Engineering Design Flow Contributing To the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster - Essay Example

Engineering Design Flow Contributing To the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster al Affiliation Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster April 26, 1986 was the worst day for Prypiat, in Chernobyl because of the massive engineering failure that led to the nuclear disaster. Although the power plant is not operational presently, Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant boasted of four RBMK-1000 reactors, each with a capacity of 1000 megawatts. Water is the commonest coolant in many reactors around the world the cooling mechanisms works by water reducing the temperature and reactivity of the core. The steam bubbles produced in the core reduce the temperature of the core to a controllable level. The engineers of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant overlooked this very important safety measure when they were conducting the futile test. Besides, the RBMK-1000 reactors in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant used graphite coolants instead of water coolant. In as much as one would like to blame old technology for the nuclear disaster, it was clear that the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant engineers flouted the engineer’s professional standards (Spellman & Whiting, 2010). In this respect, this paper describes the engineering design flow and the circumstances that contributed to the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster in 1986. Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Chernobyl, particularly the city if Prypiat, will never forget the 1986 disaster that virtually all investigations have termed as ‘gross engineering failure.’ The plant is currently decommissioned but the public will never forget what happened three decades ago. The plant used four RBMK-1000 reactors to generate a total energy capacity of 4,000 megawatts. Contrary to what most reactors in the western countries use, the RBMK-1000 reactors used graphite as a coolant. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was barely a decade and half old when the disaster unfolded. Mara (2011) states that at the time of the accident, the four reactors were in full operation except reactor five, which was due for launching. However, the unfortunate event rendered the whole plant inoperable, including reactor five. In essence, Chernobyl was one of the major power generators for the Soviet Union with each reactor delivering a total thermal power output of 3.2 GM. The RBMK-1000 reactor that Chernobyl used was graphite cooled unlike most reactors in the United States, Canada, and Europe that used water as a coolant. This fact though was not the main cause of the problem because the plant had been in operation for over one decade with insignificant errors. Staff (2009) states the following about the design flow of RBMK-1000: The RBMK-1000 is a graphite-moderated boiling water reactor that contains 1,661 parallel, vertical pressure tubes loaded with fuel assemblies. The water-steam mixture leaving the top of the fuel channels flows into four horizontal steam drums with moisture separators. The Nuclear Disaster Perhaps April 1986 was the worst tragedy in the global nuclear history, considering that Russia was among the leading nations as far as nuclear energy production was concerned. However, the Chernobyl plant encountered the worst engineering disasters that led to its decommissioning barely a decade and a half into operation. One of the nuclear reactors under test exploded under intense pressure, spewing tons of nuclear waste into the atmosphere. Several people, including plant technicians and engineers, absorbed significant levels of radiation from the accident. The team from Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and some government operatives initially briefed the locals about the impending disaster. Although the local people were told not to worry because the explosion was a slight problem that the plan engineers dealing with it, nuclear waste was already spreading across the entire area (Mara, 2011).  The Chernobyl accident had far-reaching consequences in terms of damages and losses. The government had to evacuate all the residents of Prypiat city within 24 hours because of the radiation effect that resulted from the leakage of nuclear waste into the atmosphere. By magnitude, the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster was the worst accident in global nuclear history. Approximately 50 people suffered the ultimate consequence of the accident through their lives while 300,000 others had to relocate to safer areas. Nuclear experts believe that Chernobyl and the area around it are still contaminated with nuclear waste presently. To understand the events and circumstances that led to the unfortunate accident, it is worth examining the real causes of the accident, whether it was human cause or the causes were beyond human control (Mara, 2011).  Causes of the disaster Most nuclear experts and investigators blame complacence and ignorance on the plant engineers to the accident. The combination of the two attributes is fatal, especially in accidents involving nuclear energy. Immediately after the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, scientists convened to establish the exact causes of the explosion of the RBMK-1000 reactor that was under test. They claimed that failures in the administrative and political systems of the Soviet Union led to the disaster, rather than the problem emanating from the power plant. Although administrative failure was to blame in the wider context, the engineering failure was more conspicuous than any other excuse (Yaroshinska, Bertell, & Ehrle, 2011).  From an engineering context, the engineers who conducted the test for the reactor mismanaged the whole experiment, leading to the nuclear disaster. Although the plant engineers had little expertise concerning the physics of the reactor, they went ahead experimenting, messing up the electrical system of the reactor. The engineers developed an interest in the turbine generator and they went on experimenting if it was possible to draw electricity from reactor 4 turbine. Although they wanted to use the electricity to pump water in emergency times, they miscalculated the electrical operations of the turbine, particularly because they were incompetent in the area. Time pressure, coupled with the need to finalize the test, forced the engineers to reduce power level of reactor 4 (Hutton, & Masoet, 2008). According to Rhodes (1993), the engineers messed reactor four in the following manner: So they reduced the reactors power level too rapidly. That mistake caused a rapid buildup of neutron-absorbing fission by products in the reactor core, which poisoned the reaction…..they were unable to increase the power level to more than 30 megawatts, a low level of operation at which the reactors instability potential is at its worst and that the Chernobyl plants own safety rules forbade (Chapter 5). According to the professional engineers Ontario code of ethics section 77 of the O. Reg941-77, engineers owe the public the public a responsibility for all engineering projects and experimentations. Nikolai Gorbachenko, who was the radiation-monitoring technician, overlooked reactor 4 when he was going round checking the reactors. Valery Khodemchuk was the key circulating pump operator during the fatal night shift and he was at the heart of the water pump experiment. Besides, Vladimir Shashenok, who was the leading operator of the control room, was absent at room 604 at the time of the disaster. The three plant engineers made a grave mistake that cost millions of dollars in terms of property damaged and lives lost. Practitioners need to prioritize the welfare of the public in all their undertakings but the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant engineers ignored this important safety precaution (Hutton, & Masoet, 2008).  It was unethical to entrust people who did not have the expertise in the area to conduct the experiment of such a magnitude. The management of Chernobyl failed in this perspective although the engineers were personally liable for the nuclear accident. The design engineers were not current with the kind of experiment that they were conducting. Besides, the risk factors were high in the plant because the plant had suffered multiple contaminations prior to the accident. Although the professional engineers serviced the plant they had noted significant risk factors in the plant that required attention and fixing (Spellman & Whiting, 2010).  RBMK-1000 was a third generation reactor was unsafe compared to the newer models. In this regard, it was unethical on the part of the plant management and the government to continue operating the plant near the populace. The greed for more power continues to expose various communities living around nuclear power plants to high risks of nuclear accidents. A more recent example is the Japan Nuclear accident of 2011 that had significant impact on the community and the country as a whole (Yaroshinska, Bertell, & Ehrle, 2011). References Hutton, B., & Masoet, M. Y. (2008). Engineering practice & maintenance. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa. Mara, W. (2011). The Chernobyl disaster: Legacy and impact on the future of nuclear energy. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark. Rhodes, R. (1993). Nuclear renewal: Common sense about energy. New York, N.Y., U.S.A: Whittle Books in association with Viking. Spellman, F. R., & Whiting, N. E. (2010). The handbook of safety engineering: Principles and applications. Lanham, Md: Government Institutes. Staff, E. (2009). Case studies in engineering: Chernobyl. Retrieved from http://engineeringfailures.org/?p=1 Yaroshinska, A., Bertell, R., & Ehrle, L. (2011). Chernobyl: Crime without punishment. New Brunswick (U.S.A.: Transaction Publishers. Read More