The Three Mile Island Accident - Essay Example

The Three Mile Island Accident In USA, there have been numerous accidents attributed to human failure and ignorance. One such accident is the Three Mile accident that occurred in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania State in America. The incident involved a partial nuclear meltdown that was recorded within one of the two nuclear reactors in Three Mile Island. The incident is the worst ever-recorded accident in US history within commercial nuclear power plant. According to International Nuclear Event Scale, the accident gets a rating of five based on a seven-point scale and thus regarded as an accident entailing wider consequences (World Nuclear Association, 2012). The occurrence of the accident The preliminary cause of the accident occurred eleven hours before the incident when the operators attempted to repair a blockage in one of the condensate polishers that never became successful. The accident occurred because of failures recorded within the non-nuclear secondary system and in the stuck – open expert operated relief valve within the primary system (Ford, 1982). The faults led to the escape of a large amount of nuclear reactor coolant; cooling water surrounding the ore. Due to loss of the coolant water, temperature of the ore rose drastically until it finally melted thus leading the release of radioactive materials. The mechanical failures within the plant were complicated by earlier failure of plant technicians to identify the condition as loss of coolant mishap. Such a failure occurred due to inadequate training as well as human factors including human- computer operation lapses leading to ambiguous control room indicators within the user interface of the power plant. Particularly, a hidden indicator light misled the operators to assume the warnings since they believed in the presence of too much coolant water, in the reactor (Walker, 2004). The false information from the light indicator made it hard for the operators to diagnose the problem until after several hours when major damage had happened. The assumption contributed to release of steam pressure thereby causing the accident. Since the operators lacked training on the knowledge of the pilot operated relief valve (PORV), they never understood the ambiguous form of the PORV thus could not identify the problem and correct it as early as possible to prevent occurrence of the accident. Moreover, the operators ignored the alarm sounding presence of a malfunction and this aggravated the problem (Adamson, 1981). It was not until a shift change in the operators that unusual function of the plant was clearly noticed. However, by that time, approximately 120000 litres (32000 US gal) of the radioactive coolant had leaked from the primary loop and had seriously contaminated the plant. At this point, the plant controller declared a site emergency. Later, the station manager Gary Miller declared the emergency, which was defined as having the potential to have grave radiological consequences to the citizens (Teather, 2004). The NRC considered the accident not serious thus a cause for concern and not alarm. Commissioner Victor Gilinsky briefed the Congress as well as the white House staff on the situation. Effects of the accident The partial meltdown led to the release of unknown quantities of radioactive iodine as well as radioactive gases into the environment. Nevertheless, because little of the radioactive materials released comprised solids at room temperature, very small quantities of radioactive materials were reported to exist in the environment having come from the accident. Rogovin report showed that the largest quantities of radioisotopes released comprised noble gases krypton and xenon amounting to 2.5 million curries (Gray & Rosen, 2003). Consequently, the report indicates that 15 curies of radioiodine got into the atmosphere. However, the noble gases released were relatively harmless to the environment and living things with only 13- 17 curies of thyroid cancer related iodine – 131 got released into the atmosphere (Gray & Rosen, 2003). Few hours after the accident, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commenced daily sampling and examination of the environment within the three stations close to the plant. Thereafter, an inter- agency analysis found that the incident did not cause radioactive exceeding background levels that can result in cancer or death of the people within the area of the accident. However, the results never incorporated measures of beta radiations attributed to the accident (Sills, Wolf & Shelanski, 1981). Consequently, EPA never found traces of radioactive materials in water, plant samples, soils, and sediment. Nevertheless, based on the emission figures, various early scientific publications estimated occurrence of one to two cancer related deaths within a distance of 16 kilometers from the TMI. However, anti –nuclear political factions as well as groups disagreed with the findings of Kennedy’s commission citing that the independent measurements offer evidence of radiation levels that is five times higher than in typical locations hundreds of kilometers downwind the Three Mile Island (Sills, Wolf & Shelanski, 1981). After the accident, white tailed deer tongues samples harvested within the range of 80 kilometers from the plant had considerable higher composition of Cesium- 137 compared to similar plants from countries closer to the plant. Government’s response After the accident, station manager Gary Miller had announced the occurrence of an emergency having the potential to harm the public. Various agencies and the government responded swiftly to the accident. Metropolitan