For Decker INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL SAFETY ADVISORY

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This article is from May. IMHO one of the more serious documents on the subject of Y2K. Not in the papers though. That is why this forum is here. We have a problem. Do we have an answer?

IFCS Advisory - Year 2000 Problem  

INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL SAFETY ADVISORY Issued by THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL FORUM ON CHEMICAL SAFETY Chemical Safety Advisory Introduction | Clearing House on Chemical Emergencies IFCS Home Page | Site Index | Forum NEWS

The Computer year 2000 problem, unless properly addressed, poses significant world-wide chemical safety problems. Nations and organizations are at various stages of dealing with the issue. Relevant available information should be shared regarding steps which have been taken and which should be taken, and contingency plans developed to reduce the potential adverse impacts to health and safety.  

Some computer hardware and software designs will not function in the Year 2000 (Y2K). The sources of Y2K problems are pervasive, and can affect: computer clock mechanisms, operating systems, software packages, libraries, tools and application software. In addition, many different types of computer technology systems are at risk, such as: personal computers, mainframe and mini computers, programmable logic controllers, microprocessors, and embedded software-based systems. These flawed designs became standard throughout all sectors of the world's economy, including chemical processing, handling, distribution and disposal industries. Larger technology systems developed around failed computer designs, thereby creating a monumental problem. Fixing this problem is technically complicated and costly.

Deadlines are certain and immutable. Several classes of date problems will be encountered over the next several year beginning in 1999: the major problem of relying upon 2 digits to indicate calendar year dating; and others, such as incorrect leap year algorithms, alternative number codes, and rollover of registers used to store date-related data. It is too late for some important systems and organizations to completely resolve the problem before the deadlines. Available skilled personnel and financial resources are not sufficient. Chemical safety concerns include complete failure of safety-related systems (control and protection), malfunctions of embedded microprocessors in equipment, and potential failure to respond correctly to program instructions.

In the chemical manufacturing area much has already been done by governments and industry, but there are gaps, most particularly in small- and medium-sized companies, and governments. Much effort should be directed towards embedded systems which include alarm systems, computer motherboards, system controls, lighting controls, process controllers, pumps, refrigeration controls, and valves.

The need is manifest to establish health and safety protection as the highest priority. In addition to continuing or initiating actions to prevent failures, all governments and organizations dealing with the problem are encouraged to develop contingency planning, including, where appropriate, manual override systems to deal with various types of failures. The ISG 3 takes note of the statement of the OECD Working Group on Chemical Accidents which "agreed that both industry and governments must assume responsibility for the safe operation of chemical installations: governments must alert industry to possible problems; industry must self-police its hazardous chemical installations; and governments must be prepared to act immediately when notified of specific problems" and encourages utilization of the recently established OECD Electronic Information Clearing House on Chemical Emergencies. Linkages will be established on the IFCS website (http://www. ifcs.ch) to guide all concerned governments and organizations to information relevant to dealing with the problem.

Top | Chemical Safety Advisory Introduction | Clearing House on Chemical Emergencies IFCS Home Page | Site Index | Forum NEWS

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 30, 1999

Answers

Brian:

This chemical safety issue is a big concern of mine. I live in a suburb of New Orleans which is right on the Mississippi River. This area is lined with chemical plants - being along the river is necessary for shipping I suppose. I have not heard ONE word about the compliance of the chemical companies. I also remember reading that there is no governmental agency of any kind to enforce compliance with safety issues. Does anyone know if this is true? I've even considered purchasing gas masks for the entire family.

-- Scarlett (creolady@aol.com), June 30, 1999.


Scarlett

This is an international warning and should not be considered as a major threat of plant exploding in the states. As I understand it the major players are all well aware of what is going on in the States and Canada. It has been documented that the plants will close if there is any risk of failure. We shall hope they judge correctly.

It is actually the small plants that are the greatest conserns. The problem has been the lack of information on their status.

There are several regulatory bodies involved, EPA being one and of course those entities involved in saftey. The last thing any of these folks need is a Bhopal (sp?) disaster. I am actually a "little" conserned about this in Canada. There has been nothing said about this situation in the press and the government records (which I go through regularly). The awareness of the situation is much higher in the States than elsewhere. This is the really troubling part.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 30, 1999.


