Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Background of the Two Nuclear Accidents
The Causes of Disasters
The Principles of Engineering Ethics
Breach of Ethics in Chernobyl and Three Mile Island
The Comparison of Ethical Implications in the Two Cases
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Ethical obligations are intrinsic to any profession; nonetheless, people often make little account of them, giving priority to the efficiency and accomplishments of their work. In occupational spheres where moral qualities are not considered important, ones mistake usually has minor, short-term, and reversible consequences. However, in some cases, a breach of ethics can lead to significant detrimental outcomes. Negligence or an irresponsible attitude to work poses a threat to peoples safety, as it happened on the Three Mile Island, and result in long-term catastrophic repercussions, as illustrated by the Chernobyl tragedy. The two accidents serve as valuable lessons and warnings, showing the essential role of the human factor in the nuclear power industry. The well-functioning mechanisms and automated processes cannot guarantee stability and safety because an individual who makes major decisions is still prone to error. To review the mentioned events in the context of engineering ethics, it is necessary to study their history, causes, the underlying code of conduct, and professionals relative adherence to it.

The Background of the Two Nuclear Accidents

The Chernobyl disaster is known for its drastic impact not only on the Ukrainian population and environment but also on the whole world. As Plokhy (2019) explains, the engineers working on the nuclear power plant were given the task to improve the automatic shutdown mechanisms and, consequently, establish a new emergency safety system. The ministry prompted them to run a corresponding test that would imitate the conditions of power failure (Plokhy, 2019). None of the workers had expected that the procedure would disrupt protective appliances. However, on April 6, 1986, an abrupt power emission during the reactor system test had caused an intense explosion (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). The resulting fire contributed to the destruction of Unit 4 and the extensive spread of radiation (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). Thus, the intention to enhance the work of the plant in case of emergency has turned into the worst nuclear catastrophe globally.

Despite the significant efforts of the responders to the Chernobyl accident, its consequences included the creation of the exclusion zone, peoples deaths, and worsening of the populations health. The remaining reactors were eventually stopped, and the area within 30 kilometers of the plant was closed (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). Shortly after the disaster, 28 workers died, many others suffered from the radiation, and millions of people were exposed to the adverse impact in the contaminated areas (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). The drastic event has also led to the change in the mental health of the affected individuals. They are prone to depression, addictive behaviors, and anxiety; some people experience unrecognized physical symptoms, overestimate their conditions, and make negative predictions regarding their life span (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). The disasters widely spread outcomes should motivate society to pay more attention to safety within the industry.

The Three Mile Island occurrence is considered the most serious nuclear accident which happened in the United States. The personnel working on the plant on March 28, 1979, were unaware of the emergency feedwater valves closure after a maintenance procedure, which had an ultimate influence on their further actions (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). The absence of the main feedwater had stopped the turbine and caused a chain of complicated events and alarms which misled the operators into making wrong decisions (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). They had also missed the fact of inadequate core cooling and the failure of Power Operated Relief Valves, which resulted in radiation releases and gathering of hydrogen in the reactors vessel (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). The accident did not bring dangerous consequences because the large explosion was avoided. Nonetheless, being on the verge of the catastrophe makes that day on Three Mile Island admonitory.

The implications of the nuclear plant accident in the United States were realized later. According to Filburn and Bullard (2016), although peoples exposure to the radiation was insignificant and they did not suffer from long-term health issues, the event entailed economic losses. The rectification of the consequences demanded time and money ten years and approximately one billion dollars respectively (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). Removing the fuel remains and the subsequent careful examination of the ill-conditioned components helped investigate the matter, and the proper recycling of radioactive waste ensured safety on the plants territory (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). Moreover, Three Mile Island aims at full decontamination of Unit 2 by 2034 (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). The accident did not impact the environmental situation in the region and did not worsen the residents health, but it caused financial troubles for the involved parties.

The Causes of Disasters

The Chernobyl catastrophe is viewed as unprecedented because of its unique circumstances and contributing factors. First of all, the utilized RBMK reactor included a mixture of a graphite moderator and water coolant and was considered unacceptable outside the Soviet Union because of its instability (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). It means that the respective authorities ignored the risks associated with the items characteristics. The reactors conditions were difficult to predict at low power due to its peculiarities: the absence of cooling water increased the speed of the nuclear chain reaction and power output (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Secondly, the plant was less protected in comparison with similar buildings in the world. It was deprived of the reinforced containment structure, which allowed radioactive materials to enter the environment (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Consequently, the Chernobyl power station was not prepared for emergency situations, which made it much more dangerous than other nuclear plants.

