(October 1999): The 9.5 rating could apply if the Federal government continues on its present course failing to acknowledge that we are in a crisis and failing to take all the proactive measures that could still be taken before the rollover to help minimize the impacts that can be expected. Of greatest concern to me are nuclear weapons systems that remain on hair trigger alert. (I understand that even Stratcom has voiced concern regarding this fact. Whether or not the concern has reached the Secretary of Defense or the President is a question.) While nuclear weapons can only be launched as a result of a human decision, if data is corrupted or if computer screens go blank, there is the chance that human factors could lead to an unprovoked launch. While the Federal government is to be lauded for taking initiatives aimed at minimizing the risk of unprovoked weapons launches, much more needs to be done to help ensure that no such launch occurs by any nuclear power. A moratorium on the use of nuclear weapons for at least a year would be a first step in that direction. Taking all weapons off hair trigger alert is essential with or without a moratorium. Nuclear power plant safety issues have not been fully acknowledged to date by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Nuclear Energy Institute. NRC, NEI, and the President's Council have failed to date to acknowledge the recommendations offered by Mary Olson and Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information Resource Service and David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists. They have failed to respond to the very serious concerns raised by these watchdog organizations. The approaches that have been used to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants have not included attention to all safety critical systems. The focus has been instead on mission critical systems. The current inadequacy of backup diesel generation capacity is a major concern. If the Social Security Administration has jet engines for use as sources for back up power generation, why not use jet engines as back up power generation sources for nuclear power plants? If fuel shortages accompany the rollover as seems quite likely at present, it will be difficult to guarantee safety in the shutting down of any plant, should such actions become necessary. Pre-positioned stocks of potassium iodide or potassium iodate need to be stored in close proximity to all nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel processing plants so that nearby populations will have some safeguards in the event of an accident or catastrophe. (To date only four states have taken such initiatives according to a news report of October 1.) (For a general critique of nuclear power plant safety issues, see a review by Patrice Kaufman of a July 28, 1999 panel on nuclear power plant safety with NRC, NEI, NIRS, and UCS participating. The panel was sponsored by George Washington University and held as a part of the GW Y2K Conference. See http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/1999Conference.) (Regarding potassium iodide and potassium iodate, see a recent discussion thread at: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000zXv.) The chemical industry continues to place public health and safety and the environment at risk. On the plus side a number of plants have announced their intentions to shut down over the rollover or take other extraordinary measures to ensure safety. Also on the plus side, the State of California is leading the way in taking a proactive approach to address Y2K-related chemical plant safety issues. The approach taken by the State of California should be vigorously promoted through out the country and the world. To date the Federal government has failed to take a vigorous and proactive role in helping ensure the widespread adoption and adaptation of such approaches. A press conference to release "the official consensus from the groups represented at the August 30, 1999 Chemical Safety Roundtable" was held on October 7. The Roundtable itself was closed to the public and the press. The Center for Y2k & Society were observers at the Roundtable. They have issued a press release on October 7 entitled: Federal Government Fails to Act "Despite Widely Acknowledged Y2K Risks", Experts Say: White House Urged to Take Steps to Increase Safety of Chemical Plants. See the Center's website for further details: http://www.y2kcenter.org To date the Federal government has not assumed responsibility for spearheading truly comprehensive efforts that could be helpful to the public and private sector in minimizing the impacts that can be expected in chemical sector, let alone the other highest hazard sectors. They should be promoting the proactive, crisis-oriented approach that the State of California is taking. As regards the chemical sectory, the President's Council and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) have done little more than to write a letter to each of the States urging action. Less than ten states have responded to the letter. While the President's Council and CSB have brought attention to California's efforts, the Federal government has not to date funded efforts aimed at adoption or adaptation of similar efforts throughout the nation. They have acknowledged the tool kit developed by the State: