The Autumn 2000 Floods in England - Assignment Example

Accidents and Catastrophes The Autumn 2000 Floods in England (Catastrophe) A catastrophe is a sudden occurrence of an incident of large and sometimes unprecedented proportions which happens upon a scene and levels severe consequences, which quite often presents mass destruction of property, and possibly the loss of life. In the Autumn of 2000 the rains in England began, and the worst flooding occurred at three separate intervals; on October 10 – 15, then October 28 – November 12, and then December 8 – 14. The meterological society’s assessment of this time period was that, the rainfall over England during the autumn of 2000 represented the wettest one year period, since the recordation of rainfall in London and Wales was initiated in 1766. The initial reason offered by the meteorologists was that the root cause, was climate change. This was the initial prognosis, and it was not based entirely on scientific evidence. Nonetheless, it was the conclusion of the experts that the accompanying disaster which was associated with the heavy rainfall, was exacerbated by human inducements. The allegations of human inducements were based on the following observations: In the area of Partridge Green the discovery of inadequate maintenance of drainage ditches. These entities were overwrought with sediment, and contained large amounts of vegetation. This inhibited the flow of the massive rain fall and ultimately produced flooding in the area.. Bevendean is situated at the low end of a modeled catchment. Farmers in the area had previously been cautioned on the proper techniques for cultivating the fields in the hillside. The proper methods which were suggested to the farmers would serve as a conduit for runoff whenever there would be rain. The recalcatrance of the farmers placed an additional capacity strain on the culverts, which precluded the sewer system from functioning properly, causing mud to enter people’s houses. In Lewis and Keighley the structural flood defences malfunctioned, causing water to flow into individual properties. In Lewes and Uckfield, it became obvious that inadequate planning in the types and placement of deficient properties.1 The cumulative rainfall in the autumn of 2000 was an exceptional event, however the subsequent flood was the cause of societal shortcomings. It is important to note that much of the flood damage was the result of negligence which was exhibited by developers and local authorities,2 who either did not understand or did not care about the vulnerabilities. These individuals should be put on notice, that they would in the future be held responsible for flood consequences. Therefore, they must be reeducated about vulnerable areas and pay strict attention to zoning and code restrictions, which will inhibit flooding in the long-term. The flooding which occurred given its local breadth, resulted in a national disaster. It mostly affected the transport routes, both road and rail, which were closed numerous times because of flooding and landslides. The rain which appeared at the end of October delivered a final bow to the intermittent service which the rail lines had been providing subsequent to the October 17 derailment, which claimed the lives of four persons. The derailment had already prompted significant adjustments, which placed additional pressure on train schedules. The local flooding just made a bad situation worse, and stretched the impact to a national level, the effect was far greater than the number of person s who were directly affected by the flooding. Lessons Learned The situation as it transpired in Tonbridge point to the fact that structural defences do not necessarily remove levels of vulnerability. The barrier flood defense in place is touted to being capable of providing adequate protection for Tonbridge, in the event of flooding. In all fairness even though the flooding was significant, it was significantly less than it would have been had Leigh barrier not been upstream. The primary reason there was still a significant amount of flooding in Tonbridge in spite of the placement of Leigh- barrier, was the design capacity was below, the level of the flow. One could describe Structural defences as a one dimesional tool, which does not factor into the equation the consequences and impact on peoples vulnerability when the water flow exceeds the designed capacity. Obviously this presented a dangerous situation whenever the capacity is exceeded. When the breach occurs, this produces a water velocity which would not have occurred if the defences not been in place. The presence of the defence makes people susceptible and increase their vulnerability, because people and lulled into a false sense of security, believing that the mammoth structure is a formidable line of defence..This false sense of security results in a number of attitudinal adjustments to come to the fore; people might ignore timely warnings, they may even neglect to be educated on what the capacities and probabilities are, or even the inherent dangers of flooding. The government needs to pursue a program of flood management and control; this would possibly involve a number of environmental adjustments such as those which would enable the storage of water, by planting additional vegetation and trees. Insisting that