ML20203B610

Forwards NRC Feb 1998 Quarterly Rept on Year 2000 as Submitted to OMB Per 970520 Request.As Requested by Omb,Rept Provides Addl Info on Status of Agency Data Exchanges, Validation & Verification Efforts

ML20203B610
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/12/1998
From:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Horn S, Maloney C HOUSE OF REP.
References
NUDOCS 9802240340
Download: ML20203B610 (9)

Text

.

j)

UNITED STATES e

k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3*

g

)ZK j

WADUNOloN, D.C. 26H001

\\..... /

February 12, 1998 CHAMMAN The Honorable Stephen Hom, Chairman Subcommittee on Govemment Management, Information and Technology Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-6143

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In response to your request of May 20,1997, enclosed please find the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Fcbruary 1998 quarterly report on the Year 2000 as submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As requested by OMB, in this rsport, we are providing addit;enal information on the status of agency data exchanges, our v.lidation and verification efforts, and our approach to contingency planning.

Our milestones for the repair of our mission-critical systems have been adjusted to conform to the Office of Management and Budget's new government-wide targets for completion of renovailon, validation, and implementation. Our non-mission-critical systems are assigned to one of two categories in order to make explicit decisions about establishing their priority for ropair.

1. Business-essential: any system thM is integral to agency processes that are required for meeting agency statutory, programmatic, legal, or financial obligations. Typically, the agency could fL.ction without any major impact on its operations if any of these systems l

malfunctioned and was unavailable for up to 3 or 4 weeks while it is being repaired.

2. Non-critical: any system that is not mission-critical or business-essential and whose unavailability would therefore only represent an inconvenience to the aget;cy. Typically,

(

these systems can be unavailable for extended periods (1 to 2 months or more) while they l

are being repsired and manual processes can be readily used in their place if necessary.

Our milestones for the repair of business-essential systems will conform to OMB's targets.

Because of the minor impact that non-critical systems have on agency operations, non-critical systems will be scheduled for repair after all other systems, but before the Year 2000.

We continue to make considerable progress in addressing our Year 2000 ptoblem. Parallel work efforts are being made on all but one of the six mission-critical systems still needing repair or replacement, and they are on scheduls to meet the OMB milestones. The schedule for the remaining system, although also conforming to the OMB milestones, is dependent on Year 2000 l

compliant software from a commercial source. Contingency plans are in place in the event that the schedule is not met because of vendor failure to provide Year 2000 compliant products as promised 9

l 9002240340 980212 ll l l lill if ll H hll llllll ll lil ll ll

.1 lll t

PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR

{

.idri }

l*

2 In the enclosed report, we are also providing revised cost estimates for our Year 2000 program.

In January 1997, we estimated that the agney would require 59.3 million to fund the Year 2000 Program through Fiscal Year 2000. This estimate covered assessing the scope of the problem, developing plans and schedules for addressing the problem, and performing repairs. The estimate was based on our experience in general software maintenance activities applied to the number of systems in our inventory. The estimate did not take into account the cost of performing indeoendent validation and verification of all system repairs. We have developed, in close coordination with our Year 2000 renovation contractor, a more realistic cost estimate of

$10.9 million on the basis of the results of our asoessment of all systems (completed in September 1997) and on actual contractor costs for repairs to date.

Our Chief Information Officer (CIO) continues to coordinate weekly with NRC senior executives and staff at alllevels to ensure that they maintain a high level of awareness of Year 2000 issues i

and that progress in meeting our completion datea does not slip. Monthly Year 2000 status reports received from agency offices lieve shown progress according to plan in addressing their Year 2000 issues, if you would like a more in-depth discussion of our continued progress with the Year 2000 program, the agency's CIO and our Year 2000 Program Manager are available to meet with members of your staff at your convenience.

Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated

[?panog h

UNITED STATES a

j NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMillSION s

WAsHINoToN. D C. 20086 j

February 12, 1998 CHAIRMAN 0

l i

The Honorable Carolyn Maloney Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Govemment Management, Information and Technology Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-6143 l

Dear Congresswoman Maloney:

in response to your request of May 20,1997, enclosed please find the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3

Commission's (NRC) FebrJary 1998 quarterty report on the Year 2000 as submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As requested by OMB, we are providing additional i

information on the status of agency data exchanges, our validation and verification efforts, and our approach to contingency planning.

Our milestones for the repair of our mission-critical systems have been adjusted to conform to i

the Office of Management and Budget's new govemment wide targets for completion of renovation, validation, and implementation. Our non-mission-critical systems are assigned to 4

one of two categories in order to make explicit decisions about establishing their priority for repair:

1. Business essential: any system that is integra! to agency processes that are required for meeting agency statutory, programmatic, legal, or financial obligations. Typically, the agency i

could function without any major impact on its operations if any of these systems malfunctioned and was unavailable for up to 3 or 4 weeks while it is being repaired.

3

2. NQD.:cntical: any system that is not mission-critical or business-essential and whose unava! lability would therefore only represent an inconvenience to the agency. Typically, these systems can be unavailable for extended weiods (1 to 2 months or more) while they are being repaired and manual processes can be readily used in their place if necessary.

Our milestones for the repair of business-essential systems will conform to OMB's targets.

Because of the minor impact that non-criti:al systems have on agency operations, non-critical systems will be sche tuled for repair after all other systems, but before the Year 2000.

4 We continue to make considerable progress in addressing our Year 2000 prob!r,m. Parallel work efforts are being made on all but one of the six mission-cntical systems still needing repair or replacem6nt, and they are en schedule to meet the OMB milestones. The schedule for the romaining system, although elso conforming to the OMB milestones, is dependent on Year 2000 compliant software from a commercial source. Contingency plans are in place in the event that the schedule is not met because of vendor failure to provide Year 2000 compliant products as

]

promised.

w e - - -- - - _ -. -,,. ~,,,,,... -.

.e

-..--.c

.,-.,-w

-e.

.,. - - - -. -e-n.,am--.

y

,ur-y mrwi y- - - -r

2 In the enclosed report, we are also providing revised cost estimates for our Year 2000 program.

In January 1997, we estimated that the agency would require $9.3 million to fund the Year 2000 Program through Fiscal Year 2000. This estimate covered assessing the scope of the problem, davtaoping plans and schedules for addressing the problem, and performing repairs. The estimate was based on our experience in general software montenance activities applied to the number of systems in our inventory. The estimate did not take into account the cost of performing independent validation and verification of all system repairs. We have developed, in-c.ose coordination with our Year 2000 renovation contractor, a more realistic cost estimate of 3

$10.9 million on the basis of the results of our assessment of all systems (completed in September 1997) cnd on actual contractor costs for repairs to date.

Our Chief Inlormation Officer (CIO) continues to coordinate weekly with NRC senior executives and stati at all levels to ensure that they maintain a high level of awareness of Year 2000 issues and that progress in meeting our completion dates does not slip. Monthly Year 2000 status reports received from agency offices have shown progress according to plan in addressing their Year 2000 issues.

If you would like a more in-depth discussion of our continued progress with the Year 2000 program, the agency's CIO and our Year 2000 Program Manager are available to meet with members of your staff at your convenience.

Sincerely, d {w Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated

Status _9f the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Year 2000 Efforts Quarterly Report for February 1998 1.

Ofganizational Responsibilities. Describe how your Department / Agency is organized to track progress in addressing the Year 2000 problem.

a.

Oraanization, Describe responsible organizations for addressing the Year 2000 problem and provios an organization chart if organizations have changed from the previous report.

Arnold Levin is the agency's Year 2000 Program Manager. His title is ' Directer, Applications Development Division." The Year 2000 Program Manager has overall respcnsibihty for NRC's Year 2000 Program and reports directly to the NRC Chief Information Officer (ClO). The ClO reports to the Chairman.

b.