The Y2K Hazardous Material Project Implementation Tool Kit" available at: http://www.oes.ca.gov There seems to be little recognition or appreciation on the part of Federal officials and the chemical industry that simply making people aware of informational resources has limited effectiveness. In the majority of cases, according to research on innovation diffusion, technology transfer, and knowledge application, such information dissemination efforts must be joined to technical assistance and education and training efforts if they are to be successfully adopted or adapted. Innovative and interactive approaches to large scale education and training efforts should be considered. These could be along the lines that have been employed by the World Bank; the Bank's African Virtual University Program is a prime example. The Bank has used live satellite transmission of workshops to multiple sites in Africa simultaneously. The programming has been coupled with the use of the internet, fax, and phone, allowing for maximum discussion and interactive exchange. This would be an excellent means of getting information and assistance out to a large number of sites nationally or globally simultaneously. Such an approach would also be an excellent way of maximizing scarce expertise. Such an approach could be designed to raise awareness levels of the seriousness of the threats and challenges while also assisting those taking part taking steps to address these threats and challenges locally, regionally, nationally, or globally. As regards the chemical sector in the United states, substantial funding needs to be provided to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and the Chemical Manufacturers Association to accomplish these objectives nationally.Also of great concern is the fact that some oil and gas pipeline companies are taking a fix on failure approach. The possibility of explosions and other problems have been raised. The malfunctioning of embedded systems that control valves could in and of itself lead to cascading impacts that could affect the functioning of pipelines. The dysfunctioning of oil and gas pipelines could create highly hazardous situations in communities as well as in individual residences. The potential for major environmental impacts is also great. Should massive problems occur, the potential for disruption in the flow of oil and gas throughout the nation is also great. Great concern remains regarding the compliance of water purification plants and waste disposal plants. One of the most outstanding spokesman in this area has been Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Fund. As has been the case in so many of the other high hazard, high risk sectors, the Federal government has not assumed responsibility for spearheading comprehensive efforts that could be helpful to the public and private sector in minimizing the impacts that can be expected in this sector. EPA hosted a three hour meeting on September 28, 1999. According to one attendee, discussion during this meeting focused in part on "some problems a few utilities faced in doing their audits and patches". According to this same individual, there was also "some airing of concerns by some EPA officials and even some utilities". "At worst 10%" of the U.S population is served by utilities MAY not be Y2K compliant. The AWWA representative reportedly said that "the only thing we have to fear is, fear itself". According to the same attendee, thinking seemed to be that we have "to avoid panicking the gullible & skitish public". According to another individual who attended a closed door meeting of mostly Federal officials in February or March of 1999, a high ranking Federal official expressed the view that five million people without water would be an acceptable number! The absence of a concern for the public good evident in this statement is appalling. The absence of concern for the public's right to know in keeping such a possibility from the public also has no place in a free and open society. Surely if the public were aware of such a possibility, they would have pressured the Congress and the President to take steps to avert such a catastrophe. The citizens of this nation are being treated like children. If this continues, their anger may be without bounds when they come to realize how much has been kept from them. Unlike some other developed countries and even some developing countries, the U.S.'s approach to Y2K preparedness has failed to be action-oriented and has focused instead information gathering and assessment and public and private sector efforts to share information. With few exceptions, the results of the assessments have not provided the basis for recommendations for action and have not led to initiatives aimed at actually minimizing the impacts now during the pre-rollover period. The focus on information gathering and assessments efforts has in a way taken the attention away from the need for commonsense action: we know that there will be a convergence of problem threads. We have no idea what the consequences of that convergence of problem threads might be. Even if one's home, business, organizations, community, state, region, and even national government were to be 100% compliant, there are any number of other interdependency and supply change factors, nationally or globally, that could