header.php
PETRO.pennnet.com/blogs/pep@Top

searchform.php

William Tucker
William Tucker, author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Long Energy Odyssey
William Tucker is a veteran journalist who has written about energy and the environment for 25 years. His work has appeared in... For a detailed bio
Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Long Energy Odyssey
Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Long Energy Odyssey



PETRO.pennnet.com//blogs/pep@Left1


single.php
Three Mile Island – Thirty Years After
March 31st, 2009
This post is filed under the following categories:
Nuclear Power
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Thirty years ago this week, the Three Mile Island accident shook the nuclear industry to its core. A meltdown - the thing that all the experts insisted couldn’t happen - happened. Hollywood, which had just released “The China Syndrome” starring Jane Fonda, had done a better job of predicting the future than had the computer projections of fault-tree mathematicians. What can we say today about Three Mile Island and its aftermath? I would say three things:

  1. The accident, if nothing else, proved that the consequences of a nuclear accident were not as serious as imagined.
  2. The culture surrounding nuclear power, rather than the technology, lead to the events.
  3. The industry has learned its lesson and improved operating and safety procedures almost beyond recognition. Such an accident is not likely to happen again.

The consequences of an accident. To the general public, a nuclear reactor has always been a domesticated bomb that could explode in a mushroom cloud at any minute. Sophisticated critics knew a reactor couldn’t blow up but they imagined a similar situation where an overheated core melted through the reactor vessel, through the containment structure and “all the way to China.” Supposedly it would hit groundwater at warp speed and cause a steam explosion that would (as the movie said) “render an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.” (Give them credit for choosing the right state.)

None of this happened. The overheated core didn’t even melt through the chromium lining at the bottom of the reactor. Three Mile Island was a serious industrial accident that caused a billion dollars worth of damage and almost bankrupted the utility. What was unusual about it is that no one was hurt.

Chernobyl, on the other hand, which followed seven years later, was a Soviet specialty. Using a graphite moderator, the Soviets effectively packed the fuel rods in charcoal. When the core overheated, it ignited the carbon, which burned for days, sending a plume of radioactive smoke all over the world. Oh yes, they also neglected to cover it with a containment structure. All Russians reactors now have containments (although a few still use graphite moderators). Such an accident will never occur again in a country not run by infallible Marxist ideologues.

The Culture, not the technology, was at fault. In a brilliant 1980 article in Reason (”Who Caused Three Mile Island?”), Adam Reed pointed out that thirty years of secrecy at the old Atomic Energy Commission had cut off nuclear power from all the advances in industrial psychology following World War II, particularly the realization that human factors were usually the main cause of accidents:

By 1970 no new design for a toaster or blender at General Electric could get off the drawing board without being examined by an expert in human factors. Yet the same company was designing, manufacturing, and delivering nuclear reactors that had never been seen, much less examined by an engineering psychologist. . . . It was only after the loss of the Three Mile Island plant in 1979 that engineering psychologists asked what the hell was going on in nuclear power plant control rooms. What they saw made them shiver.

While industrial psychology had emphasized “user friendly” aspects in equipment, nuclear control panels consisted of rows and rows of identical lights and switches with no differentiation as to what was important and what was not. As Samuel Walker later wrote in his history of Three Mile Island:

Within a few seconds after the accident began, the plant’s alarm systems, including a loud horn and more than a hundred flashing lights on the control panels, announced the loss of feed-water in the secondary loop, the turbine trip, the reactor trip, and other abnormal events. But they offered little guidance about the cause of those occurrences and did not differentiate between trivial and vital problems.

Each reactor was an island unto itself, with few common designs or procedures and little communication. The valve that failed at Three Mile Island had failed nine times previously, yet nobody had done a thing about it. The operators at TMI spent four hours a year discussing what was happening at other reactors.

The Kemeny Commission, which performed a brilliant investigation of the accident, concluded: “[G]iven all the above deficiencies, we are convinced that an accident like Three Mile Island was eventually inevitable.”

The industry has reformed itself. Working on the recommendations of the Kemeny Commission - and the draconian oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission - the industry has made spectacular improvements in both operations and safety. Whereas early reactors were often manned by high school graduates, licensed operators now go through a five-year regimen, undergoing more training than airline pilots.

Control panels have been completely redesigned, computerized (the switch from analog to digital made a big difference), and completely duplicated in pitch-perfect simulators, where they spend one week in six honing their skills. With oversight from the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the industry now communicates almost instantaneously on safety matters.