Edison Company informed the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) and which later contacted local and state agencies as well as lieutenant governor William Scranton III and Governor Richard Thornburgh on the occurrence of the accident (Hatch et al., 1991). Scranton whom Governor Thornburgh had assigned the responsibility to collect and report information on the accident held a press conference whereby he reassured the public on not worrying about the consequences of the accident on the citizens. He claimed that the owners of the plant, Metropolitan Edison, had guaranteed the nation that they were controlling the situation and that there was no nothing to worry. However, Scranton later recanted his statement arguing that the condition was more intricate than the company had assured the nation (Perrow, 1999). However, various government officials and Metropolitan Ed provided information that sharply contradicted Scranton report more so in connection to severity and possibility of the offsite radioactive releases causing harm to the environment and the citizens. Thus, there were varied sources of contradicting statements concerning radioactive releases (Perrow, 1999). Despite such contradictions in information, readings and data obtained from the instruments and devices within the plant indicated the presence of radioactive releases. Although the materials existed, they were at low levels not having potential to cause harm to the environment and the public (Perrow, 1999). This was only possible when the releases are maintained at low level and proper handling and maintenance of the highly contaminated reactor. Moreover, the government reacted by closing schools and urged residents to remain indoors in order to minimize exposure to the effects of radioactive materials released from the reactor plant. Consequently, farmers were advised to put their animals under cover and feed them on stored food thus reducing chances of being affected by the released substances (Hampton, 2001). Governor Dick Thornburgh on receiving advice from NRC Chairman, Joseph Hendri, recommended the transfer of pregnant women as well as pre – school-children to a radius of five mile from the scene of the accident (Hampton, 2001). The government later extended the evacuation zone to a 20-mile radius and within a few days, about 140000 people had left the area near the reactors. Through evacuation, the government acted cautiously thus preventing further contamination and casualties that may occur because of exposure to the radioactive materials from the plant. However, 6635000 residents who resided within the 20-mile range never shifted since they were not that close to the plant. After the incident, various federal and state government agencies initiated investigations into the catastrophe. President Jimmy Carter formed the President’s Commission on the Accident within Three Mile Island in 1979 (Kemeny, 1979). The commission comprised of twelve members who had unbiased views on nuclear energy and the commission chaired by John G. Kemeny who was then president of Dartmouth College. The role of the commission was to create a complete report in a period of six months. In its findings, the commission strongly condemned Met Ed, Babcock and Wilcox, the NRC as well as GPU for lapses in maintenance and quality assurance, inadequate training of operators, lack of or poor relaying of vital safety information, complacency and poor management (Kemeny, 1979). However, the commission snubbed drawing conclusions on the potential of the nuclear industry. The Kemeny Commission criticized and recommended for essential changes in the organization, practices, attitudes, and procedures of the NRC and the entire nuclear industry (Kemeny, 1979). Kemeny asserted that the operators took inappropriate actions, which they were anticipated to adhere to, though the research establishes that such actions were indeed inadequate. Consequently, the commission finds that the control room was inadequate for controlling an accident (Kemeny, 1979). Moreover, the Government Affairs President authenticated that the Metropolitan Edison Company had been forewarned by the NRC on the possibilities and vulnerability of failure of the reactor valves of Wilcox and Babcock. The occurrence of the accident increased anti –nuclear safety concerns among the public as well as the activists. This led to the establishment of new regulations controlling the nuclear industry thus reducing the occurrences and fatalities of such accidents (Perrow, 1999). The antinuclear concerns halted the new nuclear reactor creation program that was in progress in the 1970s. Surveys conducted after the occurrence of the Three Mile Island Accident (TMI) revealed that less than 50% of Americans felt satisfied with the manner in which the NRC and the Pennsylvania State officials responded and contained the situation (Maureen et al., 1990). Moreover, majority of the respondents felt dissatisfied with the plant as well as its designer. According to them, the plant was of low design and thus endangered the lives of people residing within its environs. Before the occurrence of the TMI accident, the construction of nuclear reactors greatly increased. However, after the incident, construction of nuclear plants significantly reduced with cancellation of plans that were underway. Federal regulations and requirements on nuclear plants became more rigid, local opposition was strident (Maureen et al., 1990). Consequently, the government responded to the accident by lengthening the construction period in order to rectify safety issues, as well as design deficiencies. The Three Mile Island Unit 2 experienced damaged after the accident thus