Subject:	Hey! That Smells Like....Like Sulph.....arrrrghhhhhh!!
Date:	1999/10/09
Author:	Paul Milne <fedinfo@halifax.com>
	Posting History

Chemical plants' Y2K status uncertain Government officials urge continued tests for millennium bug   10/08/99   By Jim Landers / The Dallas Morning News   WASHINGTON - With 85 days left to prepare, federal officials said Thursday that they remain uncertain about the year 2000 computer readiness of the nation's 66,000 companies handling hazardous chemicals.   More than 85 million Americans live within five miles of such plants.   Regulators got a late start in checking the year 2000 readiness of the chemical industry. A meeting held last December by the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board concluded it was too late to try and enforce year 2000 compliance with regulations   "Somebody hasn't taken care of business," said Leon Kappelman, an associate professor for computer business at the University of North Texas and a Y2K consultant. "Very little has been done to assess the risks of chemical plants to the people of Texas.   "We do have good emergency response plans," he said. "But there's been little attention paid to the possibility of multiple Y2K failures."   =====================   More than a quarter of our entire population lives within five miles of a chemical plant.   Regulators got a 'late start' and they are UNCERTAIN about the result?  They are UNCERTAIN after they CONCLUDED that it was too late to enforce compliance regulations?  It is ***CATEGORICALLY  NOT**** too late to enforce compliance ***with*** regulations!!  In this case it is the safety of the population.  I propose ONE regulation. Prove you are complinat or SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY. No lame arguments about what constitutes compliance. Roll every damned computer over now and operate properly.   66 THOUSAND chemical plants. 66 THOUSAND. Oh yeah. No one is going to get hurt. For the first time in the history of Information Technology, every single business entitiy in an ENTIRE industry, every single chemical plant in the US, let alone the world, is going to have remediated their systems to the extent that no-one gets killed.   Don't make me laugh.   Morons like Koskinen assure us that everything is OK. But the truth is not in him. His comments are inconsistent with the fact that they have no idea at all about the majority of the chemical plants.     "Shannon Porterfield, director of the year 2000 project office with the Texas Department of Information Resources, said state and federal officials have worked extensively with major chemical firms in Harris County."   "The sense I get is the larger ones are doing well. The smaller ones, there's so many of them, it's difficult to know how much of a problem you have, because you can't talk to all of them."     The FACT of the matter is that there are so many of them out there that the vast majority of them have NOT been adequately monitored. In FACT the government is totally clueless about the actually extent of the problems withing the chemical industry.   And a quarter of our entire population is living withing five miles of a chemical plant.   Let's see. Regulators got a 'late' start.... That is if you can call the non-application of regulatory force, a 'start' at all.  They can not apply regulatory force. They have not talked to most chemical plants or received word from them. They have only what they call a 'sense' of what is going on.   Oh, yeah. Sounds like smooooooth sailin' to me. I 'sense' something too.   Got shovels? Got lime?     http://www.dallasnews.com/business/1008biz8chemicaly2k.htm -- Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- a (a@a.a), October 10, 1999

Answers

a,

It's worse than you think: this data was first presented to either Congressman Horn's or Senator Bennett's committee back in March of 1999, by the U.S. Chemical Safety And Hazard Investigation Board. This is not a case of someone who can be pooh-poohed by the pollys as an extremist (e.g., our beloved Paul Milne) making up numbers -- this comes straight from the agency whose job is to oversee such issues. And the numbers are worse, too: the 66,000 companies that Paul mentioned operate a total of 278,000 sites that manufacture, treat, transport, or dispose of toxic chemicals.

Now, think about the numbers for a minute. Let's assume, just for the heck of it, that every single one of the Fortune 1,000 companies are wholly involved in the toxic-chemical business. Let's see now, this is really tough arithmetic, so I'll have to get out my calculator ... hmmm... scribble, scribble, compute, compute ... aha! that means that the other 65,000 toxic-chemical companies are NOT Fortune-1000 companies! They're SME's -- small-to-medium enterprises.

But what do we know, statistically, about the SME's? Virtually every survey that has been conducted about SME's indicates that approx half of them have no Y2K plans, no intention to remediate anything, and a casual assumption that fix-on-failure will be sufficient. Think about what that means....