impact locality, regionally, or nationally. In light of this fact, commonsense dictates that we not only do everything we can to minimize possible disruptions and disasters, it dictates that we prepare for the possibility of such disruptions and disasters. Setting aside a stock of food and water is an essential first step. Having adequate prescription medicine and medical supplies is another. Taking steps to ensure that one is ready to withstand climatic conditions is also crucial. Having a radio that will work without electricity is another. ]Where possible prepayment of some monthly financial obligations (mortgage payments, rent, insurance, utilities, etc.) could help give people a sense of security. Regarding disasters, the public needs to be acquainted with steps that would need to be taken. See the thread on "Chemical Plants Still a Concern.." at http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Xiu for an example of the guidance that one state is recommending. While one of the greatest risks that we face is not being ready to deal with infrastructure disruptions, another great risk arises out of the failure of public officials to alert the public to even the possibility of technological disasters. Beyond these concerns there is yet another: there appears to be no comprehension on the part of many of those in roles of responsibility at the Federal level of what actions they might be taking now to help hold the social fabric together. To date, the efforts of these individuals have been marked by an evident absence of understanding of the full scope and nature of the threats and challenges that face us. In addition to that their efforts have been marked by an apparent conviction that the American public would panic if they knew that impacts might be as severe as a 3 to 5 on the impact scale, let alone higher on the impact scale. Owing to this conviction, those in roles of responsibility have determined that every effort must be made to "quell" panic and they have tried to do this through keeping even their limited understanding of the possible severity of the impacts from the public. They have also not listened attentively to persons who have greater comprehension of the impacts. For instance, they have not listened to Ed Yourdon. They have not listened to Howard Rubin. My lower level rating of a 5 on the impact scale would apply if the government were to do everything that could be done beginning now in the eighty or so days remaining to minimize the impacts of the Y2K and embedded systems crisis here and abroad before the rollover. Government actions would need to be along the lines described in Parts 3 and 5 of my White Paper at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon. Actions would involve establishment of a crisis-oriented, proactive Office in the Executive Office of the President that would have several hundred full time employees who have responsibility for taking action and facilitating action PRIOR to the rollover and continuing as long as need be after that. (The Information Coordination Center ~ the ICC ~ does not have such a mission. Instead the ICC focuses on gathering information and doing assessments that will help guide actions that will need to be taken AFTER the rollover. The ICC as presently configured does not focus on taking actions before the rollover that would be aimed at minimizing impacts and averting disasters that can be expected after the rollover. Conceivably it could be reconfigured to encompass both pre- and post- rollover concerns. It would also need to be reoriented to along proactive, crisis-oriented lines.) In Part 5 of my White Paper posted in September, I introduced two versions of a best case scenario, one that involves the Federal government assuming its proper role of responsibility in addressing Y2K, and failing that, an alternative scenario that would involve the rest of the public sector in collaboration with the non-profit and private sector. In this case the rest of the public sector and the non-profit and private sector would step into the vacuum left by an absence of decisive Federal leadership and action. In this version of the best case scenario, everything that can be done would be done to minimize impacts and avert disasters before the rollover. Part 4 of my White Paper was posted at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon on August 18. It goes into detail concerning the strategy that the President has apparently adopted. It discusses the President's absence of understanding concerning the nature of the threats and challenges posed by the Y2K and embedded systems crisis. Apparently the President is privately somewhere between a 3 and a 5 on the impact scale, while publicly acting as if he believes that the impact will be less than a 3. (See Part 1 of my White Paper for an description of the impact scale I am using here.) It seems obvious that the President has decided to wait to tell the American public about the fact that we are facing a problem of at least a 3 - 5 magnitude. He apparently feels that if he were to let the public know how serious the impacts could be, that his statements would trigger an immediate downturn in financial markets, something that could have major ramifications, including profound political repercussions. Indeed, his legacy could be shattered beyond repair. Part 4 