There is no doubt that the causes of the Chernobyl tragedy are also related to the human factor. As stated in Low Safety Culture (2019), at that time, economic and sociopolitical aspects in the atomic energy sphere were not legally regulated. There was no person fully responsible for the safety of nuclear power utilization (Low Safety Culture, 2019). The plants Unit 4 was subject to prearranged maintenance; and operators had to perform the procedures determining whether the equipment can maintain enough power for the cooling system during the transition phase (Plokhy, 2019). However, the workers did not take proper precautions when performing the system testing because they were not aware of the existing risks. Most importantly, they were under the pressure of the deputy chief engineer, focused on the task accomplishment, and could not prioritize safety (Low Safety Culture, 2019). Thus, the system of seniority prevailed overprotective measures, leading to the disaster.

Regarding Three Mile Island, the reasons for the accident included minor failures of equipment and inadequate control instrumentation. The chain of events began when the malfunction of the secondary cooling circuit increased the temperature, the subsequent step of the reactor occurred, and the relief valve could not close (World Nuclear Association, 2020). However, the control room instrumentation did not detect the problem. The unnoticed stuck of the pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) has led to a series of misconceptions, which prevented the staff from the timely and effective actions and shifted their focus in the wrong direction. They underestimated the significance of the PORV and the block valve because the manufacturer was unaware of its safety function during accident loads (Rosztoczy, 2019). The flaws in the design of the plant systems had led to confusion during their handling.

The Three Mile Island accident was not deprived of human errors as well. Because of the deficient instrumentation with indicators and the lack of training in a similar situation, the operators could not decide on the appropriate course of actions. Rosztoczy (2019) explains that unable to find the problem, they were improvising and counted on the pressurizer water level data. The employees made several mistakes, such as shutting the emergency core cooling system, opening the letdown line, missing overheating of the core, and injecting radioactive water into the auxiliary building (Rosztoczy, 2019). These errors were fixed late as the partial meltdown had already occurred. Besides, the operators training constituted their preparation for the worst scenario. Their treatment of the situation as a minor did not allow seeing it as potentially dangerous and prevented the workers from reacting to it more seriously (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). Therefore, the incorrect approach to the staff coaching subjected the power station to a disturbing experience.

The Principles of Engineering Ethics

Those individuals who are involved in the nuclear industry should recognize the basic moral values connected with radiological protection. The first one involves beneficence, which is the facilitation of good, and nonmaleficence the avoidance of doing harm. The principles are realized in the protection of society from the adverse influence of radiation and minimizing the likelihood of threats (Cho et al., 2018). The second prudence means ones competence to make informed and thought-out choices depending on what they can do in the given circumstances (Cho et al., 2018). The virtue is related to the obligation to monitor radiological conditions and make sound decisions even when facing uncertainties (Cho et al., 2018). The third value is dignity; it implies that every individual deserves unconditional respect and has the right to take or reject the risk (Cho et al., 2018). The final principle justice constitutes the equal distribution of benefits and losses, which means that peoples exposure to radiation should be limited, but not at the expense of others (Cho et al., 2018). The underlying ethical values should become a norm for the workers of nuclear power plants.

The practical application of moral principles can be reflected in such aspects as accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness. The first concept obliges a person or an organization to take responsibility for their actions and related consequences, as well as the provided advice, given order, and developed requirements (Cho et al., 2018). The second one means the establishment of explicit procedures and demands, ensuring unimpeded access to the information which impacts society and the environment (Cho et al., 2018). The last aspect reflects the freedom of stakeholder participation, allowing for the possibility to involve other people besides specialists in the radiological protection because it serves their interests (Cho et al., 2018). The collaboration between the experienced professionals and stakeholders helps them approach an issue in a comprehensive manner and contributes to mutual understanding. The adherence to the accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness elements is the key to upholding safety within the nuclear industry.

