Big Carl

[julianthegypsy]

Except the ones in Chernobyl.

And Fukushima. And Three Mile Island...

 

[fizzy]

And Fukushima. And Three Mile Island...

How many died at either site?
None.
Fortunately we don't get many mega Tsunamis here. Geography a tad wrong. Our volcanoes went extinct a long time ago

 

[dobbslc]

I thought there's one awakening in Scotland under @slim_boy_fat ...

 

[fizzy]

I thought there's one awakening in Scotland under @slim_boy_fat ...

Edinburgh does have an extinct volcano.
350 million years old. Britain is pretty stable geologically speaking.
Whilst Japan lies in an area known as the ring of fire.

 

[julianthegypsy]

How many died at either site?
None.
Fortunately we don't get many mega Tsunamis here. Geography a tad wrong. Our volcanoes went extinct a long time ago

It's not geography that's the problem. They knew the tsunami risk but put the water pumps at the bottom of the hill anyway because it was cheaper. Three mile island, I believe was caused by the fuel rods being put in the wrong way round. In all of these, it's not the technology, but another factor. Chernobyl I believe, they were practicing to see what would happen if the cooling failed? Now who would do all these things? People. Human people would.

 

[Bullet2012]

Have visions of you running round in a Batman suit, singing the old theme tune.

 

[daleyd]

 

[Bullet2012]

 

[Bullet2012]

 

[Maker]

one of my students works at that site. Some of the stuff they do there is just fascinating

I've just applied for a grad scheme with Atkins, I might end up there with a bit of luck.

 

[Bullet2012]

 

[Parm]

I've just applied for a grad scheme with Atkins, I might end up there with a bit of luck.

Good luck. From what he says it’s a top place to work. I can put you in touch with him if you want

 

[fizzy]

I've just applied for a grad scheme with Atkins, I might end up there with a bit of luck.

Best of luck!

 

[Maker]

Good luck. From what he says it’s a top place to work. I can put you in touch with him if you want

Cheers, I'll let you know if I get anywhere with it, most places I'm applying just say Sod Off Ugly.

 

[James1979]

Cheers, I'll let you know if I get anywhere with it, most places I'm applying just say Sod Off Ugly.

Stop including a photo then…..


Ps good luck

 

[Carl Wilson]

The background and cause of the incident at Chernobyl is far from straightforward and encompasses a swathe of different fields of influence.

Although the RBMK was a flawed design, it was possible to operate it within safe parameters, as long as those doing so understood well the conditions under which it could be kept safe. Having said that, every RBMK they built was essentially a prototype, and the control of the units was largely manual, relying on experienced, knowledgeable engineers monitoring various operational factors and tweaking as required. One of the general key design flaws, aside from the construction of the actual reactor itself, was the exclusion of any kind of environmental shield that was integral to the design. They basically built a reactor vessel and then built a shed around it. This was done in order to get the units up and running as quickly as possible. One of Lenin's key tenets was (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Communism is Soviet Power plus Electricity". So you can see that the mass electrification of the country was seen as an ideological prerogative, not just as an infrastructural or engineering issue.

On the night of the accident, the control room staff were supposed to be conducting a "safety test". This involved running the reactor to a low power setting and then shutting off the turbines driving the main generators. The idea was to see if it was possible to use the power being generated as the turbines and generators ran down to operate the cooling pumps for a short period of time, until the back up diesel generators kicked in and picked up the load of the pumps. The reason this test came about was down to an air attack a few years earlier that the Israeli's had made on a similar RBMK in Iran, in which the cooling system had been damaged.

Due to various delays, the test did not go according to plan. Then when the next shift came on, the order came in to increase the reactor power to meet demand. Dyatlov, the control room supervising engineer, ordered his team to do this, despite the unit being in a dangerous condition. To be fair to them, they had no idea that the unit could get itself into such a condition in the first place. The thing is, Bryukhanov, the plant Chief, who was a decorated "Hero of Socialist Labour" for his past efforts in the Nuclear industry, had already signed off on the test. So there was a lot of pressure on the teams to carry it out. That was then compounded by an order to raise reactor power, which if disobeyed would most likely have had serious consequences. We all know what happened next.

