14 "near misses" cited at US nuke plants in 2010

[jpak]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20044323-10391695.html

A new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigated 14 "near misses" at US nuclear plants in 2010 that the report describes as "troubling events, safety equipment problems, and security shortcomings."

The report says the problems occurred at the plants because plant managers "tolerated safety problems."

"It's ridiculously overstated, ridiculously," says Steve Kerekes from Nuclear Energy Institute which represents the nuclear industry in Washington.

Kerekes points to where the UCS report concedes that the "chances of disaster at a nuclear plant are low" and he says their plants work to correct any problems, "that doesn't mean that you jeopardize safety."

<more>

[ClayZ]

1. K and R

[FBaggins]

2. More irrational fearmongering.

Let's see what constitutes a "near miss" by their standards.

One was a roof that leaked when it rained. Another was some poorly repaired valves. Then there was a replacement pump that was installed with a defective part that caused it to vibrate and eventually fail. There was a fire in a control room. There's a system that cools emergency generators at one plany (presumably the equivelent of a radiator)... and (gasp!) it had a leak in it! A secondary steam system at one plant leaked and ended up knocking off a section of siding that protected an inspection walkway from the weather (outside the containment building).

These are "near misses"???

I'm shocked that they didn't report the time that a reactor safety officer's wife had a hangnail.


LOTS of things have to go wrong at the same time before you have a failure. Learning that one of those things had a problem is not a "near miss".

[nosmokes]

3. I'll trust the UCS, thanks.

A roof is supposed to keep rain out. If you can't trust the operators of a nuclear plant to keep the roof in good condition I certainly have no faith in them keeping the rest of the plant in good working order. Now you may not mind being rained on inside your house, but I found that pretty basic maintenance and if you can't be arsed to take care of the basics then I'm damn sure not trusting you w/ nuclear physics. Your whine fails.

[jtrockville]

4. If you're willing to let a roof leak...

Maybe you're willing to let a backup generator sit at ground level instead of elevating it high enough to survive a tsunami?