This paper examines two sets of internal memos related to two of the most significant technological disasters in American history: the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown and the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. Through analysis of the "Filthy Five" memos from Three Mile Island and two key Challenger memos, the paper argues that both disasters resulted from preventable failures in institutional communication and decision-making. At Three Mile Island, operators dismissed the reactor builders' warnings about incorrect bypass procedures. In the Challenger program, managers prioritized budget concerns over unresolved safety questions about O-ring seal failures. Together, these cases illustrate how organizational arrogance and financial pressures can override technical expertise with catastrophic consequences.
The paper demonstrates primary source analysis: it reads a series of institutional memos not just for their surface content but for what they reveal about organizational culture, power dynamics, and decision-making priorities. By tracing the chain of memos in sequence, the author reconstructs how warnings were raised, deflected, and ultimately ignored in both cases.
The paper is organized into two parallel case studies. The first half addresses Three Mile Island, walking through five memos chronologically to show how operators rejected the reactor builder's safety recommendations. The second half turns to the Challenger, analyzing two memos to show how budget and scheduling concerns displaced unresolved safety questions. A brief conclusion synthesizes the common thread: in both disasters, institutional priorities overrode expert technical warnings.
The series of memos entitled "The Filthy Five from the Three Mile Island Disaster" details how a conflict over the operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Facility — between the Babcock & Wilcox Company and the facility's operators — led to the greatest nuclear power disaster in United States history. While the builders of the reactor warned the operators that their operating procedures were incorrect, the operators refused to accept those findings and continued to run the facility improperly, ultimately producing a catastrophic nuclear accident.
The initial memo, "Memo 1," describes two incidents in which operators did not follow procedures as recommended by the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) company (Kelly). In response, "Memo 2" — written by a facility manager — stated that the other operators "responded in the correct manner considering how they have been trained" (Walters). This wording suggests that operators may have been trained in incorrect procedures, but the memo was framed in a way that deflected responsibility away from those directly involved in the two initial incidents.
Babcock & Wilcox were extremely emphatic in "Memo 3" that the procedures used by the operators — primarily bypassing the high pressure injection (HPI) system after a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) — were incorrect and could lead to "core uncovery and possible fuel damage" (Dunn 3). Even after B&W followed up with "Memo 4," specifically instructing the operators when to bypass the HPI system and when not to, the operating managers refused to accept the builders' recommendations (Dunn 4).
Instead, the operators produced the final memo, "Memo 5," stating their belief that following the procedures outlined by B&W could cause the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) to solidify. On those grounds, they declined to follow the recommended procedures. As a result, the Three Mile Island facility suffered a catastrophic meltdown: the core became uncovered, the fuel rods heated to damaging levels, and the facility and surrounding area sustained severe harm.
Had the operators followed the procedures recommended by the reactor's builders, the disaster could have been prevented. The operators believed they understood the reactor's behavior better than those who had designed and constructed it. It was in the grey area between design intent and actual field operation that they made their critical mistake. While complex machines sometimes require minor adjustments from their initial design specifications, the operators took this principle far too far. They genuinely believed that their operational experience made them more capable of diagnosing problems than the reactor's own designers.
As a result of this arrogance, they continued to bypass the high pressure injection system whenever a loss of coolant accident occurred — precisely the scenario B&W had warned against. As the company predicted, this led to the uncovering of the core rods and a subsequent buildup of heat. Because the operators were unable to bring the coolant system back online, the heat continued to escalate until catastrophic damage was done to the reactor. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's account of the accident confirms that the failure to properly manage the HPI system was central to the disaster's progression.
Whether the Challenger disaster was caused by the failure of the O-ring or the putty that was supposed to seal it, the shuttle should never have been launched until a definitive answer was found. Irv Davids admitted in "Memo 2" that he had reservations about the decision precisely because the exact cause of the problem remained unknown. Yet "Memo 1" clearly demonstrates that program directors were primarily focused on budgetary concerns. Had those directors been more concerned with safety and less preoccupied with flight schedules and financial projections, the Challenger disaster might well have been avoided.
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.