tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post5255826284011075854..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: How Milton Shaw Blew the Nuclear Safety Issue.Charles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-74164967453920146292010-05-04T10:19:54.240-05:002010-05-04T10:19:54.240-05:00donb Shaw failed to follow through on his safety p...donb Shaw failed to follow through on his safety philosophy. The Three Mile Island accident was in practice a failure of Shaw's approach, because the safety based engineering and quality control were not in force, even though the 1979 NRC was more serious about safety regulation enforcement, than the aEC was during the Shaw era. Post 1979, the NRC did what they could, which was to adopt the Shaw approach with the with fine tooth comb Shaw envisioned. whether or not the Shaw approach to nuclear safety helps the nuclear industry is open to question. But that is a topic for another post.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-3417935346606001742010-05-04T09:53:49.496-05:002010-05-04T09:53:49.496-05:00Very interesting narrative.
While Milton Shaw may...Very interesting narrative.<br /><br />While Milton Shaw may have been wrong about a number of things, he was right about the accident scenario, which later unfolded at Three Mile Island. As Robert Pool wrote:<br /><i>Shaw contended that nuclear accidents were more likely to be the result of little breakdowns that snowballed.</i><br />This is exactly what happened at TMI. And as Susan M. Stacy noted:<br /><i>He (Shaw) sided with those who felt it was possible to prevent accidents by building reliable back-up systems— defense-in-depth.</i><br />While the accident was not prevented, defense-in-depth is exactly what saved the public from harm at TMI.<br /><br />Susan M. Stacy's next sentence speaks loudly:<br /><i>Understanding the moment-by-moment progress of an accident that would never happen was a waste of money.</i><br />Here is where Shaw erred. It was lack of understanding that was the undoing of TMI. It turned what should have been a routine unplanned shutdown into an event that partially melted the reactor.<br /><br />In a way, TMI accomplished what the LOFT experiment was supposed to do. It happened on a full-sized reactor. Unfortunately, it was unplanned, poorly controlled, and very expensive. Nevertheless, important lessons were learned, lessons that contributed the enhanced safety and reliability we see today in our fleet of light water reactors.<br /><br />This is not to say that I am an uncritical LWR supporter. But it is what we have operating right now. We need to make the best use of what we have until we can replace them safer, more efficient reactors.donbnoreply@blogger.com