US nuclear oversight too lax: science group

Feb 28, 2012
The North Anna, Virgina, #1 and #2 nuclear power generation stations operated by Dominion Virginia Power are seen at Lake Anna, Virginia, in 2011. A study of safety lapses at nuclear power facilities in the United States found that owners of atomic plants too often either close an eye to problems or fail to adequately address them, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

A study of safety lapses at nuclear power facilities in the United States found that owners of atomic plants too often either close an eye to problems or fail to adequately address them, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

The report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in its study found 15 cases of safety equipment problems and security shortcomings at 13 nuclear plants last year, calling that number "high."

Titled "The NRC and Safety in 2011: Living on Borrowed Time," the UCS report said no plant employees or members of the public were harmed in the incidents.

But the lapses nevertheless were deemed serious enough to warrant special inspections by the US (NRC), which is tasked with oversight of the industry and which itself had a mixed record in responding to the problems.

The science group said that in some instances the NRC did an outstanding job of addressing safety problems before they could lead to a potentially dangerous situation.

But there were also times when the federal agency did a less-than-adequate job of cracking down on nuclear plant owners, who in some cases have flouted agency regulations for decades.

"Last year's record shows that the NRC is quite capable of being an effective watchdog that protects the public and saves the from its worst tendencies," said Dave Lochbaum, lead author of the report and the director of UCS's Project.

"But the agency too often does not live up to its potential, and we are still finding significant problems at nuclear plants that could too easily trigger a serious accident."

The group said that lax NRC oversight has allowed some problems to fester for decades, and found that 47 nuclear reactors -- nearly half of the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States today -- still do not comply with fire regulations established by the NRC in 1980 and amended in 2004.

It also said that there are 27 reactors with inadequate protection against earthquakes.

"The fact that US plant owners could have avoided nearly all the near-misses in 2011 if they had addressed known problems in a timely manner suggests that they and the NRC have not learned the lessons of these accidents," said Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with 17 years of experience working at .

"Someday their luck may run out," he said.

The vulnerability of nuclear reactors to earthquakes was underscored after problems following a magnitude 5.8 quake that rattled the US East Coast last August, damaging two reactors at the North Anna plant in Virginia, some 12 miles (20 kilometers) from the epicenter of the temblor.

Explore further: New solar power material converts 90 percent of captured light into heat

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

GE defends nuclear plant design

Mar 18, 2011

General Electric defended its 40 year old Mark 1 reactors at the center of Japan's nuclear crisis Friday, saying that early questions about reactor's safety had long been addressed.

New U.S. nuclear reactors unlikely soon: physicist

Apr 15, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Japanese officials increased the nuclear crisis level at the Fukushima plant on Monday to match that of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. But, unlike the Soviet disaster, most of the radiation ...

US nuclear reactor turned off after radiation leak

Feb 02, 2012

A reactor at the San Onofre nuclear power plant near San Diego has been shut down after a radiation leak which was not big enough to cause public harm, the US atomic safety agency said Wednesday.

Small fire stops Swedish nuclear reactor

Oct 23, 2011

A small fire in a turbine hall shut down a Swedish nuclear reactor overnight but the blaze was swiftly extinguished, nuclear power plant officials said Sunday.

Recommended for you

Preparing for a zero-emission urban bus system

6 hours ago

In order to create a competitive and sustainable transport system, the EU must look to alternative fuels to replace or complement petrol and diesel. Not only will this reduce transport emissions but it will ...

Exploring the value of 'Energy Star' homes

7 hours ago

The numbers in neat columns tell—column by column, page by page—a story spread out across Carmen Carrión-Flores' desk at Binghamton University. It's a great story, she says; she just doesn't know how ...

Toward a networked energy future

Oct 29, 2014

February 1, 2050, is a good day for German electricity consumers. The breeze off the north coast is blowing so strongly that offshore wind farms and the wind turbines on land are running non-stop. Since it's ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Squirrel
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2012
The report is online and can be downloaded at
http://www.ucsusa...port.pdf

Contents
Executive Summary IX
1. The Cop on the Nuclear Beat 1
The Reactor Oversight Process 1
The Focus of This Report 2
2. Near-Misses at Nuclear Power Plants in 2011 5
Braidwood 9
Byron 9
Callaway 12
Cooper 13
Millstone Unit 2 15
Monticello 17
North Anna 19
Oconee 21
Palisades (first incident) 23
Palisades (second incident) 24
Perry 26
Pilgrim (first incident) 29
Pilgrim (second incident) 29
Turkey Point Unit 3 31
Wolf Creek 32
Observations on the Near-Misses in 2011 34
3. Positive Outcomes from NRC Oversight 36
Flooding at Fort Calhoun 36
Mistake at the Hatch Plant 37
Earthquake Hazard at LaSalle 39
Observations on Effective NRC Oversight 41
4. Negative Outcomes from NRC Oversight 42
Missed Opportunities from NRC Inspection Insights Stalling Fixes to Known Safety Problems 44
tarheelchief
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2012
It would be most helpful if someone could find the sources of cash for these studies.
Initially I would check the railroad associations who have the most to lose from renewable and nuclear power sources.Only Senator Reid has caused more damage to the nuclear industry.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 29, 2012
When you look up the criticism section on wikipedia on the UCS you will find the usual suspects:

Libertarian television personality John Stossel has also accused the organization of having a "left-wing" agenda, calling them "scaremongers."[36] In 2007, the conservative think tank Capital Research Center accused the UCS of waging a "jihad against climate skeptics",[37] and televangelist Jerry Falwell even cautioned Evangelical Christians against "falling for...global warming hocus-pocus" propagated in the mass media, with the UCS "leading the charge"

Right wing nuts and televangelists. When those characters start attacking an organization with the 'jihad/scaremonger/hocus-pocus' lingo you can be pretty sure that they're the good guys.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Feb 29, 2012
I wouldn't invest into nuclear fission under perspective of cold fusion too. The only reason why to keep it alive is the military program. The problem arises, when the investments into both technologies are ignored in the same way.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.