Abstract

Many unfortunate and unintended adverse industrial incidents occur across the U.S. each year, and the nuclear industry is no exception. Depending on the severity, these incidents can be problematic for people, the facilities, and surrounding environments. These incidents occur for a number of varying reasons, but more often than not, human error is an accomplice. This article explores whether the complexity and changing technologies, which affect the way operators interact within the systems of the nuclear facilities, exacerbate the severity of incidents caused by human error. A review of nuclear incidents in the U.S. from 1955 to 2010 reaching level three or higher on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) scale was conducted. The cost of each incident at facilities that had recently undergone technological changes affecting plant operator's jobs was compared to those facilities which had not undergone changes. A t-test was applied and determined a statistically significant difference between the two groups. This affirmed that technological advances at nuclear facilities that affect how operators interact within the plant system increase the severity of resulting incidents. Next, a follow-on study was conducted to determine the impact from the incorporation of new technologies into nuclear facilities. The data indicated that spending more money on upgrades increased the capacity of the facility as well as the number of incidents reported, but the incident severity was minor.

References

1.
Corrado
,
J. K.
,
2017
, “
Technological Advances, Human Performance, and the Operation of Nuclear Facilities
,” Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
2.
Loomis
,
D.
,
2011
, “
Risks From Nuclear Accidents Are Still Uncertain
,”
Occup. Environ. Med.
,
68
(
6
), p.
387
.10.1136/oemed-2011-100157
3.
Karakosta
,
C.
,
Pappas
,
C.
,
Marinakis
,
V.
, and
Psarras
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Renewable Energy and Nuclear Power Towards Sustainable Development: Characteristics and Prospects
,”
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.
,
22
, pp.
187
197
.10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.035
4.
Krivit
,
S. B.
,
Lehr
,
J. H.
, and
Kingery
,
T. B.
,
2011
,
Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia
,
Wiley
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
5.
Creswell
,
J. W.
,
2013
,
Research Design
, 4th ed.,
Sage
,
Thousand Oaks, CA
.
6.
McCoy
,
K.
,
Alamaniotis
,
M.
, and
Jevremovic
,
T.
,
2013
, “
A Conceptual Model for Integrative Monitoring of Nuclear Power Plants' Operational Activities Based on Historical Nuclear Incidents and Accidents
,”
Int. J. Monit. Surveill. Technol. Res.
,
1
(
1
), pp.
69
81
.10.4018/ijmstr.2013010105
7.
Mitchell
,
M. L.
, and
Jolley
,
J. M.
,
2013
,
Research Design Explained
, 8th ed.,
Wadsworth Cengage Learning
,
Belmont, KY
.
8.
International Atomic Energy Agency,
2002
, “
Appendix VI: IAEA International Nuclear Event Scale (INES)
,”
Regulatory Control of Nuclear Power Plants Part A
,
International Atomic Energy Agency
,
Vienna, Austria
.
9.
Prasad
,
R.
,
Hibler
,
L. F.
,
Coleman
,
A. M.
, and
Ward
,
D. L.
,
2011
, “
Design-Basis Flood Estimation for Site Characterization at Nuclear Power Plants in the United States of America
,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, Report No. NUREG/CR-7046/PNNL-20091.
10.
Sugiyama
,
G.
,
Nasstrom
,
J. S.
,
Probanz
,
B.
,
Foster
,
K. T.
,
Simpson
,
M.
,
Vogt
,
P.
, and
Homann
,
S.
,
2012
, “
NARAC Modeling During the Response to the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant Emergency
,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, Report No. LLNL-CONF-529471.
11.
Rutherford
,
A.
,
2011
,
ANOVA and ANCOVA: A GLM Approach
,
Wiley
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
12.
Hair
,
J. F.
,
Black
,
W. C.
,
Babin
,
B. J.
, and
Anderson
,
R. E.
,
2010
,
Multivariate Data Analysis
, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
.
13.
Sehgal
,
B. R.
, ed.,
2012
,
Nuclear Safety in Light Water Reactors: Severe Accident Phenomenology
,
Elsevier/Academic Press
,
Waltham, MA
.
You do not currently have access to this content.