Decision Making in a Nuclear Reactor Emergency - Case Study Example

Managing the Unexpected Introduction Disasters can be ified into two based on the nature of it; natural disasters and man made disasters. It isdifficult for us to manage or prevent natural disasters like flood, thunder, earthquake, tsunamis etc because of the unexpected occurrence and the severity of such disasters. On the other hand, manmade disasters can be reduced or prevented if we take some precautions. “Man-made disasters are events which, either intentionally or by accident cause severe threats to public health and well-being” (Man-Made Disasters, n. d). Even though, proper precautionary measures taken, it is quiet possible that due to unforeseen reasons, disasters can occur. Most of the manmade disasters are related to the nuclear power. Energy crisis is a severe problem most of the countries are facing at present and in order to solve such problems many countries are trying to develop nuclear power. For example, Iran is currently trying to acquire nuclear power for their energy needs even though many other countries have doubts over Iran’s intentions. Nuclear energy has many advantages over other conventional energy sources like fossil fuels. At the same time it has lot of potential dangers also. The most threatening problem associated with nuclear energy is that if some problem occurs it is difficult to control the outward energy flow from the nuclear reactor. A comprehensive disaster management program is necessary for prevention and management of nuclear disasters. The thirst for solving energy crisis may force the countries to acquire nuclear energy technologies at any cost and they may often forget about the basic needs of developing a response program in case a nuclear disaster occurs unexpectedly. Chernobyl disaster and three miles island disaster has taught the world a lesson about the threats nuclear power plants can cause to human life if not managed properly. This paper briefly analyses the Chernobyl disaster and three miles island disasters to evaluate what useful lessons can be learned from such events. Chernobyl Disaster The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning (Chernobyl Accident, 2009) It is difficult to control the nuclear reactions and to liberate nuclear energy in a controlled manner. Different materials were used inside the nuclear reactors in the form of control grids, moderator etc to control the nuclear energy production. The design of the nuclear reactor is important in ensuring the safe liberation of nuclear energy. Chernobyl nuclear power plant was not adequate which caused the disaster. Moreover, the staffs were not trained properly to face any eventualities. In other words, improper design of the reactor combined with untrained staffs made the Chernobyl disaster worst. The above disaster resulted in the killing of 30 people including the operators and the firemen in the initial three months itself. But the consequences of the above disaster affected around 10 million people directly and indirectly. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was diagnosed in many people living around the Chernobyl power plant area. The most important thing about a nuclear disaster like the on happened in Chernobyl is the continuing destructive power of the disaster. In most of the other types of disasters, the destruction will cease immediately after the catastrophe was over. For example tsunami can kill many people, but once the tsunami is ceased, there will not be anymore casualties. On the other hand, nuclear disaster functions exactly in an opposite manner. The immediate casualties would be less compared to the future casualties. Nuclear materials have the ability to liberate radiations for thousands of years till they become exhausted. All these liberated radiations can affect the environment and the living things in the immediate neighbourhood where the disaster happened. Thyroid cancer is one of the prominent diseases which can cause due to radiation exposures. The figure given below shows the path of radiation exposure. Paths of radiation exposure (Chernobyl Accident, 2009) Food and drinks of the disaster proximity can be contaminated and while taking these foods and drinks serious diseases can occur to the living things. Moreover the surface deposits of the radiation materials can strike human body with radiations and can cause skin cancer like problems. The soil, land, and the water sources; all might be get polluted after the nuclear disaster. The Chernobyl Forum report says that people in the area have suffered a paralysing fatalism due to myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation, which has contributed to a culture of chronic dependency (Chernobyl Accident, 2009). Nuclear disasters can cause psychological problems also. Most of the people are aware of the consequences of a nuclear disaster. So, their life after the disaster would always be filled with agony and mental stress about the future diseases these disasters can cause to them. These anxieties may develop other diseases also. Thus nuclear disasters have both direct and indirect impacts on human health both physical and mental. Nuclear radiations coming out from the Chernobyl disaster site would act differently. An important effect of nuclear detonation is the generation of intense thermal pulse of energy which can destroy or cause immense injuries to living things and the natural resources (Planning guidance for response to a nuclear detonation, 2009, p.19) Moreover, Medalia (2004) has mentioned that the radiations can produce biological changes like ionization of tissues, tissue damage, radiation sickness and, at very high levels, rapid death. With chronic low-level exposure, no clinical effects are observed, but the exposed individual may have an increased lifetime risk of developing cancer (Medalia, 2004, p.2) Three Miles Island Disaster The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa., on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history. This disaster has not led to any casualties; but it brought major changes in emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It also caused the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight (Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident, 2009) Mechanical or electrical failure in the nuclear power plant prevented the safe functioning of the cooling equipments in the reactor. The heat energy thus accumulated inside the reactor which resulted in the meting of some core elements, but fortunately all this things happened inside the reactor and no radioactive substances come out. The people around the disaster hit area have been studied thoroughly to identify the risks related to radiations. But none of the studies have proved that the radiations liberated form the Nuclear power plant But he above disaster helped the authorities to review their strategies. It has pointed towards the possible failures of the nuclear power plants and the subsequent catastrophic events. Emergency preparedness programs were revised based on the above experience. Prevention is better than cure. The above principle is exactly true in the case of management of nuclear power plants. Response to Nuclear Disasters The dangers associated with a nuclear disaster site can be in two forms; heat and radiations. Apart from heat radiations like alpha beta and gamma which can cause physical as well as mental problems to the affected people. In short, nuclear disaster responses must be carefully planned to tackle the problems related to immediate damage and the possible future damages. It is important to design and assess emergency response systems from various aspects and standpoints, in a comprehensive manner to maintain social safety and a public sense of security. Evacuation and shelter are required when there is a possibility of intolerable exposure of residence to radiation. Once the evacuation is decided upon as a countermeasure, it is supposed to be conducted on the initiatives of the national or local governments” (Kanno et al, 2006) The nuclear disaster management policies adopted in different countries might be different. But generally, some common practices are accepted worldwide for dealing with nuclear disasters. For example, Johnson (1985) has mentioned that location considerations other than distance, including physical features of the local environment, population distribution, and local land use patterns, may play a significant role in the decision-making process of disaster management (Johnson, 1985. p.408). Countries like United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan etc possess nuclear technology and have nuclear plants at present. Iran is trying desperately to achieve it. These countries are geographically, culturally and politically different and hence the policies governing to the management of nuclear disaster might be different. Three types of personnel are involved in the disaster management processes; Decision makers, Evaluators and Implementers .The decision-making process in a NPP (Nuclear power plant) disaster is the most difficult portion of the disaster management. The decision makers should have proper knowledge about the nature and immediate and future consequences of the disaster to formulate correct strategies to manage the disaster. The decisions made by the decision makers will be analyzed and developed by reactor operators, based on a set of instructions as well as flow charts to mitigate the consequences of a broad range of transients, accidents and multiple equipment failures, whose main characteristic is to be linear representations of events within a scenario. The NPP operators would be responsible for the evaluation of the decisions made by the decision makers sine they are the only ones who knows the technical side or the practical feasibility of the decisions or strategies made to counter the problems. NPP operators are responsible for taking emergency decisions once the NPP shows signs of failure. These decisions need to be implemented as quickly as possible with the help of the implementers. Sinkko, (2007) has mentioned that the implementation of protective action - including no-action – entails harm and benefit to the population, e.g., monetary costs, social disruption, and psychological or physical health risks. The first concern of the disaster management program should be the protection of the population affected by a nuclear disaster. Sinkko also mentioned that the three ways to minimize radiation exposure are: distance, shielding and time (Sinkko, 2007, p.16). If the affected people evacuated to a longer distance area would help them to avoid the impacts of harmful radiations. Same way, heavier and dense material can be used as protective shield between the source of radiation and the affected people. It is better stay inside the house till the disaster