As the year anniversary of the Tōhoku earthquake, tsunami and the Fukushima nuclear disaster is nearing, the subject of risk management and planning is a recurring theme in news programs and podcasts. One scenario that I found very interesting was surrounding the Fukushima nuclear plant’s response to the loss of power. When the earthquake hit on March 11, 2011, Fukushima lost the primary power and the backup power generators kicked in. Shortly after the earthquake, the tsunami hit the mainland, and the plant lost the backup power. Without power, there was no way to flow water across the spent nuclear fuel rods, and without water the rods would continue to heat up and eventually melt. A meltdown at this scale would cause an evacuation so large, it would have included Tokyo.
As the fuel rods sat in the stagnant water, they started to heat up and boil the water around them, causing steam and pressure to build up within the reactor. The team decided that the only option was to vent the radioactive steam into the atmosphere to prevent the reactor from exploding. However, when the team reviewed the documentation on how to vent the chamber, there were no instructions on how to do so without power. It was a simple procedure with power; push a few buttons, and voilà. But the team had no idea how to do so without any electricity. They had to spend time developing a way to vent the chamber manually by looking at blueprints etc. Eventually they did find a way, but it was hours or even days later. The point is they had to do this on the fly instead of just following a plan.
What is interesting about this particular scenario is that all of the decisions had to be made in the midst of a disaster. In this critical situation, time was not a luxury. If they had a more detailed risk plan, how would it have changed the events that happened that week? Had they planned for scenarios without power and put such documentation in place, this could have saved the team much needed time in a disaster scenario.
Obviously, our IT project risk plans don’t have the same consequences as a nuclear power plant, but it made me think, how detailed should they be? How much risk are we willing to accept? Do we periodically review our risk plans to ensure that they are kept up to date and accurate?
Such a sad anniversary, but not only is it a great example of the importance of risk management, but it reminds us of another project management practice: lessons learned. My husband works for Seabrook Station and even though they have all kinds of checks and balances in place, they are constantly reviewing positive and negative scenarios at other plants to learn from them and plan better. Great blog!