NUCLEAR ENERGY

• IN THE 1950S AND 1960S, NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WERE SEEN AS THE POWER SOURCE OF THE FUTURE
BECAUSE THE FUEL THEY USE IS CLEAN AND PLENTIFUL.
• IN THE 1970S AND 1980S, HOWEVER, MANY PLANNED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WERE CANCELLED AND OTHERS
UNDER CONSTRUCTION WERE ABANDONED.
• TODAY, NUCLEAR POWER ABOUT 14% OF THE WORLD’S ELECTRICITY.
LOCATION
• AN ISLAND LOCATED ON THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER NEAR MIDDLETOWN
PENNSYLVANIA.
3 MILE ISLAND REACTOR
WHAT HAPPENED ?
In 1979 at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in USAa cooling malfunction caused part of the
core to melt in the # 2 reactor.The TMI-2 reactor wasdestroyed.

The operators believed the relief valve had shut becauseinstruments showed them that a"close"
signal wassent to thevalve.

This in turn causedthe reactorto shut downautomatically.

The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to
recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and
human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to
ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface...

Plant staff took a series of actions that made the problem worse. These further starved the
reactor core of water flow and caused it to overheat.
 WHAT HAPPENED ?
In particular, a hidden indicator light led to an operator manually overriding the
automatic emergency cooling system of the reactor because the operator mistakenly
believed that there was too much coolant water present in the reactor and causing the
steam pressure release

The nuclear fuel began to melt through its metal container—about half the reactor
core melted. Trace amounts of radioactive gasses escaped into the surrounding
community as a geyser of steam erupted from the top of the plant.