management workers come to the rescue of the affected people. The radiations will be in its full strength during the initial periods of the disaster and thereafter it will be exhausted. So in all probabilities it is better to stay at home with all the doors and the windows closed in order to escape from the impacts of the radiations. “Because the dispersal of radiological material would likely be uneven, the level of radiation in different areas would vary depending on meteorological factors, such as wind speed and precipitation” (Shea, 2004, p.5). Nuclear radiations can travel with a speed which is almost equal to that of the light. In other words, the consequences of the disaster would be immediate before one can take any precautions. The protection of the food and the drinking water is the most important thing one would do once the news about the nuclear disaster erupts. Contaminated food items can cause immediate and long term health problems. International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) has pointed out some immediate precautionary actions which can be summarized as follows; PROTECT growing vegetables and animal fodder - cover with plastic sheets or tarpaulins; BRING livestock in from pasture - move animals into a shed or barn; HARVEST any ripe crops and place under cover. Do not consume locally produced milk or vegetables; Do not slaughter animals; Do not process or distribute food products; Do not fish, hunt or gather mushrooms or other forest foods. Other actions to consider: Prevent the ingestion of contaminated herbage by grazing animals; Avoid direct contamination of food or agricultural products; House animals which would normally be grazing outdoors and provide uncontaminated forage; Prohibit hunting, fishing, mushroom collection, and consumption of vegetables and water derived from surface water or precipitation. In potentially contaminated areas: Do not use water for irrigation; Avoid direct contamination of food or agricultural products; Do not burn vegetation or any material stored outdoors, including firewood; Do not create dust, i.e., by soil tillage. (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009) Beaches, parks, schools, like public places must be immediately closed once the news about the nuclear disaster received by these authorities. Local emergency must be declared to make the people aware of the seriousness of the disaster. Immediate intrusion of the medical team at the affected region is needed to reduce the consequences, during the first stage. To arrange the services of the experienced medical staff at the disaster hit area, immediately may not be possible always. For the initial stages of medical operations, the services of locally available medical staff should be utilized. At the same time specially trained medical staff in dealing nuclear disasters should be brought at the site as soon as possible. Conclusions Disasters are complex events especially nuclear disasters. Nuclear disaster is one of the most difficult disasters as far as management is concerned. Chernobyl and Three Miles Island disasters have revealed the loopholes in the management and designs of nuclear reactors. It is unimaginable that the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was defective in design and more over the staffs were not trained adequately. The invisible radiations coming out form the nuclear disaster sites can cause visible and invisible damages to the human generation in the form of physical and mental problems. Nuclear disasters can be managed only with the help of trained people. It is dangerous to seek the assistance or services of untrained people in the nuclear disaster. Moreover, a uniform strategy cannot be implemented on all the nuclear disasters hit areas because of the geographical or environmental differences, difference in technologies used at different places. References 1. Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident, (2009), Retrieved on 25 February 2010 from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html 2. Chernobyl Accident (2009), Retrieved on 25 February 2010 from http://www.world- nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html 3. International Atomic Energy Agency, (2009), Emergency Preparedness & Response, Retrieved on 25 February 2010 from http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/emergency/index.html 4. Johnson Anthony James H., Jr, (1985), A Model of Evacuation--Decision Making in a Nuclear Reactor Emergency, American Geographical Society Retrieved on 25 February 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/214409 5. Kanno Taro, Shimizu Tatsuya and Furuta Kazou, (2006), Modeling and simulation of residents’ response in nuclear disaster, Retrieved on 25 February 2010 from http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=06541124417422x4&size=largest 6. Man-Made Disasters (n. d), Retrieved on 25 February 2010 from http://www.hhs.gov/disasters/emergency/manmadedisasters/index.html 7. Shea Dana A., (2004), Radiological Dispersal Devices: Select Issues in Consequence Management , CRS Report for congress Retrieved on 25 February 2010 from http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RS21766.pdf 8. Sinkko K. (2007),NUCLEAR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING BASED ON PARTICIPATORY DECISION ANALYTIC APPROACHES, Retrieved on 25 February 2010 from http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/TSIN04a.pdf Read More