What do you think happened here? To me it reads like there was an issue, the the issue was identified in a preemptive maintenance program and got fixed. The regulator's [0] complaint seems to be the operator may have been able to detect the problem sooner.
The sounds acceptable. We're not able to run any piece of gear without the occasional failure - the argument with nuclear is a failure scenario appears to be about as damaging as the business-as-usual so all y'all be mad for putting so much effort into preventing it that nuclear became uneconomic.
Uneconomic because finding and fixing a crack in a pipe in the backup system is 4-on-a-5-tier system of regulatory response and has people talking about delicensing the operator.
[0] Oh wait I know this regulator. The dude who is in charge has a B. Arts in Religious Studies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_T._Hanson - which isn't a problem in itself but I felt it was apart of a pattern when it came to heads of the regulator. Their backgrounds didn't inspire my confidence.
The sounds acceptable. We're not able to run any piece of gear without the occasional failure - the argument with nuclear is a failure scenario appears to be about as damaging as the business-as-usual so all y'all be mad for putting so much effort into preventing it that nuclear became uneconomic.
Uneconomic because finding and fixing a crack in a pipe in the backup system is 4-on-a-5-tier system of regulatory response and has people talking about delicensing the operator.
[0] Oh wait I know this regulator. The dude who is in charge has a B. Arts in Religious Studies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_T._Hanson - which isn't a problem in itself but I felt it was apart of a pattern when it came to heads of the regulator. Their backgrounds didn't inspire my confidence.