farmers and all others who are involved with the landscape, either for recreation or income generation, are trained in the proper cultivation techniques. The passing of appropriate ordinances which will explicitly stipulate the parameters for land use, and zoning codes. Particular attention should be given to homeowners who convert garages into mother-in-law units.Also, special emphasis should be afforded to preclude development in highly vulnerable areas. This legislation must also include infrastructure regulations, which specifically state the types of materials which are suitable. These lessons point to a very salient point, which is floods and the damage they cause can be minimized or even avoided, if the proper human precautions are adhered too. UK Emergency Management Officials in the UK recognized the need to make adjustments in the Emergency Management Plan subsequent to two major crisis in 2000 ( UK flooding, and UK fuel protests), and the 2001 UK foot-and-mouth crisis. The organizational move involved the legislation which created the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004. This act makes it clear what the responsibilities are of all first responders in responding to an emergency. Management for the civil Contingencies The conduct of disaster management training is usually performed on a inter-organization basis by those groups who are directly involved in responding to disasters.There are academic linkages at Coventry College, The Institute of Emergency Management and the Emergency Planning College. There is also an opportunity for individuals to receive diplomas and undergraduate credits, at a number of colleges throughout the UK. The largest emergency exercise to ever be carried out in the UK, occurred on May 20, 2007. The venue was Belfast, and the circumstances of the mock incident involved aa airplane crash landing at the near by airport. The first responders consisted of the medical staffs from several hospitals, and the relevant personnel from several other airports, were participants. There was an entourage of international observers who observed and assessed the teams efficiency.3 Chernobyl (Accident) An accident is an occurrence which is usually caused by human error, or a mechanical malfunction. The consequences of which may affect only the environment or its inhabitants. The effects of which can be short lived or long term. Some of the most infamous accidents which have besieged mankind have assumed a number of different causative classifications. The city of Chernobyl was evacuated in 1986 due to its namesake disaster. The nuclear power plant is located nine miles north – northwest, which places it in the Chernobyl Raion district. The city today is mostly uninhabited, there remains a small number of persons who reside in houses which bear signs that state, “owner if this house lives here”. Before the city was evacuated, there were approximately 55,000, who called this place home. There were a number of ordinary workers and administrative personnel Who were stationed in what has become to be known as the Zone of Alienation. All of these persons have since been evacuated due to increasing radiation levels, which has rendered the area unsafe. The contamination of milk was subsequently associated with the illness of babies across Europe. The City of Chernobyl and its surrounds are now the domain of nuclear scientists and as assortment of radiation experts, physicists, and other types looking for present and long term affects of the nuclear disaster. Through a controlled renovation process, Chernobyl presently has 500 residents. The curiosity of prospective visitors has prompted the construction of a lodge to accommodate visitors to the Zone of Alienation. “…Scientist report mammals experiencing heavy doses from internally deposited Caesium – 137 and strontium – 90 radioactive fallout”4 One study has found mutations in 18 generations of birds, another that radioactivity levels are still rising”5 Levels of Caesium – 137 are expected to remain high all over Europe for decades, says the United Nations. All of the persons who participated in the clean up operation, have reported varying types of illnesses. The situation in Chernobyl is getting worse, instead of leveling off or improving; it has been reported that in 1985, there were approximately four cases per year of lymph cancer, presently there are said to be more than five times as many per year as in 1985. There has also been a marked increase in the number of bone cancers, when shortly after the accident, there had not been any incidence of the disease.The expectation is that the types and numbers of cancers will eventually increase. The most heart wrenching consequence of the accident is the tragic fate of the children of those who participated in the clean up. The children are dying at a very young age. Moreover, the prognosis for pregnancies is not very promising, as one in three children born today, are malformed. There are more clusters of cancers. Children are being born with stunted growth and dwarf torsos, without thighs.6 Description of Accident During the nights of April 25 – 26, 1986, the Chernobyl reactor explosion released 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs which were dropped by the United States over Nagasake and Hiroshima. This unfortunate accident