[asia-apec 1265] Approved

[Roberto Verzola]

Here's one response to the Y2K article I posted. I am just wondering
if any of the anti-APEC campaigners who will be in New Zealand are
looking at this issue... Hello?    -- Roberto Verzola


From: "Jan Wyllie" <jan at trendmonitor.com>
Subject: RE: [interdoc-y2k 325] y2k analysis
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:01:08 +0100

Here is some even more crucial analysis. It is an extract from our Y2K
Update on http://www.trendmonitor.com. Of course, we are also
desperately trying to create the urgent action which this knowledge
demands. I believe such action is necessary, if we are to have a
chance to "work out the least painful way of transforming what is
turning out to be a fundamentally flawed system".

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

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 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]

Although there is nothing reported in the UK newspaper and magazine
source base on the risks of nuclear energy plants, 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]

In an article entitled, "The accidental Armageddon", 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 Indpendent 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]

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]

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