It is actually the small plants that are the greatest conserns. The problem has been the lack of information on their status
Tomorrow's (july 1st)community preparedness teleconference - National Y2K Civic Preparedness Task Force:

Focus Topic: Chemical Hazards - Dr. Gerald Poje, Member of The Chemical Hazards Safety Board

- on the road again... Critt

-- Critt Jarvis (middleground@critt.com), June 30, 1999.

I don't understand the point you are making Brian. It is pretty well universally agreed that if NOTHING WAS DONE about potential Y2K problems, they would cause major grief - and the only thing to discuss would be 'how bad is it gonna get?'.

What you posted is a part of an outline for governments to use for finding companies at risk and getting them into a safe condition. (SG3) Are you argueing that everyone is ignoring the recommendations?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 30, 1999.


Paul,

The problem has to do with the numbers of companies and sites involved. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board presented testimony about this back in March to the Senate Y2K Committee (or perhaps it was Horn's committee in the House). If I remember the numbers correctly, there are 66,000 companies in the U.S., who operate 278,000 sites that manufacture, treat, transport, or dispose of toxic chemicals. 85 million Americans live within a 5-mile radius of such sites.

This, of course, elicited the same reaction as all the other serious news about Y2K: yawn. snore. zzzz. Now there is a government initiative underway (reported on other threads here, I believe) to have the safety-related information about those 66,000 companies restricted from disclosure on the Internet, on the theory that it would provide too much useful information for would-be terrorists.

The big companies are presumably addressing the problem in a responsible manner, though I'm not sure if that would make me feel entirely comfortable if my family was located next door to such a site. After all, After all, it was a simple error that caused the Bhopal disaster, and that site was operated by Union Carbide, which most people would regard as a large, professional, responsible organization.

Meanwhile, though, it's the tiny, Mom-and-Pop shops that are of most concern.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@newmexico.hills), June 30, 1999.



Thanks Ed, for clarifying the issue so exactly. Any more questions PD? I just KNOW you weren't implying that this MAY warning has been given in ample time to get the job done for those who can't quite get a grip on it OR it's magnitude for disaster. Naturally, you weren't suggesting the job HAS been done, and there is no need for concern, right? That would be niave considering the tone of this warning issued in MAY.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 30, 1999.

Will & Brian:

This article is NOT from May, it is from December. It is part of the minutes from the ISG3 meeting in Japan December 1-4, 1998. You can read annex #12 from the final report issued last december here:

Final Report -- Annex 12

Once again, old news! A lot has changed in 6 months!

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), June 30, 1999.


Like what? Do tell. Whip some "we have completed our remediations" on us. Or maybe you aren't too concerned about the unlucky 'few' who live near a chemical plant that just simply couldn't get it's act together. Will you argue that the 'majority' have handled this and a few goofs won't bring the *entire* industry to it's knees, so don't worry? What a putz.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 30, 1999.

BTW 'Do You See'...I CAN see 'how stupid you look'.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 30, 1999.

You're right Will Continue (to look like an ass!), NOTHING has happened since December. When all those chemical companies read this report, they threw their hands up and said, "Well, guess that's that! Why waste our time fixing anything?"

Yes, many have already completed their remediation work and most will be done by the deadline of 12/31/99. And the few that are not compliant? They will either shut down or implement other contingency plans to allow them to operate, possibly at a lower efficiency or output than normal, but safely. Accidents happen all the time -- that's just a part of life but you imply that a plant that knows they will have a problem will operate anyhow and just wait to see how bad the accidnet is and how many people die. That is ludicrous!

And gender notwithstanding, "What a putz!" back at ya!

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), June 30, 1999.



Do you see

Silly person, the link you put up is from December the one I posted is from a site put up (arguably) on May 6. Since that is what it said on the page info, that is what I am going by.

Shouldn't this have all been fixed by now?? And yes I do understand that they became aware of problem big time in December.

The situation as it stands reminds me of the power utilities a year ago. This is not good.

Thanks Ed for commenting on this post. It is funny that I consider the UN post even more damaging, they are just starting to fix their systems now?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 30, 1999.


Dear Sillier Person:

The creation date shown by your browser is the day that particular page was created, not when the content originated. If you were to see the Gettysburg Address on a page that had a creation date of May 1999, would you conclude that Abe Lincoln was still alive? I didn't think so. Had you bothered to read the link I provided, you would have found that the text was verbatim to the one you provided. Therefore (be careful, logic required here) it was written in December, not May, and it is OLD information as I stated.

Interesting that you mention power utilities and their status. Have you looked at Hoffmeister's latest thread? It's good reading.

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), June 30, 1999.


Do you see

I do stand corrected as to the source of the information. BUT if this is old information where is the new information? If this topic is to be debated you can supply your information as to the remediation of the Chemical Industry. I would be happy to see current links showing that the problem is under control. And I am sure the Industry in question (if they have nothing to hide) would be providing the information in a forthright manner for the peace of mind of residents near their plants.

As I have stated in Deckers thread that posting doomer stuff is not my bag. If you can provide current information then please do so. If not then this is current information as it stands.

As to the power utilities, that is a regional consern and I have great confidence in my provider to supply power to me after the rollover. Just as the phone will have a dial tone, my bank will have its doors open if the power and telcos to their part, and that my government will be funtional. Not only that I will have water and my toilet will still flush. That is because I have information on the situations of these entities. This inspires confidence in me of their abilities.

This not withstanding the leaders of my area are still conserned with contingency planning and communicating the need for people to be preparing for failures. This is prudent and not scare mongering. But having the information on the above entities makes me feel more comfortable in regards to my family and community.

So Do You See, if you have any current info please share it and prove me wrong. I WANT the industry to tell me I am wrong. I want you to show me documents that are current, that support your view. I have family interests in this matter. Put my heart at ease.

Thank you

PS Not that I mind to much but if you are attacking me why can't you use your real E address and Name. Do you see is a silly handle. That is one reason I admire Mr Decker. He may come out with views that I disagree with but he puts his name on the line and he can be contacted.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 30, 1999.


"Accidents happen all the time -- that's just a part of life but you imply that a plant that knows they will have a problem will operate anyhow and just wait to see how bad the accidnet is and how many people die. That is ludicrous! "

The worst Industrial accident happened in India, december 3, 1984 when a pesticide company knowingly used underground storage bins that were three times the legal size. Water leaked into the faulty bins and started a reaction with the pesticide spewing out millions of cubic feet of lethal poison... right onto the neighboring shantytown of Indians that housed A MILLION souls, in the middle of the night with no warning. Many were dead before they woke up. The unlucky ones were aware enough to know what was happening as they choked to death on the noxious fumes.

It was an American pesticide company, Union Carbide. They violated their own rules because heck it was only India. There were many acusations but NOT ONE criminal conviction. They agreed to cough up a billion dollars in restitution, and only wound up paying a little more than $470 Million.

Don't you tell me those chemical corporations don't violate codes and provedures. They do it ALL THE TIME. They just figure they'll never get caught because they have faith in their systems. But for a few hundred thousand unlucky Indians faith wasn't enough. Even the emergency alarms failed in the Bhopal Disaster. When will it be American's turn to learn the hard way?

-- (AtlantaAS@aol.com), June 30, 1999.


Bold off. Not that it did any harm to put that piece in bold.

-- (AtlantaAS@aol.com), June 30, 1999.


Actually Atlanta...Bold was 'required'.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 01, 1999.

Hi Ed. Haven't spoken to you for a while.

There are quite a few of the smaller shops that use various hazardous chemicals - but the ones I knew about in the Ohio River Valley area were mostly users of acrylics, epoxies, specialty resins, paints, lacquer thinners and the like. Hazardous chemicals by the definition, granted, but an entirely different level of hazard from the dioxin and chlorine based gaseous compounds used in manufacturing pesticides and herbicides. Economy of scale in dealing with the various handling problems in extremely dangerous chemicals will almost always force the plant to be built to a larger plan.

Now distribution points are different from manufacturers - and have a different set of problems. Ammonia and chlorine gas are distributed all over the country as fertilizer and bactericide. But they have hand shut off valves and so forth - much like the propane distributers.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 01, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