Engineers are respectable professionals; given the nature of their work, they are expected to follow the most demanding guidelines of ethical conduct and conform to the corresponding code. The National Society of Professional Engineers offers a comprehensive, detailed, and well-organized set of requirements for the individuals choosing this occupation. It outlines the rules of practice, dividing them into five categories (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). According to the code, engineers should prioritize the publics safety, health and welfare, work only in the spheres of their competence, and deliver unbiased information to the population (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). Furthermore, the representatives of this profession should be faithful to their employers and clients and refrain from fraudulent acts (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). The engineering practice means complying with the highest ethical standards.

People working in the nuclear industry are prepared to undertake a number of obligations connected to their job. For example, engineers make honesty and integrity their moral priority, serve the public interest, avoid potentially misleading actions, and preserve the confidentiality of the clients or employees (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). They do not allow conflicting interests to hinder their judgment and do not purposefully worsen the reputation of colleagues to obtain a promotion (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). On the contrary, the professionals recognize the proprietary rights of others and accept personal responsibility for their work (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). The National Society of Professional Engineers recognizes that their activities directly influence peoples quality of life, setting enhanced demands regarding ones virtues. Such an attitude is commendable and promising in terms of the safety of nuclear power stations.

Breach of Ethics in Chernobyl and Three Mile Island

The tragedy of Chernobyl and its causes can be explained by the absence of certain ethical standards, beginning from the government officials and ending with ordinary performers. The desire to keep pace with other countries has prompted the Soviet Union led to building own nuclear power plant. Nikita Khrushchev ignored the engineers warnings that it would be dangerous to use uranium-graphite channel-type reactors to produce electricity (Low Safety Culture, 2019). The alternative options were inapproachable because of the technological complexity of the reactor vessel production (Low Safety Culture, 2019). Thus, one can perceive the leaders decision as contradicting the principles of nonmaleficence, accountability, and inclusiveness: he did not prevent harm, possess a sense of responsibility, and consider the public interests. Moreover, Khrushchev was acting beyond his area of competence, refusing to accept the advice of specialists in the field. Such breach of ethics has served as a prerequisite for future disaster, given the flawed design of the reactor.

A further breach of ethics can be seen right before the accident on the Chernobyl station and even afterward. As evident from the background description, the plant operators were forced to perform a risky procedure, prioritizing the deputy chief engineers orders over safety (Low Safety Culture, 2019). The head manager did not adhere to the principles of prudence and dignity, threatening everyones well-being and showing no respect for his employees. He also did not demonstrate the willingness to ensure public welfare. When the catastrophe occurred, despite the reactors flawed design, the officials could have limited radioactive exposure (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Nonetheless, the plant operators hid the news from authorities and the affected population, which led to the late evacuation alert and peoples consumption of contaminated food (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Such actions signify the breach of nonmaleficence, justice, transparency, as well as providing false information, ignoring public interests, and avoiding accountability. The continued disregard of ethics has resulted in long-term and extensive outcomes.

The Three Mile Island accident presents slightly different aspects, given that its consequences were manageable and reversible. Firstly, the safety function of PORV was disrupted because such a requirement was not indicated in its purchase order (Rosztoczy, 2019). The supplier did not comprehend the clients demand, which illustrates the violation of beneficence, prudence, and inclusiveness due to poor communication and the reluctance to reach mutual understanding. Secondly, the design of the control room was not well-thought-out because the operators found it difficult to notice and interpret the indicators (World Nuclear Association, 2020). It means that the individuals responsible for this work did not organize the procedures explicitly and did not strive to contribute to the employees welfare and favorable job conditions. These various shortcomings had affected the involved personnel, causing their quite rambling actions and making their diagnostic process increasingly complicated.

The plants staff had played the greatest role in the Three Mile Island disaster because of their non-adherence to the expected ethical conduct. Some of the operators were not experienced enough to handle emergency cases, and the previous training did not seem to prepare them for such situations. It included the mitigation of the presupposed accidents, but very small of them, such as PORV failure, were not analyzed by the designer and consequently were excluded from the program (Rosztoczy, 2019). Without considering the stations reaction to such a breakdown, instructors had taught the operators to rely on the pressurizer water level indication for water level measurements

in the reactor coolant system (Rosztoczy, 2019). The individuals who had developed the training of operators demonstrated the breach of accountability and beneficence because they did not offer a comprehensive preparation that would prove their professionalism and become useful to the students. In turn, the operators did not act within their area of competence as their knowledge was insufficient during the accident. The companys staff should have been educated on the engineering code of conduct to comply with the necessary requirements.