It might be enough to make you interested in the contingency plans, to the extent that such things exist, within those 66,000 companies. I've forgotten the details on this now, but there was a big gov't battle several months ago about whether this information could be posted on the Internet so that plain ole' folks like you and me could see what's going on at our next-door toxic chemical site. But the government argued AGAINST releasing such information, arguing that it would provide too much information for terrorists and criminals. I don't know how the situation was finally resolved...

When I first heard this info last spring from Dr. Gerald Poje, who is on the Board of the regulatory group mentioned above, I was stunned. I assumed that the Senate/Congressional Y2K committee to which their report was presented would treat it as an impending crisis. But they didn't. There was a "round-table" discussion last week, on the part of gov't and industry representatives, but we now have only 82 days left.

Dr. Leon Kappelman, who has also been following this issue with great concern, points out that the only state that seems to have done anything proactive about the toxic-chemical situation is California: they have done a "triage" to narrow the scope of the problem to a "mere" 15,000 sites that are sufficiently toxic that they need to be closely monitored. I don't know what the status of that effort is at the moment, but apparently the rest of the states are sound asleep.

Keep in mind, by the way, that all of these figures only involve the U.S. Last time I heard, there were a few other countries scattered around the world, roughly 180 I think, and you'd better believe that they've got toxic chemical sites, too. I suppose I have no reason to be more concerned about possible toxic-chemical accidents in Canada or England or Australia than I do about the U.S., but what about Mexico (the border of which is roughly 400 miles south of where I write these words), or all of Central/South America, or India, or China, or the African continent?

No doubt the pollys will find some way to blow this one off, too, accusing the U.S. Chemical Safety And Hazard Investigation Board of hysterical fear-mongering. Maybe those who find themselves living next door to a toxic-chemical site can arrange a house-swapping deal with the pollys, so that everyone can be happy. After all, if we've got pollys who are determined to be aboard an aircraft on New Year's Eve, I would imagine that there would also be a crowd of pollys who would want to demonstrate their total confidence by moving their family into a house next door to a hydrogen cyanide plant...

Sorry ... I don't mean to rant like this, and I don't really wish any harm to pollys or anyone else. But this is a situation that's just plain nuts -- and the government has known about it, in the form of blunt, unambiguous testimony from experts, for at least six months. If ever there was any indication of the total state of denial about Y2K risks, I think this one is the prime candidate...

Ed

P.S. Perhaps Diane or Linkmeister could track down the URL for the report that was presented by the safety board, which is probably posted on the Senate or Congressional Y2K sites. I've got a copy somewhere in my pile of Y2K papers, and it's a couple hundred pages long. I suspect that it's available as a PDF file...

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 10, 1999.

Here's the link to the Chemical Industrial Safety Board's report to the Senate Y2K Committee, dated March 5th, 1999. You can download it as a MS Word file (approx 7.95 MB) or as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file (approx 2 MB) and share it with your friends and neighbors.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 10, 1999.

This is why Paula Gordon wanted the government to become more involved in the remediation.

Folks like CPR insist that more regulation would be counter productive and that industry can police itself because of competitive forces.

Folks like Flint say the embed issue is way overblown and won't amount to a hill of beans.

Folks like me say the government should have taken Paula's advice. They could have easily diverted enough money from useless projects like designing a new quarter for every state in the country, installing Millennium countdown clocks in post offices, planning a new years concert in the mall, and the rest of their 100,001 Golden Fleece type boondoggles.

-- a (a@a.a), October 10, 1999.

This is why I will get the hell out of Harris County before Christmas.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 10, 1999.

A few months ago I finally found a site with map to my city and area of city that I live which had all the chemical hazard sites identified by a dot---I was alarmed and then identified the massive # as gas stations---not the chemical factories I was expecting---I simply was unable to screen out which were the most dangerous sites. Has anyone got a list of those 66,000 sites? How many of those are lower risk? Lots of figures, not much clarification.

-- John Q (worriedtoo@home.com), October 10, 1999.

you can get a list of those sites, witha downloadable map, from the EPA website. Gee.. Flint and Don't GEt It flamed A's other two milne posts... but not this one... Wonder why?

-- jeremiah (braponspderoit@hotmail.com), October 10, 1999.