The melting fuel created a large hydrogen bubble inside the unit that officials worried
might cause an explosion, releasing even larger amounts of radioactive material.
 AFTERMATH
• TWENTY-EIGHT HOURS AFTER THE ACCIDENT BEGAN, WILLIAM SCRANTON THE THIRD, THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR, APPEARED AT A NEWS BRIEFING TO SAY THAT METROPOLITAN EDISON, THE PLANT'S OWNER, HAD
ASSURED THE STATE THAT "EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL". LATER THAT DAY, SCRANTON CHANGED HIS
STATEMENT, SAYING THAT THE SITUATION WAS "MORE COMPLEX THAN THE COMPANY FIRST LED US TO
BELIEVE." THERE WERE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS ABOUT RADIOACTIVITY RELEASES. SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED
AND RESIDENTS WERE URGED TO STAY INDOORS. FARMERS WERE TOLD TO KEEP THEIR ANIMALS UNDER COVER
AND ON STORED FEED
 AFTERMATH
• GOVERNOR DICK THORNBURGH, ON THE ADVICE OF NRC CHAIRMAN JOSEPH HENDRIE, ADVISED THE EVACUATION
"OF PREGNANT WOMEN AND PRE-SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN...WITHIN A FIVE-MILE RADIUS OF THE THREE MILE
ISLAND FACILITY." THE EVACUATION ZONE WAS EXTENDED TO A 20-MILE RADIUS ON FRIDAY MARCH 30. WITHIN
DAYS, 140,000 PEOPLE HAD LEFT THE AREA. MORE THAN HALF OF THE 663,500 POPULATION WITHIN THE 20-MILE
RADIUS REMAINED IN THAT AREA.
• THE CRISIS ENDED THREE DAYS LATER WHEN EXPERTS DETERMINED THE HYDROGEN BUBBLE COULD NOT BURN OR
EXPLODE.
• ACCORDING TO A SURVEY CONDUCTED IN APRIL 1979, 98% OF THE EVACUEES HAD RETURNED TO THEIR HOMES
WITHIN THREE WEEKS.
 3 MILE ISLAND IMPACT
Some radioactive gas was released a The cleanup of the damaged
couple of days after the accident, but nuclear reactor system at TMI-
Because of those concerns, the
not enough to cause any dose above 2 took nearly 12 years and cost
Pennsylvania Department of Health
background levels to local residents. approximately US$973 million.
for 18 years maintained a registry of
There were no injuries or adverse The cleanup was uniquely
more than 30,000 people who lived
health effects from the Three Mile challenging technically and
within five miles of Three Mile Island
Island accident. radiologically.
at the time of the accident. The
The Three Mile Island accident caused Plant surfaces had to be
state's registry was discontinued in
concerns about the possibility of decontaminated. Water used and
mid 1997, without any evidence of
radiation-induced health effects, stored during the cleanup had to
unusual health trends in the area.
principally cancer, in the area surrounding be processed.
the plant.
 3 MILE ISLAND IMPACT
100 tonnes of damaged uranium fuel
In the cleanup's closing phases, in
had to be removed from the reactor
1991, final measurements were
vessel -- all without hazardto cleanup
taken of the fuel remaining in In October 1985, after nearly six
workers or the public.
inaccessible parts of the reactor years of preparations, workers
A cleanup plan was developed and
vessel. standing on a platform atop the
carried out safely and successfully by
Approximately one percent of the reactor and manipulating long-
a team of more than 1000 skilled
fuel and debris remains in the handled tools began lifting the
workers. It began in August 1979,
vessel. fuel into canisters that hung
with the first shipments of accident-
Also in 1991, the last remaining beneath the platform.
generated low-level radiological
water was pumped from the TMI-2 In all, 342 fuel canisters were
waste to Richland, Washington.
reactor. The cleanup ended in shipped safely for long-term
December 1993, when Unit 2 storage at the Idaho National
received a license from the NRCto Laboratory, a program that was
enter Post Defueling Monitored completed in April 1990.
Storage (PDMS).
 ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT
• THE THREE MILE ISLAND INCIDENT HELPED TO GALVANIZE THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT IN THE
UNITED STATES. THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT EMERGED AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT AGAINST THE
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ARMS RACE IN THE EARLY 1960S AT THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR.
• HIGH PROFILE PROTESTS IN RESPONSE TO THE EVENTS AT THREE MILE ISLAND TOOK PLACE AROUND
THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING ONE IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1979 INVOLVING 200,000 PEOPLE.
3 MILE ISLAND FLASHBACK
THE ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
NUCLEAR FUEL IS A VERY CONCENTRATED ENERGY SOURCE.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS DO NOT PRODUCE AIR-POLLUTING GASES.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS RELEASE LESS RADIOACTIVITY THAN COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS DO, WHEN
OPERATED PROPERLY.
COUNTRIES WITH LIMITED FOSSIL-FUEL RESOURCES RELY HEAVILY ON NUCLEAR PLANTS TO SUPPLY
ELECTRICITY.
 WHY AREN’T WE USING MORE NUCLEAR
ENERGY?
• BUILDING AND MAINTAINING A SAFE REACTOR IS VERY EXPENSIVE.
• THIS MAKES NUCLEAR PLANTS UNCOMPETITIVE WITH OTHER ENERGY SOURCES IN MANY COUNTRIES.
• THE ACTUAL COST OF NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IS UNCERTAIN, SO IT IS DIFFICULT TO PREDICT WHETHER
INVESTORS WILL BUILD NEW PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
STORING WASTE
oTHE GREATEST DISADVANTAGE OF NUCLEAR POWER IS THE DIFFICULTY IN FINDING A SAFE PLACE TO STORE
NUCLEAR WASTE.
oTHE FISSION PRODUCTS PRODUCED CAN REMAIN DANGEROUSLY RADIOACTIVE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
oSTORAGE SITES FOR NUCLEAR WASTES MUST BE LOCATED IN AREAS THAT ARE GEOLOGICALLY STABLE FOR TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
oSCIENTISTS ARE RESEARCHING WAYS TO RECYCLE THE RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS IN NUCLEAR FUEL.
SAFETY CONCERNS
THE ROOT CAUSE REVEALED TO THE TMI ACCIDENT AS IDENTIFIED IN KEMENY REPORT, (THE REACTOR SAFETY
COMMISSION IN 1979) ARE:
• INSTRUMENTATION MALFUNCTION STUCK OPEN VALVE WITH NO INDICATION IN THE CONTROL ROOM.
