Quote:
Originally Posted by V
I think you’re misunderstanding what is happening in the Waterloo situation. They have proactively identified a weak point in their transmission system and have begun plans for a planned repair that will have minimal impact on the communities being fed by the main. This is in stark contrast to a critical main blowing up before anyone thought it would be a good idea to take a look at it.
The Waterloo story is a perfect example of what could have happened in Calgary if they had seen something coming instead of being blindsided.
|
The Calgary plan was to inspect this fall. They prepped for that inspection in the spring. Calgary is likely an example of you inspection doesn’t eliminate risk it reduces risk.
When you look at Calgarys response they turned a significant water main failure into an event that had zero consequences.
That is successful risk mitigation. One of the tools - planned integrity inspections failed. Other mitigations, redundancy, water restrictions, spare pipe available, a network of municipalities and contacts with available additional spares all worked.
The other question is was this inspection driven by the Calgary situation or previously planned.