The RBMK was a flawed design, but the basic engineering - the welding, machining, electrics etc to put it together were as good as anywhere else. It was the Soviet system - fear of reprisals if orders were not carried out, fear of superiors and an overbearing attitude from supervisors - that caused the accident. Also in the USSR the nuclear industry was considered to be a state secret, and this further compounded the extent of the problem after the accident happened, as the Soviet Authorities did not seek international assistance until far too late.

I studied the case as part of an H&S thing I did. It is actually quite remarkable how many times you see the sort of attitudes that lead to this accident in my industry. I have started referring to certain things as "Chernobyl moments". And no, before you ask, I am not an HSE Nazi, I am just an ordinary Joe who doesn't fancy getting turned into mincemeat because some Charlie decides they can shave 30 seconds off the time it takes to do something by cutting corners.

 

[Parm]

The background and cause of the incident at Chernobyl is far from straightforward and encompasses a swathe of different fields of influence.

Although the RBMK was a flawed design, it was possible to operate it within safe parameters, as long as those doing so understood well the conditions under which it could be kept safe. Having said that, every RBMK they built was essentially a prototype, and the control of the units was largely manual, relying on experienced, knowledgeable engineers monitoring various operational factors and tweaking as required. One of the general key design flaws, aside from the construction of the actual reactor itself, was the exclusion of any kind of environmental shield that was integral to the design. They basically built a reactor vessel and then built a shed around it. This was done in order to get the units up and running as quickly as possible. One of Lenin's key tenets was (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Communism is Soviet Power plus Electricity". So you can see that the mass electrification of the country was seen as an ideological prerogative, not just as an infrastructural or engineering issue.

On the night of the accident, the control room staff were supposed to be conducting a "safety test". This involved running the reactor to a low power setting and then shutting off the turbines driving the main generators. The idea was to see if it was possible to use the power being generated as the turbines and generators ran down to operate the cooling pumps for a short period of time, until the back up diesel generators kicked in and picked up the load of the pumps. The reason this test came about was down to an air attack a few years earlier that the Israeli's had made on a similar RBMK in Iran, in which the cooling system had been damaged.

Due to various delays, the test did not go according to plan. Then when the next shift came on, the order came in to increase the reactor power to meet demand. Dyatlov, the control room supervising engineer, ordered his team to do this, despite the unit being in a dangerous condition. To be fair to them, they had no idea that the unit could get itself into such a condition in the first place. The thing is, Bryukhanov, the plant Chief, who was a decorated "Hero of Socialist Labour" for his past efforts in the Nuclear industry, had already signed off on the test. So there was a lot of pressure on the teams to carry it out. That was then compounded by an order to raise reactor power, which if disobeyed would most likely have had serious consequences. We all know what happened next.

The RBMK was a flawed design, but the basic engineering - the welding, machining, electrics etc to put it together were as good as anywhere else. It was the Soviet system - fear of reprisals if orders were not carried out, fear of superiors and an overbearing attitude from supervisors - that caused the accident. Also in the USSR the nuclear industry was considered to be a state secret, and this further compounded the extent of the problem after the accident happened, as the Soviet Authorities did not seek international assistance until far too late.

I studied the case as part of an H&S thing I did. It is actually quite remarkable how many times you see the sort of attitudes that lead to this accident in my industry. I have started referring to certain things as "Chernobyl moments". And no, before you ask, I am not an HSE Nazi, I am just an ordinary Joe who doesn't fancy getting turned into mincemeat because some Charlie decides they can shave 30 seconds off the time it takes to do something by cutting corners.

An interesting read and broadly similar to the Union Carbide incident in India which I read as uni case study, then the Piper Alpha disaster.

Human factors involved in each case

 

[Lewis_RX8]

An interesting read and broadly similar to the Union Carbide incident in India which I read as uni case study, then the Piper Alpha disaster.