• INACCURATE PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELIEF VALVES.
• NEGLECT OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM OTHER SIMILAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INCIDENTS.
SAFETY CONCERNS
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE LACK OF SAFETY CULTURE AMONG THE REGULATORS, SITE MANAGEMENT, AND
TECHNICAL EXPERTS BY THE NEGLECTING LESSON LEARNED FROM OTHER NUCLEAR PLANT INCIDENTS TO BE
INCORPORATED INTO THE PLANT DESIGN LED TO THAT ACCIDENT.
 THE OPERATOR REACTION TO THE FAULTY INSTRUMENT WAS ANOTHER INDICATION OF ABSENCE OF THE
HUMAN RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT DURING THE PRE-OPERATIONAL STAGE.
FORTUNATELY, ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE GAS ESCAPED.
SINCE THAT ACCIDENT, THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HAS PROVIDED NUMEROUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS TO NUCLEAR PLANTS.
 3 MILE ISLAND LESSON
Training reforms are among the most significant
outcomes of the TMI-2accident. Training became
centred on protecting a plant's cooling capacity,
whatever the triggering problem might be.
At TMI-2, the operators turned to a book of procedures to
pick those that seemed to fit the event. Now operators
are taken through a set of "yes-no" questions to ensure,
first, that the reactor's fuel core remainscovered. Training
has gone well beyond button- pushing. Communications
and teamwork, emphasizing effective interaction among
crew members, are now part of TMI's training curriculum.
Close tohalf of the operators' training is in a full-scale
electronic simulator of the TMI control room. The $18
million simulator permits operators to learn and be tested
on all kinds of accident scenarios.
Disciplines in training, operations and event reporting that
grew from the lessons of the TMI-2 accident have made
the nuclear power industry demonstrably safer and more
reliable. Those trends have been both promoted and
tracked by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations
(INPO).
On the reliability front, the median capability factor for
nuclear plants - the percentage of maximum energy that
aplant is capable of generating - increased from
62.7 percent in 1980 to almost 90 percent in 2000. (The
goal for the year 2000 was 87 percent.)
 3 MILE ISLAND LESSON
Applying the accident's lessons produced important,
continuing improvement in the performance of all
nuclear power plants.
The accident fostered better understanding of fuel melting,
including improbability of a "China Syndrome" meltdown
breaching the reactor vessel and the containment structure.
Public confidence in nuclear energy, particularly in USA,
declined sharply following the Three Mile Island accident. It
was a major cause of the decline in nuclear construction
through the 1980s and 1990s.
The safety provisions include a series of physical barriers
between the radioactive reactor core and the
environment, the provision of multiple safety systems,
each with backup and designed to accommodate human
error.
Safety systems account for about one quarter of the
capital cost of such reactors. As well as the physical
aspects of safety, there are institutional aspectswhich
are no less important.
The barriers in a typical plant are: the fuel is in the form
of solid ceramic (UO2) pellets, and radioactive fission
products remain largely bound inside these pellets as
the fuel is burned. The pellets are packed inside sealed
zirconium alloy tubes to form fuel rods.
All this, in turn, is enclosed inside a robust reinforced
concrete containment structure with walls at least one
metre thick. This amounts to three significant barriers
around the fuel, which itself is stable up to very high
temperatures.
COMMON SAFETY CULTURE
THE COMMON SAFETY CULTURE THEME THAT CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM THE THREE MOST PROMINENT NPP(FCT) ACCIDENTS ARE:
• A MINDSET OF THE MANAGEMENT THAT IGNORE SEVERE ACCIDENTS POSSIBILITY.
• A FAILURE TO MAKE EFFECTIVE DESIGN MAKING BASE ON USE OF OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE LESSONS LEARNED.
• INEFFECTIVE SAFETY AND RISK ASSESSMENTS.
• POOR SYSTEMATICAL RESPONSE TO SEVERE ACCIDENT.
• INEFFECTIVE TRAINING.
• FAILURE TO PREDICT AND MANAGE PLANT BEHAVIOR UNDER ABNORMAL CONDITIONS.
• LACK OF A QUESTIONING ATTITUDE, AND
• DEFICIENT WORK PROCESSES
NEED OF USING SAFETY CULTURE
 SAFETY CULTURE IS PROVEN TO BE THE ONLY RESORT TO ENHANCE THE SAFETY PERFORMANCE IN ANY COMPLEX
TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS SUCH AS NPPS.
 THE SAFETY CULTURE STARTS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL. ALL THE SEVERE NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT ACCIDENTS RESULTED FROM DEFICIENCIES OF THEIR SAFETY CULTURE.
 IT IS MERELY IMPORTANT FOR THE NEWCOMERS TO GIVE THE SAFETY CULTURE AND NAMELY THE HUMAN AND
ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS ENOUGH ATTENTION DURING THE PLANNING PHASE TO AVOID FUTURE ACCIDENTS.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
ONE POSSIBLE FUTURE ENERGY SOURCE IS NUCLEAR FUSION.
NUCLEAR FUSION IS THE COMBINATION OF THE NUCLEI OF SMALL ATOMS TO FORM A LARGER NUCLEUS.
FUSION RELEASES TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY.
IT IS POTENTIALLY A SAFER ENERGY SOURCE THAN NUCLEAR FISSION IS BECAUSE IT CREATES LESS
DANGEROUS RADIOACTIVE BYPRODUCTS.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
• ALTHOUGH THE POTENTIAL FOR NUCLEAR FUSION IS GREAT, SO IS THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY OF
ACHIEVING THAT POTENTIAL.
• THE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS ARE SO COMPLEX THAT BUILDING A NUCLEAR FUSION PLANT MAY
TAKE DECADES OR MAY NEVER HAPPEN.
• POTENTIAL FUTURE FISSION NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDE LIGHT WATER REACTORS
OR HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS REACTORS.
 REFERENCES
 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.html
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
 https://www.history.com/topics/1970s/three-mile-island