Three Mile Island Disaster and Challenger Mission: Analysis Paper - Essay Example

Joyce ENC 1102: Online Three Mile Island/Challenger Paper 05 April, Introduction Memorandums are very simple, succinct forms of communications. They are intended to create and portray what needs to be done in a given circumstance. These could vary from meeting schedules, implementation of new policies, safety analysis, or reporting of important information within the company. There is a multitude of examples, but here I am going to discuss the Three Mile Island Disaster in 1978 and the Challenger Explosion in 1985. These disasters were foretold by the companies’ employees and superiors thought the use of a memorandum. Bert M. Dunn wrote a memo to his superiors to let them know of the possibility of an operator error that needed to be fixed at the nuclear plant. R. M. Boisjoly wrote a memo to the engineering Vice President at NASA about an O-ring erosion issue that could lead to loss of life and machine. Both of these memos clearly address the issues they were written for, but were still ignored by their superiors. Many people struggle with effective memorandums, as will be discussed here in more detail about the two former memos in question. Three Mile Island Memo On February 9, 1978, Bert Dunn of Babcock and Wilcox Company created a memo to inform the managerial staff of a concern he had within the ECCS (emergency core cooling system) analysis at the time. He was telling them that they needed to stop high pressure injection into the system after a LOCA (loss of coolant accident). In order to have successful ECCS operations, they needed to maintain full injection into the core reactor, until the rate can completely compensate for the reactors heat. Dunn even mentions a similar incident that took place in Toledo, Ohio, in which he also gives an explanation of why it happened there, and what could or should have been done to prevent it. He also makes mention that in this particular incident, he does not have enough information to recover from a loss of coolant accident. He offers a recommendation of what they should do, but leaves it up to his superiors, stating that it is a “…serious matter and deserves our prompt attention and correction”. This memo was written to different people within the company to serve as a warning of what was happening at the reactor, and what would happen if nothing were done about it. The problem lies, that the subject line and the memo itself differ greatly. In the subject line, it simply states “Operator Interruption of High Pressure Injection.” that could imply any number of things, the first of which being an operator interrupted the high pressure injection system. Perhaps something to take care of in due course, but not pressing as the memo is intended to be. The memo gives a feeling of urgency, but the subject heading can lead one astray to read it when they get around to it. Not a big deal right now, so leave it for later. There is a thesis in this memo, and it is included in the very first sentence of it. It states clearly that it is a concern of a potential incident. There is no proof that this incident will occur, but continues on with viable information to make known the possibility of this becoming a reality. He states clearly with a thesis in the second paragraph of the memo as well, offering actions that would have been acceptable, and words like “indicates”, “sufficient”, and “believe”. This memo is fairly well written, aside from the subject line, as it states the problem at hand, suggestions for a solution, a similar incident with its results and what needs to be done to correct the problem. However, continuing on with the memo, initially it strikes as very important, but lends itself to lesser importance, through the use of the incident in Toledo, and giving suggestions for improvement, not speaking bluntly and clearly that this is an issue that needs attention now. The language doesn’t do anything to move someone to feel the need to act on this matter, and is very impersonal. Challenger Memo On July 31, 1985, Roger M. Boisjoly of Morton Thiokol, Inc. sent a memo to the Vice President of Engineering in regards to O-ring erosion problem they were having from his standpoint of an engineer. He clearly explains what is happening in regards to the O-ring erosion issues, causing field joint failure. This memo was written to inform the engineering staff of a potentially life threatening issue that needed to be corrected immediately. The subject line of this memo is very catching of attention. Using the words “Failure Criticality” is a big attention grabber. This isn’t a ‘maybe it will, maybe it won’t’ type of situation, and he is making this clear. There is no thesis within this memo, as everything written within it is factual information, with little guessing. The only possible thesis available within this memo is the words “may not be capable of pressurization”. However, he makes it abundantly clear what the problem is, what needs to be done to fix it, and what will happen if it is left ignored. This is an exceptionally well written memo. It opens with the issue that needs addressed, why it needs to be addressed, the potential outcomes of ignorance and what will be done to counter them. It is clear, concise, moving and most importantly, it speaks to the utmost importance of the issue. This memo is very persuasive, using language like, “…a catastrophe of the highest order - loss of human life”, “it is my honest and very real fear…” and “…we stand in jeopardy of losing a flight along with all the launch pad facilities.” This memo covers a lot of ground in a few short sentences, which is what memos are designed and intended to do. He keeps it very clear, formal and impersonal, until he gets to the potential outcomes of ignoring his request. Then it becomes very personal, offering his feelings of honest fear within the texts, instead of cold, hard facts to get his superiors to move on this issue. Conclusion Given that both of these men were given charge of the task of informing their superiors of a critical situation, they both did a fair job. Mr. Boisjoly did a much better job conveying the urgency of the matter at hand than Mr. Dunn did, but it is clear that both of these were not good enough. As the old adage goes, hindsight is 20/20, and in knowing what ultimately happened in regards to each of these situations, the consequences of a poorly written memo were severe. Bert Dunn did not convey the urgency as well as Roger Boisjoly, but both were lacking in language that would move people to action. Perhaps it is this lack of moving language that caused these memos to be overlooked and ultimately ignored, but it still is in the hands of the superiors that these horrific events took place. A little more investigation on their parts and more fluid communication on the parts of the memo writers, and these catastrophes possibly would not have happened. It is deeply unfortunate and saddening that the lack of proper communication on the parts of Dunn and boisjoly were primary causes in two extraordinary accidents that plagued the country. These men were highly trained professionals, yet lacked the language to move their superiors to action. Bert Dunn “believe[d] this is a very serious matter and deserves our prompt attention and correction.” one’s belief of an event, however true it may be, is not enough to get men to act. Roger Boisjoly knew that if something was not done, “the result would be a catastrophe of the highest order - loss of human life.” But neither of these men had the knowledge or skill of how to write a professional, direct and proper memo to get their targeted readers motivation to act. If they had, neither of these terrible accidents would have happened. Boisjoly, Roger (1985). “Memo from Roger Boisjoly on O-Ring Erosion”. Morton Thiokol, Inc. Wasatch Division, Interoffice Memo. Print. Dunn, Burt. (1978). “Operator Interruption of High Pressure Injection”. The Babcock and Wilcox Company Power Generation Group. Print. Read More