Human factors involved in each case

Any recommendation for light reading or watching on piper alpha, not to your level of course but just being in that industry would be nice to more about it watched one or two bits and pieces and mentioned in some HSE at work so got a rough idea but nothing proper.

 

[Parm]

Any recommendation for light reading or watching on piper alpha, not to your level of course but just being in that industry would be nice to more about it watched one or two bits and pieces and mentioned in some HSE at work so got a rough idea but nothing proper.

Piper Alpha: The Disaster in Detail

Fiona Macleod, chair of the Loss Prevention Bulletin Editorial Panel, and Stephen Richardson, an expert witness in the Piper Alpha, review the causes of the Piper Alpha disaster, the findings of the investigation, and challenge you, the reader, to answer a series of questions about safety where...

www.thechemicalengineer.com

This is a good one, often used as foundation reading material as part of a complex case study project

 

[Ubique]

The background and cause of the incident at Chernobyl is far from straightforward and encompasses a swathe of different fields of influence.

Although the RBMK was a flawed design, it was possible to operate it within safe parameters, as long as those doing so understood well the conditions under which it could be kept safe. Having said that, every RBMK they built was essentially a prototype, and the control of the units was largely manual, relying on experienced, knowledgeable engineers monitoring various operational factors and tweaking as required. One of the general key design flaws, aside from the construction of the actual reactor itself, was the exclusion of any kind of environmental shield that was integral to the design. They basically built a reactor vessel and then built a shed around it. This was done in order to get the units up and running as quickly as possible. One of Lenin's key tenets was (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Communism is Soviet Power plus Electricity". So you can see that the mass electrification of the country was seen as an ideological prerogative, not just as an infrastructural or engineering issue.

On the night of the accident, the control room staff were supposed to be conducting a "safety test". This involved running the reactor to a low power setting and then shutting off the turbines driving the main generators. The idea was to see if it was possible to use the power being generated as the turbines and generators ran down to operate the cooling pumps for a short period of time, until the back up diesel generators kicked in and picked up the load of the pumps. The reason this test came about was down to an air attack a few years earlier that the Israeli's had made on a similar RBMK in Iran, in which the cooling system had been damaged.

Due to various delays, the test did not go according to plan. Then when the next shift came on, the order came in to increase the reactor power to meet demand. Dyatlov, the control room supervising engineer, ordered his team to do this, despite the unit being in a dangerous condition. To be fair to them, they had no idea that the unit could get itself into such a condition in the first place. The thing is, Bryukhanov, the plant Chief, who was a decorated "Hero of Socialist Labour" for his past efforts in the Nuclear industry, had already signed off on the test. So there was a lot of pressure on the teams to carry it out. That was then compounded by an order to raise reactor power, which if disobeyed would most likely have had serious consequences. We all know what happened next.

The RBMK was a flawed design, but the basic engineering - the welding, machining, electrics etc to put it together were as good as anywhere else. It was the Soviet system - fear of reprisals if orders were not carried out, fear of superiors and an overbearing attitude from supervisors - that caused the accident. Also in the USSR the nuclear industry was considered to be a state secret, and this further compounded the extent of the problem after the accident happened, as the Soviet Authorities did not seek international assistance until far too late.

I studied the case as part of an H&S thing I did. It is actually quite remarkable how many times you see the sort of attitudes that lead to this accident in my industry. I have started referring to certain things as "Chernobyl moments". And no, before you ask, I am not an HSE Nazi, I am just an ordinary Joe who doesn't fancy getting turned into mincemeat because some Charlie decides they can shave 30 seconds off the time it takes to do something by cutting corners.

I know (hope!) you're condensing the Chernobyl failures for brevity, have you read 'Midnight in Chernobyl'? - if nothing else, it shows just how many levels of failure there were - and how many acts of unselfish heroism it took to bring the reactor from the brink.

On the other hand, you could see it as a successful rewilding experiment.