could not resume operations. Therefore, it was deactivated and became permanently closed (Osif, 2004). Clean up work commenced in 1979 and ended in 1993 with clean up exercise costing approximately $1 billion. Further, the operation license for Unit 1 became temporarily suspended due to the accident in Unit 2 (Osif, 2004). Government actions that could be taken to mitigate a similar event in the future After the occurrence of the accident, both the government and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) experienced problems in accessing accurate information on the accident. The failure of NRC proved ill preparedness in dealing with emergencies. The reason for the predicament faced by NRC was the lack of a clear command structure and the lack of authority to direct the company on what to do (Lüsted, 2012). Moreover, NRC lacked powers of ordering an evacuation of people from the local affected area. This clearly proved failure not only on NRC but also on the government. The government has a mandate to give direction on the course of actions in case of emergencies since it has the power and the resources to handle any incident that may prove harmful to Americans. Moreover, the government should ensure that NRC is accorded necessary powers and authority to deal with such issues in the future. For instance, it should be given necessary power to authorize the evacuation of residents from the scene of the accident thus, assisting in preventing further harm and misery on the citizen. Further, the government should guarantee the existence of a clear structure of command in the NRC since it will ensure that instructions come only from one angle and not from varied sources causing confusion. Consequently, Gilisky asserts that it took the government five weeks to discover that the plant operators had calculated fuel temperatures next to the melting point (Sills, Wolf & Shelanski, 1981). This clearly proves the failure of the government to gather adequate information at the time of occurrence of the accident. Thus, the government fails in its duty of gathering necessary information concerning an accident of such nature and providing it to the public. This situation is absurd considering the resources as well as the experts the government has to accomplish such task. To prevent the occurrence of the same in future, the government needs to access and reexamine its methods of gathering information and ensure that they are improved and up to date. When this is accomplished, the government will be in the position of gathering vital information from accidents and using it in solving the situation thereby improving its response during times of accidents and catastrophes of such nature. In conclusion, the TMI accident was a catastrophe to the US government and the whole world. Luckily, the world escaped from adverse effects that could have risen in case the accident was severe and badly handled. Generation of energy from nuclear power plant is a noble idea, which improves the quantity of energy production and supply in the world. This reduces production costs among manufacturers thereby lowering prices of goods and services and thus making them cheaper and accessible to many people. Moreover, increased energy production reduces energy costs among households in America thereby making life easy, cheap, and simple. Despite the benefits associated with nuclear power plants, various disadvantages associated with the plant in case of an accident is quite disturbing. The accidents are very detrimental more so when released into the atmosphere. Various research findings have associated cancerous diseases and deaths to the radioactive materials. However, with proper caution, effective rules, regulations, and the existence of an efficient emergency response and preparedness unit, there is nothing to worry about nuclear energy. References Adamson, G. (1981). We all live on Three Mile Island: The case against nuclear power. Sydney: Pathfinder Press. Ford, D. F. (1982). Three Mile Island: Thirty minutes to meltdown. New York: Viking Press. Gray, M., & Rosen, I. (2003). The warning: Accident at Three Mile Island. New York: Norton & Co. Hatch, M.C., Wallenstein, S., Beyea., J., Nieves, J.W. & Susser, M. (June 1991). "Cancer rates after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and proximity of residence to the plant". American Journal of Public Health 81 (6): 719–724. Hampton, W. (2001). Meltdown: A race against nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island : a reporters story. Cambridge, Mass: Candlewick Press. Kemeny, John G., (Chairman, 1979), Presidents Commission: The Need For Change: The Legacy Of TM Lüsted, M. A. (2012). The Three Mile Island nuclear disaster. Minneapolis, MN: ABDO Pub. Company. Maureen C. Hatch et al. (1990). "Cancer near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant: Radiation Emissions". American Journal of Epidemiology (Oxford Journals) 132 (3): 397–412. Osif, B. A. (2004). TMI 25 years later: The Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident and its impact. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Sills, D. L., Wolf, C. P., & Shelanski, V. B. (1981). Accident at Three Mile Island: The human dimensions. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. Teather, D. (April 13, 2004). "US nuclear industry powers back into life". The Guardian (London). Retrieved December 29, 2008. Walker, J. S. (2004). Three Mile Island: A nuclear crisis in historical perspective. Berkeley, Cal. [u.a.: Univ. of California Press. World Nuclear Association. (2012).Three Mile Accident. Retrieved April 5, 2014 from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island- accident/ Read More