I got the lead on this report from Gary North's site. The url is www.chemsafety.gov/1999/news/n9919.htm . Don'nt just read the summary, as it tends to gloss over the significant implications of the report. It took over an hour to download the report so be patient.

I haven'nt had a chance to read the full report but what I've read so far is very telling. For instance one of their summary findings was the following: "Large enterprizes with sufficient awareness, leadership, planning, financial and human resources are unlikely to experience catastrophic failures and business continuity problems unless their current progress is interrupted or there are massive failures of utilities." Notice how this was framed. My interpreation: Unless a company has it's act together in every way possible, they are toast.

More later.

-- Watcher (anon@anon.com), March 19, 1999

Answers

Thanks Watcher,

The PDF file is 91 pages and took me about 15 minutes to load to AA and another 15 to save to HD.

http:// www.chemsafety.gov/y2k/y2k01.pdf

Will read later.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 19, 1999.

Watcher,

Very succinct interpretation!

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 19, 1999.

Update---- The following is my interpretation of the report:

1. Large companies that really have their act together will probably be OK.

2. No one knows waht the overall situation is with small and medium sized companies but the situation does not look good.

3. Risk management plans should help the situation.

4. There are "gaps" in safety issues that federal agencies are aware of but it appears they are not doing anything to close the gaps.

5. The Y2K problem is one of major proportions and has the potential for causing disruption of normal operations and maintenance at the nations chemical and petroleum facilities.

6. Small and Medium business are more likely to fail than large ones. This is because of lack of awareness, resources, and technical ability to fix the problems. Given the time constraints, altering the situation would require a massive effort.

7. Large multi-national companies will probably be OK if they meet thier schedules.

8. Some instrumentation and control vendors have un-documentened products. Some have gone out of business. And some are un- cooperative.

9.EPA's Risk Management Program mandated by the Clean Air Act of 1990 may help to mitigate Y2K problems.

10. It is too late to initiate new regulations to standardize testing or certifiation.

11. The government needs to set up a information clearing house to cover process control sysytems, contingency planning, and other safety issues.

12. The federal government needs to shield all organizations that supply infomation from lawsuits.

13. The President's Council on Y2K should push the development of contingency planning through all emergency response organizations from federal to local level.

14. Chemical companies using "batch processes" should consider delaying this process as the clocks turn over to Y2K.

15. All companies should have plans and trained staff to manually take control of the process.

16. Facility managers should coordinate shut-downs and start-ups with utilities and emergency response agencies.

17. Chemical workers and emergency workers should be provided with tools and training re Y2K.

18. Power and water failures constitute a huge threat to the chemical industry.

19. Congress should create tax incentives to induce small and medium sized business to deal with Y2K.

20. Policy makers should offer small business loans to small and medium sized business to deal with Y2K.

21. President's Council on Y2K should include conferences on ways to assess chemical risks and how to priortize systems and facilities.

22. Communication tools should be developed to aid worker and public understanding of issues. Efforts must continue to communicate the seriousness of Y2K to small and medium sized enterprizes.

-- Watcher (anon@anon.com), March 20, 1999.

Watcher,

Thanks for the report and for taking the time to summarize it.

-- Curious (anon@anon.com), March 21, 1999.