Skip to main content

What the Simpsons Gets Wrong About Nuclear Safety Culture

I love The Simpsons.  The Simpsons cleverly, mercilessly, and democratically gore everyone's sacred cows.  None are off-limits, including the professionals who comprise the commercial nuclear power industry.
What we are not.
From the avaricious Montgomery Burns, owner of the Springfield Nuclear Plant, to the bumbling Homer Simpson, control room operator and safety inspector, the people of the nuclear enterprise are portrayed as incompetent and unconcerned about their responsibilities to serve and protect their fellow workers, the public and the environment.  As you can imagine, the truth is quite different.

How different from that comedic portrayal are the real people of the nuclear power industry?  A recent briefing by our NEI colleagues, Sue Perkins-Grew and Rod McCullum, reminded us how different indeed.

Sue Perkins-Grew in action on the ropes course at SNPM.
Sue and Rod recently attended an elite leadership training course offered by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations' (INPO), the industry-supported agency for promoting excellence in all aspects of nuclear plant operations. They attended the  Senior Nuclear Plant Manager (SNPM) course.  This five-week curriculum is designed to give up-and-coming leaders a broader view of the nuclear industry.  The course includes team building exercises that promote out-of-the-box thinking, briefings on the roles of key institutions and stakeholders in our industry, and visits to operating power plants to observe how other leaders and cultures achieve excellence in nuclear operations. Sue and Rod spoke  enthusiastically about the quality of the training and insights gained through the SNPM course. 

And what did they learn about their classmates from across the nuclear power industry?

In short, they were greatly impressed by the caliber of people in the course.  They described them as showing the highest levels of integrity and professionalism, and the utmost commitment to safety.  Sue and Rod expressed high confidence that our industry is in good hands, and will remain so when these prospective senior managers take the helm at their respective plants and companies.

Those of us in the nuclear power industry understand two things very well.  One is that we share a commitment to safety at all levels and in everything we do.  The other is that, by Hollywood's standards, this reality - a culture that puts nuclear safety ahead of everything else - doesn't make for a very entertaining cartoon.  That's ok with us.  We'll just keep on pursuing excellence and providing safe, reliable electricity to power the 21st century economy. And we'll leave the laughs to Homer and the gang.

Comments

jimwg said…
This good article critically overlooks that most American viewers regard Homer Simpson as an EXAMPLE, not a parody, of the goings-on in the nuclear industry. And there's no one out there to rebuff that view.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anonymous said…
Any evidence, besides your opinion, that most people believe The Simpsons is realistic on nuclear power? Bisconti Research's polling for NEI says the opposite, that most Americans think it's safe and desirable. Are NEI's own polls wrong, or are you?
RLL said…
A pretty conservative friend when I was serving on the USS Truxton came back from an interview at a civilian nuclear plant (1970s), and was aghast at how poorly the plant was run compared to how it was done in the navy.

Worker from the Trojan plant in Oregon worked out at my gym. The sounded for all the world like something out of Homer Simson, the "hehehe, voters can't shut down our plant, Oregon couldn't get by without the power". And just a few years later while repairs were going on, enough damage was seen in pipes (?) that it was not economical to repair the plant.

The multi-plant failure in Japan may be been the death knoll of nuclear power. I would like to see a recovery, but I do not expect it.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…