/
Impact of Management Decisions on Impact of Management Decisions on

Impact of Management Decisions on - PowerPoint Presentation

bubbleba
bubbleba . @bubbleba
Follow
342 views
Uploaded On 2020-06-16

Impact of Management Decisions on - PPT Presentation

Accidents Fukushima Daiichi Accident Challenger and Macondo Oil Well Explosion By Anthony J Spurgin Independent Consultant San Diego 11142012 1 IEEE Section amp Reliability Meeting Introduction ID: 778328

category accident amp storm accident category storm amp section tropical reliability ieee 2012 meeting hurricane plant decisions management september

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download The PPT/PDF document "Impact of Management Decisions on" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Impact of Management Decisions onAccidents: Fukushima (Daiichi Accident), Challenger and Macondo Oil Well Explosion

ByAnthony J SpurginIndependent ConsultantSan Diego

11/14/2012

1

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

Slide2

IntroductionThe presentation will discuss an important aspect in the underlying causes of accidents, namely the role of management decision-making

Here I want to consider the role of management in the process of accident initiation and progressionAccidents are often perceived as random events involving natural events or caused by the actions of humans, so called human errorsManagement decisions are considered to be the greatest contribution to both accident initiation and faulty recovery11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

2

Slide3

All Organization are:Shaped by Accidents-Continued

Industry has always reacted to accidentsChanges have occurred in organizationsOrganizations have changed:Their outlooks, Mgmt. organization and functions, training/maintenanceRegulators have changedINPO and WANO have been formed in the Nuclear Business

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

3

Slide4

Areas of Influencedby Decisions

Prior to the accidentDuring the accidentPost accident - recovery

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

4

Slide5

Prior to Accident: Influential Decisions

Selection of Specific Plant DesignSelection and training of staffApproach to accidents, including design of procedures; normal, abnormal, emergency and post accident procedures

Specifics of man-machine interfaces

Failure to deeply consider possible accidents on defense capabilities of plant (not identical to why one selects a plant because of economic reasons)

Consideration of impact of accidents on the capabilities of internal and external personnel to recover a plant (terminate/mitigate)

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

5

Slide6

Decisions;During Accident

Formation of Response teamsPrior development and test of response proceduresTraining of teams

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

6

Slide7

Decisions;Post-Accident recovery

Availability of well trained rescue teams Understanding of how accidents can affect accident working conditions Rapid availability of support materials and tools: generators, etc

Flexible emergency procedures capable of being applied to a variety circumstances

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

7

Slide8

Illustration of Findings:Selection of accidents and situations

Daiichi accident, JapanChallenger Accident, NASABP Macondo accident

Sandy, N-E Coast Weather

Time is short so these will not be coveredThree Mile Island Accident

LA rail Accident

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

8

Slide9

Fukushima, Daiichi Accident and Impact

These are my comments on the accident and are not the position of IEEE or anyone elseClearly this accident has already had an effect on the Nuclear Industry world wideJapan and some other countries have taken actions to shutdown or phase-out NPPs. These actions, I think, are basically unscientific, emotional and/or political inspired

Lessons to be drawn from the accident

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

9

Slide10

Fukushima Accident and Impact : ReviewSome damage from the earthquake, but real damage caused by the resulting tsunami

Tepco (plant owners) completely responsible for their inaction in protecting NPPs : this resulted in the future cost of the NPPs being written-off and resulting cleanup due to core partial melts (like TMI #2)Electrical distribution within plants shorted due to ingress of water, even if loss of diesels had not occurred, the plant personnel could not have quickly connected pumps, valves, etc.Plant personnel had not established and practiced procedures to deal with the issue (Tepco Mgmt deficiency, see earlier item)Plant supervisor tried to ad hoc actions to rescue the NPPs, too little too late

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

10

Slide11

Fukushima Accident and Impact , continuedWater Levels: Tsunami related

11/14/2012IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting11

Slide12

Cross Section of a Fukushima NPP showing plant and key water levels11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting12

Slide13

Fukushima Accident and Impact , continued

Plant personnel tried to deal with the situation as best they could, but even as they got things moving, but often the effects of the accident negated their actionsHydrogen releases following core damage were not dealt with effectivelyResulting hydrogen led to explosions, which caused injuries, blocked paths and destroyed cables, trucks,

The crews had problems with valves, poor access and bad working conditions, radiation

Eventually they were able to inject both clean and sea water to cover the remains of the cores

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

13

Slide14

Direct Lessons fromthe Fukushima Accident

Failure to prevent the consequences of the Tsunami: need to re-evaluate external events and management decisions –act promptly to rectifyDiesels were placed too low vs a vs the high water level:

increase height margins or add protective methodsElectrical systems, switch gear, etc. located in basement of Reactor buildings, too vulnerable to floods:

need for better protection, consider all pathways!Poor emergency planning, training and positioning of support equipment :

review, update and train

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

14

Slide15

Fukushima Accident and Impact: lessons for all

Need to review design bases on a regular period to ensure assessment of external and internal events has not changed and then act promptly to correct situationBe aware that "Black-out" is not just the diesels and batteries, but includes power and instrumentation distribution systems

Develop emergency procedures, somewhat like the symptom-based EOPs, that take into account unknown accident conditions, that can affect the plant and ability of personnel to prevent core damage

Practice these procedures and use of emergency equipment on a regular basis, more than once a year