The result has been a spectacular improvement in both operations and safety. Whereas capacity factors hovered around 60 percent until 1990, the entire industry now operates above 90 percent. While there were 22 year-long shutdowns for safety problems from 1976 to 1986 and 23 from 1986 to 1996, there has been only one in the last decade.

The record for continuous operation—688 days, six weeks short of two years - is now held by Unit 1, Three Mile Island.

For a longer version of this post, go to: www.spectator.org/archives/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-thirty-year.

Tags: , ,

comments.php

9 Responses to “Three Mile Island – Thirty Years After”

  1. John B. Ashmun Says:

    Good substantiation for more nuclear power! Heavily subsidized switch grass, noisy, ugly windmills and solar screens producing interruptible power never to exceed some 10-15% of the country’s needs should take a far back seat to high potential, clean nuclear, long established oil & gas and coal sources which are being aimed at with more taxes.

  2. Martha T Pelensky, PE Says:

    I am a chemical engineer by training and spent most of my professional life as a process design engineer, control engineer and project manager for a major oil company. I am also of Ukrainian origin and have relatives in Kyiv (formerly Kiev).
    On the 20th anniversary (1986) of the Chernobyl disaster in the then Ukrainian SSR I gave a technical presentation at a local Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) about the origins and reasons for that debacle.. All information used in that presentation was in the public domain.
    I would like to summarize the presentation:
    1. The design, in its concept, was flawed in the sense that each nuclear power plant in the former USSR was designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product. This required a frequent changedout of the uranium tubes. Because of this there could not have been a concrete shield around the core. Hans Bethe, a world class physicist at Cornell, commented that it was “a lousy design”.
    2. The construction was of low quality.
    3. The reason for the explosion was a poorly thought out experiment run by unqualified people. They were mostly electrical types . Nuclear reactor persons were not consulted and included.
    4. All safety precautions were DELIBERATELY bypassed on order of party functionaries who wanted to prove to their superiors how well they managed the test. Despite protests of operating personnel the minimum amount of control rods were pulled out. The results were what they were.
    5. The affected Chornobyl Reactor #4 had an unblemished safety record until that time.
    6. There were at that time some 17 plants of the same design operating throughout the USSR and nothing like Chornobyl disaster happened before or since.
    7. The three most responsible persons for this disaster were put on show trial and sentenced to hard labor somewhere in central Asia. Their current fate is unknown.

    The point of this brief analysis is that if a nuclear plant is operated as it should be and ALL safety precautions are meticulously observed, they are as safe if not more so, than a refinery or a chemical plant.

    Another comment:
    According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The heat generated by condensing the low pressure steam and absorbed by the cooling water is usually dissipated by the nearby body of water. It has been observed that its temperature rises which causes growth of algae and/or other water borne weeds which in turn affects the aquatic life. Yes, it is clean but not free. Also there is the pesky problem of the disposal of the wastes which are not clean.

    Very truly yours, Martha Pelensky

  3. Jared Says:

    There is definately a lot to learn about this topic. I love all the points you made.

  4. Leoma Says:

    Hi, i think that i saw you visited my web site
    thus i came to “return the favor”.I am trying to find things to improve my site!
    I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!

  5. Fay Says:

    Inspiring quest there. What happened after?
    Good luck!

  6. clientmajor.com Says:

    Every weekend i used to visit this website, because i
    wish for enjoyment, as this this site conations in fact fastidious funny material too.

  7. เครื่องปั่นไฟ Says:

    I pay a visit each day some web pages and information sites to read articles or reviews, except this web site presents feature based writing.

  8. car rental paphos airport cyprus Says:

    Can’t ask for a representative to help you find the best paphos car hire in Cadiz is a
    great city in Europe. Try to take the total number of agencies for carhire in Dubai.
    The business makes a profit of about 3, 500 years
    ago. It is blazingly fast from what we asked of it. If that wasn’t enough, you’re
    dropped straight through a hole at the end of your rental. Roberson and Hendley survived a playoff with Sumin Yu, assistant professional at Firewheel Golf Park.

  9. iherb referral code Says:

    I don’t know whether it’s just me or if everyone else encountering issues with your
    website. It seems like some of the text within your content are running off the screen.
    Can someone else please provide feedback and let me know if this is
    happening to them as well? This could be a issue with my browser because I’ve had this
    happen before. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Security Code:


footer.php