Re: [SystemSafety] Floods and Electrics

From: Matthew Squair < >
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 20:19:04 +0300


Similar things happened during Katrina with the New Orleans pumping stations. Clearly a defence in depth requirement was not part of the design brief for either.

More broadly this is also problem with the siting of NPP (generally they need to be on a river, lake or ocean) and their design against off site events (such as floods).

I like to reread Kiplings poem 'The Gods of the Copybook Headings' at times like these.

Oh and happy new year everyone!

Matthew Squair

MIEAust, CPEng
Mob: +61 488770655
Email; Mattsquair_at_xxxxxx
Web: http://criticaluncertainties.com

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 6:21 PM, Dominey, Alan (UK) <alan.dominey_at_xxxxxx >
> It should of course be noted that before failure of said pumps through water ingress, the local authority decided that the best course of action was to open the barrier and release the Foss floodwaters into the Ouse (on the grounds that they would not be able to do so if the pumps failed) thereby negating the entire intended flood protection plan for central York . . .
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx > Sent: 28 December 2015 11:43
> To: The System Safety List
> Subject: [SystemSafety] Floods and Electrics
>
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> *** WARNING ***
> EXTERNAL EMAIL -- This message originates from outside our organization.
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> In an article in the Guardian about the floods in York, at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/27/floods-army-called-continue-devastate-northern-england
> , I read about the flood barrier on the River Foss that
>
> [begin quote]
>
> Problems arose at the weekend at the Foss barrier and pumping station, which controls river levels by managing the interaction between the rivers Foss and Ouse. In a model that is commonplace around the country, pumps behind the barrier are supposed to pump the water clear. The station became inundated with floodwater after the volume exceeded the capacity of the pumps and flooded some of the electrics, according to an Environment Agency spokesperson, who said that a helicopter was due to airlift in parts to complete repairs on Monday.
>
> [end quote]
>
> It is particularly ironic that flood-control measures are rendered ineffective through flooding of their controls. But it's not a one-off.
>
> At the beginning of this month, much of the city of Lancaster (and reportedly 55,000 people) were left without power when an electricity substation in Caton Road was flooded in a previous storm
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-35020049
>
> Roger Kemp's take on the Lancaster affair is at http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/news/blogs/roger-kemp/who-decided-to-put-lancasters-main-electrical-substation-next-to-the-river/
>
> There is more to consider. Lots more.
>
> I have a few more words at http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/2015/12/28/water-and-electricity/
>
> PBL
>
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany Je suis Charlie
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWgSBSAAoJEIZIHiXiz9k+GJwH/RvbEtRJV3LIIA0qb07eH4Bl
> IOBvoFygTLKLgb4nHjkoD3N+Dv++nlPi6ydCbHZhCs1rTy/V+g6e2VypNQINXB6c
> bDtZwEIvirtUx1u6AMSA3n2CoKVj4gwNhzRBcSvnPe9BJ97gwf0/TzmCnanBzdFT
> TN3dXg4hDiKDatD8DVWdZMgyJ5xUthyQzTxHS6VWkqZY0DHzt5H14g+0iZAoaiAr
> Q4PHsN5jkKi0x6XU7lXEE280RLndHU3rUagvQ3qRMoFJTIGTVgmhZTODlSrOX8MS
> WNReKpVwdsKEqk2YkK56Wab2fx7Tels/Ou4Z2S8EZLDt4AL8plnHYVzxUklIpRM=
> =9pMq
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety_at_xxxxxx >
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety_at_xxxxxx



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Mon Jan 04 2016 - 18:19:14 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Feb 17 2019 - 16:17:08 CET