Be aware of the cost-benefit of safety upgrades relative to the costs related to the effects of core damage, loss of plant, loss of generation and long clean-up follow a core-damage accident

Need for political bodies to realize that effects of radiation releases maybe significantly less than the direct effects of earthquakes and tsunamis on the public

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

15

Slide16

Macondo Well Accident: British PetroleumDecisions

BP underestimated the issues with the local management relative to taking actions not in the real interest of BP as a whole. Decisions made to save small amounts of money, but risking much more. Lack of perspective on behalf local managementBP main management failed to have a risk study to identify the consequences of a failure of the BOP valve isolation system. Superficial understanding of common cause issues led to a locally reliable system that failed to performLocal BP management did not have an effective quality control programLocal rig members seemed to be not as well trained in safety aspects as they should be

BP analysis of the possibility of stopping the leak along with others was too optimistic leading to a failure by BP management to state the correct time to fix

US Government fixated on BP’s responsibility in the case of the leak and failed to see what their proper role was. They acted much too late and even then did not fully commit both US and other resources. In fact they seemed to act against the interests of the citizens living the Gulf regions

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

16

Slide17

Challenger Accident: Managementand Engineering Decisions

NASA top management wanted to launch the Challenger on time and did not wish to hear any engineering ‘overly conservative engineering opinions’, because of implied political pressure.

Interesting the pressure seemed to be self imposed by NASA, since no trace of a request from Reagan has been located. NASA should have investigated the “O” ring near failures earlier. This was a failure on the part of NASA and Morton Thiokol. There are suggestions this was a failure of personnel at lower levels to forward information on the problems with the design of the “O” ring joint

NASA had a launch review procedure, the launch directors should have followed a more conservative process based upon engineering advice

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

17

Slide18

Sandy and similar storms:Comments & DecisionsStorms and floods occur on regular basis

Specific lessons have been learned and forgottenThe Dutch invented the polder system, including wind driven pumps, many years agoIn more times the British have introduced the Thames barrage system to protect London from North sea storm surges and high water 11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

18

Slide19

Storms in later part of 20th Century, source: Wikipedia

Season Storm Category: Peak intensity,

Intensity at landfall,

Date

1938

New England Hurricane of

1938

Category 5 Category 3 September 21, 1938

1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane

Category 4 Category 1 September 15, 1944

1952

Hurricane Able

Category 2 Tropical Depression September 1, 1952

1954 Hurricane Carol

Category 3 Category 3 August 31, 1954

1954 Hurricane Edna

Category 3 Category 1 September 11, 1954

1955 Hurricane Diane

Category 3 Tropical Storm August 18–19, 1955

1959 Hurricane Cindy

Category 1 Tropical Storm July 11, 1959

1960 Hurricane Donna

Category 5 Category 2 September 12, 1960

1961 Hurricane Esther

Category 4 Tropical Storm September 26, 1961

1966 Hurricane Alma

Category 3

Extr

. Storm June 13, 1966

1971 Tropical Storm

Doria

Tropical Storm Tropical storm August 29, 1971

1972 Hurricane Agnes

Category 1 Tropical Storm June 22, 1972

1972 Tropical Storm Carrie

Tropical Storm Tropical Storm September 3, 1972

1973 Subtropical Storm Alfa

Tropical Storm Subtropical Storm July 30, 1973

1976 Hurricane Belle

Category 3 Tropical Storm August 10, 1976

1985 Tropical Storm Henri

Tropical Storm Tropical Depression September 23, 1985

1985 Hurricane Gloria

Category 4 Category 1 September 27, 1985

1988 Tropical Storm Chris

Tropical Storm Tropical Depression August 29, 1988

1991 Hurricane Bob

Category 3 Category 2 August 19, 1991

1996 Hurricane Bertha

Category 3 Tropical Storm July 13, 1996

1999 Hurricane Floyd

Category 4 Tropical Storm September 16–17, 1999

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

19

Slide20

Storms in North-East

Mostly in Fall21 over 91 years (20% probability)Ranged from Tropical depression to category 5 storm

Affected N-E areas from New Jersey to MaineCaused flooding to wind caused destruction

Predicable

Not due to Global weather change (not a new phenomena

)

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

20

Slide21

Sandy: Observations and Comments related to Organizational Deficiencies

Failure to learn from past storms and equivalent accidentsFailure of to understand limitations of emergency electric power for hospitals, see Daiichi accident (need to protect power supplies from flooding)

Inadequate establishment and training of teamsNeed to develop and test of response procedures

Inadequate availability of supplies to support civilians and rescuers

Failure to foresee limitations of water barriers and consequences for citizens, either build defenses or limit areas to building near coast

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

21

Slide22

Recommendations for decision-makers

Failure to prevent the consequences of the weather induced effects: need to re-evaluate external events and management decisions –act promptly to rectifyEmergency power systems were placed too low vs a vs the high water level: increase height margins or add protective methods

Electrical systems, switch gear, etc. located in basement of buildings, too vulnerable to floods: need for better protection, consider all pathways!

Poor emergency planning, training and positioning of support equipment : review, update and train

Consider possible design solutions from other places, time and people, consider barriers and other solutions:

review options and make better decisions

Top managers often lack basic skills and training:

Acquire better training and/or rely on your support team

Support team:

Have more faith in your advice

11/14/2012

IEEE Section & Reliability Meeting

22