Internal Accountability. Describe processes for assuring internal accountability of responsible organizations, include any quantitativo measures used to track performance and other methods to determine whether the responsible organizations are performing according to plan.

Intemal accountability for performance of Year 2000 activities is assured through continuous monitoring of the progress of all offices against established milestones. To sesure proper accountability for Year 2000 activities, we require that Senior Executive Service directors of agency offices provide monthly progress reports to the ClO on their efforts to repair systems that contain the Year 2000 problem. These reports are used to update a central Year 2000 inventory database. Reports from the database are generated monthly to show the status of Year 2000 efforts of each office in meeting our milestono dates. To date, progress reports received from these offices have shown progress according to plan in addressing Year 2000 issues. All facets of our Year 2000 activities are formally reviewed weekly with the ClO.

c.

Oversight. Describe the management actions taken and by whom, when a responsible organization falls behind schedule.

The Year 2000 Program Manager reviews progress repwis on an ongoing basis and reports deviations from established schedulec to the CIO. If any such deviations are reported, the ClO will discuss them with the managers who are responsible for the systems. As part of this discussion, the ClO will determine the remedial actions to be taken. The CIO will periodically brief the Chairman, the Executive Director for Operations, and the Chief Financial Officer of the NRC on any scheoule deviations and the status of any remedial actions taken. None have occurred to date.

Enclosure

2 2.

Slaiva. ProvHe a report of the statua of agency efforts to address the Year 2000 computer problems.

a.

An agency wide status of the. total number of mission critical sys.tama.

P Total number of Number alroaCy Number being Number being Number being mission-critical compliant replaced repaired retired 7

1 3

3 0

b.

The status of mlanlon-critical systems beina renadrei Assessment Renovation Validation implementation Milestones Sep 1997 Sep 1998 Jan 1999 Mar 1999

% Completed 100 %

25%

25%

25%

c.

Qatcription of Proareas. Provide a narrative description of progress, including the following elemento:

(1)

Status of Mission-Critical Systems.

Parallel work efforts are being made to address all systems still o

needing repair and Offic., of Management and Budget milestone dates will be met.

Of the three mission-critical systems being replaced,62 percent of I

o the modules of one system are now Year 2000 compliant. Coding is underway for the other two systems and will be completed by April 1998 and August 1998, respcetively.

No milestones for mission-critical systems were scheduled to be o

met during this reporting period. However, work continues on schedule according to plan.

(2)

Status of Non-Mission Critical Systems.

Our non-mission critical systems are assigned to one of two categories in order to make explicit decisions about establishing their priority for repair:

1 1.

Business-esse,tial: any system that is integral to ugency processes that are required for meeting agency statutory, programmatic, legal, or financial obligations. Typically, the agency could function without any major impact on its operations

}

if any of these systems malfunctioned and was unavailable for up to 3 or 4 weeks while it is being repaired.

.. ~ _, -

.. m

~~_

3 2.

Non entical: any system that is not mission critical or business-essential and whose unavailability would therefore only represent an inconvenience to the agency. Typically, these systems can be unavai!able for extended periods (1 to 2 months or more) while they are beit g repaired and manual processes can t>e readily used in their place if necessary.

67 Business Essential Systems 17 systems have been renovated.

13 systems have been validated.

10 systems have been implemented.

19 additional systems are currently being repaired.

31 systems scheduled for repair, work not yet ttarted.

53 Non-Critical Systems 7 systems have been renovated.

4 systems hr.ve been validated.

3 systems have been implemented.

11 additional systems are currently being repaired.

l 35 systems scheduled for repair, work not yet started.

(3)

Data Exchangen.

We have surveyed all areas of the agency that have the potential to exchange data with other Federal, State and local governments, as well as with international and commercial entities. Three systems were identified that exchange data with i4RC. We are currently in contact with these data exchange partners to assure that data compatibility is achieved.