of my White Paper should help jar some people who have been asleep or who have been lulled into inaction by the Administration's absence of evident concern regarding the seriousness of the problem and by the Administration's failure to recognize and openly acknowledge that we are in a crisis. In the Appendix to Part 4, Congressman Dennis Kucinich's views are quoted from a transcript of an exchange that took place at the GW Y2K Conference July 26 - 30. All parts of the White Paper can be accessed from my home page at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon. The Congressman's statements support the explanations that I offer concerning the President's strategic approach to the crisis. Some of the videotapes of the four and a half day conference, including the exchange involving the Congressman Kucinich should be available soon at http://www.y2kapproaches.com/real/pgordon.htm. A grant from the Nathan Cummings Foundation made the videotaping of the conference possible. The overall focus of the conference was on actions to address Y2K and the embedded systems crisis that are yet needed at the local, national, and global levels. Papers and commentary focusing on the converend can be found at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/1999conference Parts 1 - 4 of my White Paper provide a basic analysis of the current status of efforts. Part 5 includes a description of the basic differences in three possible scenarios that could unfold, the status quo scenario and two alternative best case scenarios. I hope that public officials and the media here and abroad will read Part 4 and 5 and go back and read Parts 1 -3. If they were to do so, I think that they would begin to understand that political games are being played with the Y2K and embedded systems crisis at the highest levels of government in the United States. (By all means, they should also review the videotapes of the July 26 - 30, 1999 George Washington Univerity Y2K Conference to be posted soon at http://www.y2kapproaches.com/real/pgordon.htm That four and a half day conference was on "Y2K: Local, National, and Global Concerns ~ What Further Actions are Needed?" A briefing by Ed Yourdon and myself on related issues is already available for viewing on this realvideo website.) As a result of the inadequacy of U.S. government efforts, international efforts that have been strongly influenced by the U.S. government, have also failed to address the threats and challenges posed by the Y2K and embedded systems crisis. Not only are the Administration's efforts ill-serving the nation, they are ill-serving the world as well. We all stand to suffer as a result of these failings. Key questions are as follows: ~ Can we yet rise to the occasion and educate and support those in roles of public and private sector responsibility to do what can be done in the little time remaining? ~ Will individuals and organizations from other parts of the public sector and from the non-profit and private sectors step forward to fill the vacuum if the Federal government continues to focus so little attention on protecting and preserving the public good? I am still hopeful that the President will accept responsibility in the days remaining and do all that can be done to minimize the impacts that we can expect. Failing that our other institutions and leaders must come to our rescue. In order to expedite the dialogue concerning what remains to be done, I am appending a list of individuals based in Washington, who are well prepared to speak to various aspects of the crisis that we are in: Health Issues: (EXCELLENT, FORMERLY A PRINCIPAL AT BOOZ-ALLEN HAMILTON) Margaret Anderson, Director of Policy, Center for Y2K & Society 202 775 3267 Community Preparedness Issues and Social and Psychological Aspects of Y2K (PARTICULARLY OUTSTANDING IN BOTH SUBJECT AREAS) Philip Bogdonoff 202 775 3157 Community Preparedness and Organizing Issues Lois Saboe Center for Y2K & Society 202 775 3157 Environmental, Public Health and Safety Issues Relating to Y2K Fred Millar Director of Environmental and Public Safety Policy Center for Y2K & Society 202 775 3162 Chemical Sector Impacts Jerry Poje (Dr. Gerald V. Poje) Member, Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board 202 261 7617 Embedded Systems, General Overview, National and Global Impacts Financial Sector Impacts: Stuart Umpleby (Professor Umpleby has an extraordinary aptitude for explaining the complexities of Y2K and embedded systems to people who have no technical background.) Professor of Management Science Director Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning George Washington University 202 994 5219 Water-related Issues Erik Olson Natural Resources Defense Fund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pipeline Issues Lois Epstein Environmental Defense Fund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Y2K and Nuclear Power Plant Issues: (All excellent and well spoken) Paul Gunther Nuclear Information & Resource Service 202 328 0002 Mary Olson Nuclear Information & Resource Service 202 328 0002 David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 202 332 0900 I hope you will watch my George Washington University website for Part 6 of my White Paper. A new feature will also be added to that website that will include updates of this rating and other commentary.