The Comparison of Ethical Implications in the Two Cases

The difference in the consequences of the two discussed disasters is significant because of the variations in the ethical culture of the United States and the Soviet Union. While the related issues were regulated in the U.S. during the corresponding accident, the USSR did not have clearly developed rules of professional conduct in the nuclear industry (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). In addition, the economic progress of the foreign countries has placed the latter state in an unfavorable position. To withstand the competition, the Soviet Union had to make fast decisions and focus on efficiency and production volume, ignoring ethical obligations, including safety (Low Safety Culture, 2019). The authoritarian regimen disapproved initiative and demanded upholding the system of seniority. Conversely, the U.S. continued to promote democratic values and recognized the importance of collaboration. Therefore, the existence of ethical standards and better technical conditions did not result in the tragedy in Three Mile Island, but placing competition and authority before safety caused the Chernobyl tragedy.

The dissimilar outcomes of the accidents can be commented on based on the different attitudes to the precautions, which can be partially attributed to the peoples mentality. The Chernobyl disaster was provoked because of the breach of transparency and accountability. The workers performed a dangerous test without being aware of the potential consequences as the leaders ignored or hid these details (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). The procedure was not accompanied by the proper safety procedures because nobody was responsible solely for this aspect (Low Safety Culture, 2019). On the Three Mile Island plant, the employees did not conduct questionable procedures under pressure and were just subject to an unexpected situation. They took corrective actions as soon as possible, and the serious influence of the accident was avoided (Rosztoczy, 2019). Thus, taking safety measures means following ethical standards and preventing detrimental events.

Nevertheless, both disasters involved a breach of engineering ethics and needed improvement in this realm. The accidents have revealed gaps in the leaders and subordinates accountability, prudence, and transparency, which formed the prerequisites for the occurred issues (Low Safety Culture, 2019). Some individuals acted beyond their competency area and provided misleading information, for instance, the chief engineer on the Chernobyl nuclear station and the managers organizing the training of employees on Three Mile Island. Furthermore, both accidents have illustrated the incidences of violating the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and inclusiveness, revealing the professionals inability to sympathize and communicate in an efficient manner. The underlying standards of honesty and integrity were not followed as well. One can notice that every breach of ethical obligations can hinder the safety of the enterprise, which is why it is crucial to uphold the existing codes of conduct within the nuclear industry.

Conclusion

The analysis of engineering ethics related to the disasters in Chernobyl and on Three Mile Island requires examining their backgrounds and factors, viewing the accepted principles and standards, and assessing compliance of the involved parties. The former tragedy has happened after the system test resulted in the massive explosion, peoples deaths, diseases, and considerable harm to the local environment. The latter accident involved partial melting of the reactors core due to the unnoticed problem and incorrect series of actions; it entailed mostly economic losses. The causes of the Chernobyl event included poor design of the reactor and the human factor, while the Three Mile Island incident occurred due to minor equipment deficiencies and the insufficient preparation of the operators. In this light, the obligatory aspects of industry ethics encompass nonmaleficence, prudence, justice, dignity, accountability, transparency, and inclusivity. In the Chernobyl case, mostly all involved individuals violated at least one ethical principle, while in the other event the breach was limited to the designers fault and inadequate training of the employees. The comparison of the disasters allows concluding that improving the ethical culture will help enhance nuclear power safety.

References

Cho, K. W. et al. (2018). ICRP Publication 138: Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. Annals of the ICRP, 47(1), 1-65.

Filburn, T., & Bullard, S. (2016). Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima: Curse of the nuclear genie. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Low safety culture of the entire system The cause of the Chernobyl accident. (2019).

National Society of Professional Engineers. (2019). Code of ethics for engineers [PDF document].

Plokhy, S. (2019). Chernobyl: History of a tragedy. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Rosztoczy, Z. R. (2019). Root causes of the Three Mile Island accident. Nuclear News.

The Nuclear Energy Institute. (2019). Chernobyl accident and its consequences.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2018). Backgrounder on Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident.

World Nuclear Association. (2020). Three Mile Island accident.

Click Here To Order Now!