(4)

Continnoncy Plannina.

Contingency plans are in place for all seven mission critical systems in the event that unforeseen problems are encountered.

NRC's non mission-critical systems are org6 zed into two categories:

business essential and non-critical. If a business-essential system falls behind schedule by 2 or more months, a contingency plan will be prepared. By our definition, non-critical systems are not mission-critical or business-essential and their unavailability would represent only a temporary inconvenience to the agency (they are low-end administrative systems). Typically, these systems can be unavailable for extended periods (1 to 2 months or more) while they are being repaired, and manual processes can readily be used in their place, if necessary.

Therefore, our contingency plans for these systems will be to rely on manual processes if they are not repaired in time.

i h

4 (5)

Other Year 2000 Imolicallont NRC has sent more than 100 letters to its various teleenmmunications vendors nation wide in order to determine their progress in addressing the Year 2000 problem.

NRC co sponsored a workshop with the American Nuclear Society that included a session on Year 2000 computer issues. NRC stated that it expected licensees to adopt guidance established by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Nuclear Utilities Software Management Group (NUSMG) for establishing a program and a schedule, and to ultimately certify Year 2000 readiness. This guidance, NEl/NUSMG 97-07, was published in the Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readin cs Reporf (October 1997).

NRC published in the Federal Reoister and on the NRC Internet Web Page tilat staff is proposing to send a letter to all licensed Utilities with operational nuclear power plants requiring that they inform the NRC of steps they have taken or will take to assure their computers have no problems adjusting to the Year 2000.

NRC also has a program underway to replace all microcomputers that have non-compliant chips. Microcomputer replacement will be completed by December 1998.

(6)

Problems Affectina Prog [tAL In some instances, the pace of our work depends on the schedule that commercial vendors have establisheo for the release of either updates to existing products to bring them into Year 2000 compliancy or entirely new releases that are Year 2000 compliant. We are in constant communication with these vendors in order to work with them to ensure i

that the products we need are available on time. The failure ^f these vendors in provide Year 2000 compliant products on time may adversely affect the sched.21e for some of our systems.

l (7)

Government wide Systems.

NRC has no systems in this category.

(8)

Verification Efforts.

Independent verification and validation of repaired systems is being accomplished by a three-level approach. The first, unit testing, is l

performed by contract personnel who actually repair the system code.

l The second and third level are performed by personnel who are not involved with system repairs. The second led of testing is performed by contractor personnel assigned to a permanent quality assurance group, j

using an established iest plan. Third level testing is performed by the 1

l o

5 system's NRC user. When written approval is received from all three testing levels, then (and only then) do we consider the system validated and report it as such.

j l

(9)

Other Evidence of Progresa.

No other evidence of progress is offered.

f 3.

Costs.

We have revised the estimates for our Year 2000 program. In January 1997, we estimated that the agency would require 59.3 million to fund the Year 2000 Program through Fiscal Ye.nr 2000. This estimate covered assessing the scope of the problem, dm eloping plans and schedules for addrossing the problem, and performing repairs. Tha. imate at that time was based on our experience in general software maintenance activities applied to the number of systenis in our inventory. Also, the estimate did not take into account the cost of perfonning an independent validation and verification of all system repairs. On the basis of the results of the assessment of all systems (completed in September 1997) and on actual contractor costs for repair 4 to date, we have developed a more realistic cost estimate.

I Fiscal 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Year Cost 0.0*

2.4 4.0 3.9

.6 10.9 i

• . Item is $45.000.

4. Exception Repcit on Systems.

No exceptions to report.

6. Systems Scheduled for implementation after March 1999. Include a list of those

~

mission critical syst ms where repair or replacement cannot be implemented by the March 1999 deadline.

3 No mission critical system is scheduled for implementation after March 1999.

if you have any questions, please contact Arnold E. (Moe) Levin at 301-415-7458 or via electronic mail at AELi@NRC. gov.

.i 1

4

...m..

_ _..