U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Had 14 'Near-Miss' Problems In 2010: UCS Report (PHOTOS)

The crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant following the tragic earthquake and ensuing tsunami in Japan has turned the public conversation toward nuclear power and its potential risks in the U.S. A new report reveals that 14 "near-miss" problems prompting investigation at 13 power plants in 2010 may have been the result of poor oversight.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report Thursday examining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) -- the government agency tasked with enforcing safety regulations at U.S. nuclear plants -- and 14 investigations it launched in 2010 in response to "troubling events, safety equipment problems, and security shortcomings."

When an event occurs at a nuclear reactor, or NRC inspectors discover damaged or deteriorating equipment, the commission reviews the risk to the reactor. According the UCS report, over 200 such reviews were conducted by the NRC in 2010. Most incidents discovered at nuclear plants are low risk, but when an event or condition increases the risk of reactor core damage by a factor of 10, the NRC likely dispatches a special inspection team (SIT). When the risk increases by a factor of 100 or more, an augmented inspection team (AIT) may be sent to investigate, and an incident inspection team (IIT) is sent if the risk increases by a factor of 1,000 or more. While no IITs were dispatched in 2010, there were 14 instances, known as "near-misses," when the NRC had to dispatch inspection teams, including one AIT.

Four of these special inspections took place at plants owned by Progress Energy, and the one instance that required an AIT, ironically on the 31st anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident, had problematic conditions that the UCS report describes as being remarkably similar to what caused that infamous meltdown. