Further US Navy documentation

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

The URL where the Jim Lord spreadsheet can be found at -

http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/

The following qualifier can be found in Word format at the above URL.Below is our master utilities Y2K preparedness status spreadsheet. We need to emphasize up front that it is a work in progress document and is not yet complete nor should it be supposed by any reader to be complete & final. It represents our opinion of utility provider preparedness, as it affects Naval Installations only. The data does not necessarily correlate with a utility providers ability to service the general public or other customers, just their level of preparedness & property vulnerability as it affects Naval infrastructure. Though based on detailed reviews (where the utility company was amenable & available) by the Navys utility experts using the same audit questions in every case worldwide for consistency, it is nevertheless quite subjective & unavoidably so. It does not represent the Navys official position.

The documents intended user is the Navy & Marine Corps Installation Commander & Public Works Director who receive service from these utility companies. It is a contingency planning aide only. Specifically, Installations are to use the risk factors herein as considerations in their utility contingency plan development. These contingency plans are a strict requirement for all Installations even in cases where the local utility provider is known to be compliant (an ultra conservative approach admittedly).

In almost all cases, a risk factor of 1 or especially 2 (occurrence of failure improbable and occurrence of failure probable, respectively) means we reviewed the utility companys preparedness efforts and though they look pretty good, there are a few loose ends (normally remediation, testing, and contingency planning) that the company needs to finish. We will be following up in these instances at a later date to re-examine the particular utility companys preparedness.

A risk factor of 3 or u (unknown) normally means we have not yet received an answer from the utility company in question or they have not yet agreed to meet or talk with us. Accordingly, we are assuming the worst casebut only for purposes of a Naval Installation preparing its contingency plans, nothing else.

In some instances, we have affirmations (letter, website statement) from the utility company that they will be compliant or are working hard to achieve compliance. In those cases where we have something tangible from the company, we have made an entry in Column C. In other cases, even though we met with the utility company and may have received oral assurances of compliancy, we still have nothing in writing and consequentially there is no entry in this column.

We feel the utilities servicing Naval Installations in the continental United States particularly, as well as utilities servicing Naval Installations outside of the continental United States, are looking very good in their Y2K preparedness, and we do not expect consequential Y2K failures of facilities devices & infrastructure owned by these utility companies.

NOTE - This document was created by on Friday, August 20, 1999 8:04:00 PM.

The spreadsheet was created by fr141579 on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 9:13:32 PM.

Isn't file/properties wonderful l ?

I will be running a hex editior over the doc to find any "hidden" stuff to be posted ASAP if found

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), August 21, 1999

Answers

The web site has been changed recently -

8/20/99 3:12 PM 322048 Master-Util-8_19.xls 8/20/99 3:50 PM 22528 MatrixHeader.doc 8/20/99 4:36 PM 3667 MatrixHeader.html

The spreadsheet was also changed on Saturday, August 21, 1999 5:27:48 AM

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), August 21, 1999.


"The spreadsheet was created by fr141579 on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 9:13:32 PM. "

Now THAT'S interesting. Have they been at this for a while? Maybe they reused a spreadsheet from a different project, like number of lost socks at naval installations...

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 21, 1999.


(snip)

there are a few loose ends (normally remediation, testing, and contingency planning) that the company needs to finish.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahaha...a few loose ends indeed!!

-- Don Wegner (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), August 21, 1999.


Well, there sure is a lot to be said about all this!!

I read Jim Lord's report yesterday. I've read all the threads here tonight, and just came from the link above...the all new sanitized version.

Let me start by saying that whoever wrote the header is a rank amature, or a White House PR flack, or both! I did 9 years in the Navy myself, and something like this would have never got past my Division Officer...much less posted for all the world to see!

There are two states of Y2K compliance...compliant and NOT. They have given a "c" rating to companies who have given them assurances?? And what exactly is an interim response?? Is that like "we'll get back to ya, sir."?? This whole thing reeks. Is this really the state of the Navy? When you get a letter or phone call from the Navy, do you just ignore them? I think not!!

The remarks of Rear Admiral Louis M. Smith, Pentagon lackey, are in line with what would be expected at a "hastily called press conference" - "right in sync with the White House"...you betcha. As for this being a planned leak or disinformation as discussed below, no way. You don't "leak" public information, which according to Koskinen was posted all along on this site. Or was it? Nobody seems to know. If the information wasn't supposed to be "let out" then it would have been classified. There is nothing classified about water, sewer, or power.

IMHO, the original numbers posted by Lord are real, and the ones posted now are a sanitized (updated) version thrown together very quickly to reduce the possibility of panic, and do discredit Lord. I say three cheers for Mr. Jim Lord and whoever gave him the documents. It's about time somebody grew some hair.

-- Don Wegner (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), August 21, 1999.


>sanitized version

Yup. I think the military calls it disinformation. Isn't it wonderful that we pay the salaries of people so they can lie to us.

If these clowns worked half as hard on assisting utilities in fixing their broken hardware and software as they do in spinning the American people we wouldn't be in this mess. :-(

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), August 21, 1999.



Let's remember that the navy did have the info available and that someone from the navy DID leak the info. THEN the politicians got involved and the we do have a civilian military leader. That leadership then directed the changes. Our best still reside in the ranks of our military. It's just that the brown noses have found their way to Clinton's *ss.

-- enough is (enough@enough.com), August 21, 1999.

1 = Occurrence of Failure Improbable 2 = Occurrence of Failure Probable 3 = They don't explain what 3 is. I assume it means Definite Failure. U = Unknown

VERY strange descriptions. Especially where they give the same description for both "improbable failure" and "probable failure". And, how they describe "remediation, testing and contingency planning" as "a few loose ends". Something just doesn't add up here.

============================================================= Master Utilities Y2K Preparedness Status Spreadsheet

In almost all cases, a risk factor of "1" or especially "2" (occurrence of failure improbable and occurrence of failure probable, respectively) means we reviewed the utility company's preparedness efforts and though they look pretty good, there are a few loose ends (normally remediation, testing, and contingency planning) that the company needs to finish. We will be following up in these instances at a later date to re-examine the particular utility company's preparedness.

A risk factor of "3" or "u" (unknown) normally means we have not yet received an answer from the utility company in question or they have not yet agreed to meet or talk with us. Accordingly, we are assuming the worst case ... but only for purposes of a Naval Installation preparing its contingency plans, nothing else.

In some instances, we have affirmations (letter, website statement) from the utility company that they will be compliant or are working hard to achieve compliance. In those cases where we have something tangible from the company, we have made an entry in Column C. In other cases, even though we met with the utility company and may have received oral assurances of compliancy, we still have nothing in writing and consequentially there is no entry in this column.

=============================================================

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle ... from that report Jim Lord first made public ... and what was released by the government yesterday. Doesn't look good to me. Especially with this lame attempt to qualify ratings.

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), August 21, 1999.


The cover-up has begun. It is funny to me that the day most people learned about the Navy report the Navy came up with a new one and they hastily called a press conference. That just proves to me what I already believed that our Government has been lying to us. It is very funny that in just two weeks we can get over half of these cities fixed. It is so obvious to me that the White House has made the Navy change their story to keep the public from panicking. If people can't see through this cover-up then we have some blinded people who may unfortuantely suffer for it.

-- Mark Hamilton (markhamilton@rtelco.net), August 21, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Apparently, the sole criterion for assessment is whatever they have in writing from the utility. It's merely a typical bureaucratic game of cover your ass.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 23, 1999.


Don wrote:

There are two states of Y2K compliance...compliant and NOT. They have given a "c" rating to companies who have given them assurances?? And what exactly is an interim response?? Is that like "we'll get back to ya, sir."?? This whole thing reeks. [snip]

yep, that's what I've been thinking too. Assurances does NOT equal compliance and Koskinen said the report was worst case? Hah!

The mustard is off the hotdog.

Mike

=================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 23, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