I thought on-going reviews and inspections were the norm for these plants. Guess I’m not as smart as I thought, it is probably cheaper to just do inspections when a crises occurs.
It’s not a matter of inspections, it’s a matter of disaster preparation. Nobody could have anticipated a 9.0 earthquake along with a 30ft tidal wave. Likely one or the other was planned for but not both at the same time.
What they are saying that they are going to be doing is looking at what occurred, what systems failed, what systems worked, and what can use improvement. No system is perfect, and no matter how many drills you run, nor how much testing is done run, how it all plays out in real life will always be different.
They are not saying ongoing inspections do not take place on a regular basis. It’s not like the failure at the nuclear plant in Japan was due to negligence it was due to a natural event. Most companies do not prepare fully for a natural disaster on this scale as it doesn’t happen ofter. If any nuclear company did have a plan in mind it would have been Japan as they have earthquake prone. So other steps may have to be put in place for disasters on a larger scale.
Sorry you missed my point, reviews are automatically implemented on procedures and processes every time, even for, a minor events that occur in any nuclear facility. I am familiar with energy production from nuclear sources. Politicians giving out proclamations like it is up to them to make engineers aware of this need are like a policeman coming up after an accident to tell you your car needs repair. It would only be a newsworthy item if the power plants said they didn’t plan any reviews in light of the disaster.
I thought on-going reviews and inspections were the norm for these plants. Guess I’m not as smart as I thought, it is probably cheaper to just do inspections when a crises occurs.
It’s not a matter of inspections, it’s a matter of disaster preparation. Nobody could have anticipated a 9.0 earthquake along with a 30ft tidal wave. Likely one or the other was planned for but not both at the same time.
What they are saying that they are going to be doing is looking at what occurred, what systems failed, what systems worked, and what can use improvement. No system is perfect, and no matter how many drills you run, nor how much testing is done run, how it all plays out in real life will always be different.
They are not saying ongoing inspections do not take place on a regular basis. It’s not like the failure at the nuclear plant in Japan was due to negligence it was due to a natural event. Most companies do not prepare fully for a natural disaster on this scale as it doesn’t happen ofter. If any nuclear company did have a plan in mind it would have been Japan as they have earthquake prone. So other steps may have to be put in place for disasters on a larger scale.
Sorry you missed my point, reviews are automatically implemented on procedures and processes every time, even for, a minor events that occur in any nuclear facility. I am familiar with energy production from nuclear sources. Politicians giving out proclamations like it is up to them to make engineers aware of this need are like a policeman coming up after an accident to tell you your car needs repair. It would only be a newsworthy item if the power plants said they didn’t plan any reviews in light of the disaster.