provided the Chernobyl occurrence with the distinction as being “the greatest industrial disaster in the history of human kind. At 1:23 on April 26, 1986: A test of the cooling system began in unit no.4 of the Chernobyl power plant. At 1:23:40: The engineering shut down failed. The unstable state of the reactor did not show on the control panel, and it appeared that none of the members or the reactors crew were cognizant of the impending dangers. “…The steam to the turbines was shut off and, as the momentum of the turbine generator drove the water pumps, the water flow decreased, decreasing the absorption of the neutrons by the coolant. The turbine was disconnected from the reactor, increasing the level of the steam in the reactor core. As the coolant heated, pockets of the steam found voids in the coolant lines. Due to the RBMK reactor-type’s large positive void coefficient, the steam bubbles increased the power of the reactor. As soon as the reactor power increased, the positive feedback that had acted to drive reactor power down, now acted to increase it further. As power increased, the Xe – 135 poison began to be burned faster than it was being produced by I -135 decay, which increased power, resulting in a faster Xe – 135 burn, and so on. With the manual and automatic control rods removed, nothing prevented a runaway reaction”7 (See Appendix “A”) Engineering Failure According to Anatoly Dyatlov in “Chernobyl How Did It Happen:, the occurrence took the following course: “…The slow speed of the control rod insertion mechanism (18–20 seconds to complete), and the flawed rod design which initially reduces the amount of coolant present, meant that the SCRAM actually increased the reaction rate. At this point an energy spike occurred and some of the fuel rods began to fracture, placing fragments of the fuel rods in line with the control rod columns. The rods became stuck after being inserted only one-third of the way, and were therefore unable to stop the reaction. At this point nothing could be done to stop the disaster. By 1:23:47 the reactor jumped to around 30 GW thermal, ten times the normal operational output. The fuel rods began to melt and the steam pressure rapidly increased, causing a large steam explosion. Generated steam traveled vertically along the rod channels in the reactor, displacing and destroying the reactor lid, rupturing the coolant tubes and then blowing the lid off the reactor”.8 Additionally, the Nuclear Energy Authority (2002), offered the affect of the continuation of the engineering breakdown described by Dyatlov; Subsequent to the roof blowing off, the sudden inflow of oxygen, mixed with the extremely high temperature of the burning fuel and the graphite moderator, ignited the graphite. This fire speeded up the spread of radioactive and contaminated material. “…After part of the roof blew off, the inrush of oxygen combined with the extremely high temperature of the reactor fuel and graphite moderator, started a graphite fire. This fire greatly contributed to the spread of radioactive material and the contamination of outlying areas”.9 An assessment of the incident According to the CNPP states that;: “…the reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient. The void coefficient is a measurement of how the reactor responds to increased steam formation in the water coolant. Most other reactor designs produce less energy as they get hotter, because if the coolant contains steam bubbles, fewer neutrons are slowed down. Faster neutrons are less likely to split uranium atoms, so the reactor produces less power. Chernobyl’s RBMK reactor, however, used solid graphite as a neutron moderator to slowdown neutrons, and neutron-absorbing light water to cool the core. Thus neutrons are slowed down even if steam bubbles form in the water, increasing an RBMK (1000) reactors temperature means that more neutrons are able to split uranium atoms, increasing the reactors power output. This makes the RBMK (1000) design very unstable at low power levels, and prone to suddenly increasing energy production to dangerous levels if the temperature rises. This was counter-intuitive and unknown to the crew”10 Analysis of Cause and Circumstances Critical to the process, the operators disabled all of the safety systems down to the generators, this prevented the main process computer (S.K.A.L.A.), from being able to shut down the reactor or reduce the power. Under normal circumstances or conditions the reactor would have commenced to position the control rods. Additionally the computer would have started the “Emergency Core Protection System”. The time lapse would have consumed 2-5 seconds and 24 control rods would have been inserted in the active zone. It should be noted, that even by 1986 standards, this time line would be characterized as a bit retarded. The human operators were taking their cues from the process computer, which essentially malfunctioned, coupled with the fact that the human operators were not highly skilled or experienced with nuclear reactors. It is alleged that the plant operators violated plant procedures and were deficient in their knowledge of the necessary safety requirements which the RBMK 1000 design required. They did not have a thorough knowledge of the reactors design and they also lacked the necessary experience and were not sufficiently