I consider this a real risk, and I'm seriously worried about it. Did I not predict events up to Bhopal-level? Like everyone else, I have my fingers crossed on this one. A few Very Bad Incidents wouldn't surprise me at all. The information blackout doesn't make for peaceful sleep. I expect the number of errant devices is small, and that the default in most cases is emergency shutdown. But this may be wishful thinking. I just don't know enough, and that bothers me. A lot.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

Bold off?

Chemical Plants Still A Y2K Concern - Koskinen dated 10/7 <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Hi DogGone, good idea. What general direction from refineries & chemical plants etc are you? 290, 1960, 6N, 6S, 45N, 45S, 10E, 10W, 288S, within Loop?

There will be a complete industry wide shut down (12/31) with a phased restart (1/1). More controllable accident incidence and less voltage fluctuations of the grid due to sudden load shedding.

Or so the story goes.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 10, 1999.

Also in todays WP

Worries About Public Disclosure, Terrorism

The Washington Post
Sunday, October 10, 1999; Page B11

Beginning this summer, the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to put information on the Internet about the worst possible chemical plant accident that might occur in specific neighborhoods. Residents and local governments then could ask the facilities near them what safety precautions were in place.

But in August, Congress voted to keep that information off the World Wide Web for at least a year, which says as much about the power of the Internet as it does about chemical safety.

Siding with the chemical industry and federal law enforcement, Congress said the postings would create a national, searchable database for terrorists. "The data would provide terrorists with information on locations around the country where the greatest damage to human health and the environment would occur," said Ivan K. Fong, a deputy associate attorney general whose office oversees information and privacy issues.

Even as Congress blocked the release, however, some of the information already was  and is  on the EPA's Web site.

-- sandi (sandihere@malcity.com), October 10, 1999.

HTML cleanup crew here.

Bold off again!?!?

Sheeesh! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

And people like flint will ask, " At exactly what moment will the first one blow up and how many ounces of toxic material will spill? Is it directly attributable to Y2K if it blows up because a man 'panics' to run home to his family and accidentally hits a switch that releases toxic material? And what constitutes toxic? Enough to kill a butterfly or an elephant?

This is the kind of ridiculous pollyanna nonsense that will continue to flow until they are consumed by their own stupidity.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), October 10, 1999.

The congressional vote to keep this information from the public, and their stated reasons for it, makes no sense whatsoever. It is ludicrous to imagine they think that NOT making this info available in an internet database deters even a single would-be terrorist! Do they really believe that a terrorist, with the determination and sophistication to cause a chemical accident in a particular city, will decide not to do it because there is no database on the internet???

So, what might be the REAL reason to withold information that would clearly be in the interest of public safety? Hmmmm....I wonder what would happen if 25% of the American population learned they live within 5 miles of a non-compliant hazardous chemical plant that has no contingency plans? This also doesn't take into account that one need not live near such a plant to be exposed to severe risks from an accident. What about a non-compliant hazardous chemical plant whose failure could contaminate an entire city's water supply?

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 10, 1999.

Read what I wrote. Then read what Milne *said* I wrote. See any difference? And which writing is Milne mocking? Uh, looks like it's his own.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

Again , flint, you are a damnable liar. I never said anything about what you WROTE. I said here is the kind of thing that peole LIKE flint will say. In other words, here is the kind of thing that a pollyanna will tend to say. I never once mentioned that you said anything at all, now, did I?

A little reading comprehension will do you much good. Not that it has so far, little one.

Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), October 10, 1999.

And then, once you're done 'sharing' with your friends and neighbors......you can grab some rope and head to Washington DC. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA has announced having a collection of Y2K BEANIE BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who the hell is in charge around here?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 10, 1999.

Boy Flint..you really PUT THE WORDS IN PAUL'S MOUTH now didn't you?

As I've said before - you're a hypocrite.

-- a (a@a.a), October 10, 1999.

'a':

Right. I suppose this is Milne's attempt at plausible deniability, except the government does it better. If I were to write (which of course I'd never dream of doing) that "people *like* Milne have their heads up their asses", I could make the claim that I harbored no such suspicions about Milne himself, right? In which case, I imagine you would defend *me* if Milne mistakenly took this personally? Or at least you would if you were honest and could think your own thoughts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

More meaningless drivel from Flint.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 11, 1999.

Grow up Flint.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 11, 1999.