report in The Times, on August 25, 1999, says "US nuclear power industry
regulators have discovered that around one-third of the nation's 103
nuclear power stations have yet to resolve all of their Y2K problems".
Although safety systems are said to be 100 bug free, 15 stations are
reported to be "still working on systems that might shut down power
generation". [16]

In an article entitled, "The accidental Armageddon" in The Australian,
Helen Caldicott, an anti-nuclear energy campaigner, warns that the
circulation of coolant water is "dependent on an external electricity
supply and an intact telecommunications system. If the millennium bug
causes power failures and/or telecommunication malfunctions, reactors will
be vulnerable. Because of this possibility, each US reactor has been
equipped with two back-up diesel generators. But at best these are only 85
per cent reliable. So, in the event of a prolonged power failure, the
back-up diesel generators will not necessarily prevent a nuclear
catastrophe. And 67 Russian-built reactors are even more vulnerable,
because they have no back-up generators.

"What is more, the Russian electricity grid is itself at great risk
because, as one might expect, the political and economic turmoil in that
country means the Y2K problem has hardly been examined. There are 70 old
nuclear reactors on old Russian submarines moored at dock in the Barents
Sea. If they were to lose the electricity grid powering their cooling
systems, they would melt."

The article advocates a crash program to provide all the world's nuclear
reactors with Wind and Solar electricity generators in order to insure that
enough electricity is always available for cooling necessary to prevent
meltdowns. [6]

An article in the Independent on July 4, 1999 cites an internal memo
circulated in the British Embassy in Moscow, which says that Russia is "one
of the countries most vulnerable to Y2K problems". Among the concerns
listed in the article is "back up generators for nuclear power stations".
[7]

"Midnight Crossing" published in the July 1999 issue of the US Airforce
Magazine, says: "US officials are very concerned that a computer failure in
Russia's interconnected power grid could cascade through the entire nuclear
system and lead to a massive power outage. Such an event could easily end
in catastrophe at one of the 65 Soviet-made nuclear reactors." Human error
by "an undermanned and unmotivated" (and often unpaid) nuclear work force
is increasing "the possibility that a power outage at a nuclear reactor
could lead to a catastrophe". Even if the nuclear reactors are managed
well, the article says, "loss of power and cooling at the numerous waste
pools where atomic fuel rods are kept could cause the water to boil away
and permit the release, into the local atmosphere, of lethal levels of
radioactivity. Recently loaded rods -- those placed in the waste pools
within the past two years -- could begin to melt down within 48 hours of a
loss of power". [8]

Russian experts are quoted in a July 1999 Enerpresse saying that it is very
unlikely that the bug will have serious consequences for Russian nuclear
reactors. An official is quoted saying Russia hoped to commence work on
remediation "in a couple of weeks". [13]

REFERENCES

[1] Russian bug threatens cold winter of discontent - Computer Business
Review, Apr 1999
[2] Questions linger on energy - Financial Times, Mar 3, 1999
[3] Industry tries to avoid hazardous flare-ups - Financial Times, Jun 22,
1999
[4] Oil and Natural Gas: Are They the Real Problems in Y2K? - Jun 21, 1999
http://www.gold- eagle.com/editorials_99/rc062199.html
[5] US proposes stockpiling radiation antidote, By Tom Doggett - Reuters
WASHINGTON, Jun 18, 1999
[6] Accidental Armageddon - The Age (Australia), Jun 20, 1999
http://www.theage.com.au/daily/
990620/news/news22.html
[7] Diplomats warned off Y2K Russia - Independent, July 4, 1999
[8] Midnight crossing - Airforce Magazine, July 1999
[9] Emergency Diesel Generators: The Weakest Link - Three Mile Island
Alert, July 1999 http://www.tmia.com/EDGs.html
[10] Update on the IEA's Y2K Activities - International Energy Authority,
July 1999 http://www.iea.org/ieay2k/homepage.htm
[11] Russia dances to the date bug's tune - Computer Weekly, Aug 5, 1999
[12] Gazprom rejette tout problem lie au bogue de l'an 2000 - Enerpresse,
Mar 12, 1999
[13] Le bogue ne devrait pas avoir de consequences graves en Russie -
Enerpresse, Jul 6, 1999
[14] Nuclear alert over millennium bug - Observer, Aug 22, 1999
[15] Nuclear plants on alert over computer bug - Independent on Sunday, Aug
22, 1999
[16] It's safe we hope - The Times, Aug 25, 1999
[17] Perspective on the Y2K problem: The sky indeed may be falling - Los
Angeles Times, Aug 17, 1999
[18] French nuclear plants threatened by Y2K bug - Financial Times, May 4,
1999
[19] Y2K analysis for complex systems of systems: Electric power systems in
North America - US Army Report, Jan 1999
http://cr-iiacfs1.army.mil/army-y2k/y2kelectric90224/tsld001.htm

************************************************
Jan Wyllie
Trend Monitor "The Information Refinery"
3 Tower Street, Portsmouth
Hants. PO1 2JR, UK
Tel: 44 (0)1363 881017
Email: mailto:jan at trendmonitor.com
Web: http://www.trendmonitor.com
"only what you need to know"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 <<...>> CIS: Russia, US defence chiefs to meet Sept 13 - agency
Tuesday, 31 Aug 1999 at 01:52am; Category: Overseas News; Low priority;
Story No. 9551.
CIS: Russia, US defence chiefs to meet Sept 13 - agency
RUSSIA US DEFENCE
   MOSCOW, Aug 30 Reuters - The defence ministers of Russia and the
United States will meet in Moscow on September 13 to discuss
Kosovo, arms control and other pressing problems, Interfax news
agency said today.
   The Defence Ministry confirmed that Igor Sergeyev would meet his
US counterpart William Cohen next month but said a final date had
still to be fixed.
   Interfax, quoting Leonid Ivashov, who heads the Russian Defence
Ministry's international cooperation division, said the problems of
Russian peacekeepers in Kosovo would top the agenda.
   Kosovo Albanians have been barring Russian peacekeepers from the
town of Orahovac saying they are biased in favour of the Serbs.
Washington has urged them to stop their blockade and allow the
Russians to carry out their duties.
   Ivashov said Cohen and Sergeyev would also discuss cooperation
on arms control and tackling the millennium computer bug.
   The Kremlin is still trying to persaude the Communist-dominated
parliament to ratify the 1993 START-2 strategic arms reduction
treaty and wants to start talks on a START-3 treaty which would
impose further cuts in nuclear arsenals.
   But Moscow is also concerned about US plans to develop an
anti-ballistic missile defence shield to protect its own troops and
allies in the Far East like Japan against attack from "rogue
states" such as North Korea.
   Russia says such a shield would violate the 1972 anti-ballistic
missile (ABM) treaty which it regards as a central pillar of
international arms control.
   The arms control issue, along with the Kosovo crisis, has soured
relations between Moscow and Washington. Russia fiercely opposed
NATO's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia but played an active
role in mediating between the alliance and Belgrade.
   REUTER was

31-08 0152
 <<...>>

Thought you should know about the following report in the Christchurch
Press today:

"Glitch hits Aust Navy

Almost the entire Australian patrol-boat fleet was affected by a satellite
navigation glitch akin to the millennium computer bug, the Defence
Department said. A Defence spokesman said yesterday that the global
positioning systems aboard 14 of the navy's Fremantle class patrol boats
failed at the weekend when the calendars on a ring of 24 satellites
orbiting the earth were reset."

This was one of the preview kick-in dates. In Michael Kraig's oped piece in
the March/April issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, he wrote:
"These systems may go down earlier than 2000, or they may fail months or
years later than the turn of the century. For example, the internal clock
of the Global Positioning System will 'roll over' on August 22, 1999, with
calamitous results for any GPS user who does not have properly configured
satellite receivers."

Now, I wonder if this might also have been a contributory cause of the
collision in the English Channel in clear calm weather (but at night)
between the cruise liner 'Norwegian Dream' and a container ship? Bear in
mind that the GPS system is in thousands of ships, fishing boats, yachts
etc

The next big date is 9/9/99.

Best wishes,
Rob

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

            Commander Robert D Green, Royal Navy (Retired)
                   Chair, World Court Project UK

                   Disarmament & Security Centre
                           PO Box 8390
                          Christchurch
                      Aotearoa/New Zealand

                    Tel/Fax: (+64) 3 348 1353

                Email: robwcpuk at chch.planet.org.nz

    [The DSC is a specialist branch of the NZ Peace Foundation]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


---end---


=============================================================
  The Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance (GANA) -- is a member of    
  The Abolition 2000 Network, A Global Network to Eliminate 
  Nuclear Weapons

Address: c/o Ak Malten                                     
        Irisstraat 134          Tel:+31.70.3608905
        2565TP The Hague        Fax:+31.70.3608905
        The Netherlands         E-Mail: akmalten at cornnet.nl

GANA's website:  

       http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/welcome.html

The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 
 **including ALL the Separate Opinions of ALL the Judges**,
    the Canberra Report, the CTBT Text and Protocol,
         the NPT text and the 1925 Gas Protocol,
              the Nuremberg Principles and 
   the MODEL Nuclear Weapons Convention can be found at: 

       http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/docs.html
=============================================================