trained. Additionally the management team at the plant was comprised of personnel who were not qualified RBMK personnel. The director of the management team did have experience and training in a cold-fired power plant. The chief engineer, was also a veteran from a conventional plant, the deputy engineer of reactors 3 and 4, had only limited experience, and that experience was with nuclear reactors much smaller than Chernobyl. There were a number of procedural shortcomings which were attributed to the cause of the accident. Primary was the lack of communication between the operators in charge of the experiment and the safety officers. An attempt to minimize expenses, and due to the size, the reactor had not been properly constructed, and only possessed partial containment. This enabled the radioactive containments to enter the environment after the steam explosion ruptured the primary vessel. The reactor had been allowed to run continuously for more than 12 months, this level of continuous activity enabled the storing up of fusion by products, which pushed the reactor to disaster. When the reactors heat increased, the design flaws became aggravated and caused a design warp, which made it impossible to insert the control rods. Summary of findings Chernobyl was a personnel caused incursion which caused a steam explosion, which resulted in a graphite fire which burned uncontained. The fire lofted dangerous radioactive smoke into the atmosphere. There was a precipitous leak, which went undetected and it lowered the water level surrounding the nuclear fuel, which caused most of the melting. Chernobyl, was the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and the only instance so far of level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, resulting in a severe nuclear meltdown. There were fewer people who died directly at Chernobyl, than those who were killed or maimed at Hiroshima . The radioactivity released at Chernobyl tended to be more long lived than that released by a bomb detonation hence it is not possible to draw a simple comparison between the two events”.11 There was a report which was released in August 1986, which placed the blame of the accident entirely upon the shoulders of the plant operators, The title of the theory was, The Flawed Operators Theory. The other theory, which was released in 1991, placed the blame of the accident on the RBMK reactor design flaws. This report was published by Valeri Legasov, which specifically stated, there were problems with the control rods. This is referred to as the flawed design theory. Conclusion It is probably now clear to all parties that there are basic things which must be done, whenever any entity is contemplating the establishment of a nuclear power plant. Since the affects and impact of a mishap can affect not only the local environment where an accident might take place, but an accident can represent a major and life threatening impact on an international level. The design of a nuclear plant should be subject to the approval of an international commission of experts. Additionally, the phases of construction; material quality and the integrity of the construction, should be monitored by an impartial international consortium. This is to assure that no short cuts are taken, and that the most appropriate equipment and materials are selected. When it comes to staffing the plant, there must be specific mechanisms which guarantee that the personnel is trained in every aspect of the operation of the plant and is professionally aware of the function of its components. It is also critical for management to create an environment which is open to there should under no circumstances be situations where personnel is hired if they are not qualified. Particularly, if the organization does not have a bona fida training program in place. Given the sensitivity of the work, all personnel should be required to undergo periodic reviews. These reviews should be both job specific and general knowledge of the entire operation. Communication between all levels of the operation, and the placement of safety regulations, which should be monitored by management on a weekly basis if not daily.It is imperative for every employee to be aware of what needs to be done, if any scenario arises. Bibliography Ilan Kelman, (2001) “The Autumn Floods in England and Flood Management” The Martin centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, vol. 56, no.10 October pp. 346-348, 353-360 Mock plane crash tests NI crews, BBC News, May 20, 2007, Retrieved on line on October 27, 2008, from www.bbcnews.org Vidal, J., Hell on Earth, Guardian Wednesday April 26, 2006, retrieved on line on April 12, 2008, from www.society.guardian.co.uk Ibid Ibid Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Retrieved on line on October 26, 2008, from www.chernobylnuclearpowerplant.org Dyatlov, A.(2005) Chernobyl How did it happen, Odessa-brest a tut.by, September 15, 2007 Nuclear Energy Authority Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Retrieved on line on October 26, 2008, from www.chernobylnuclearpowerplant.org Comparison of damage among hiroshama/Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Semipalatinsk,retrieved on line on April 14, 2008, from http://www.hiroshima-cdas.orjp Appendix “A” Reactor diagram. Source: OECD NEA Read More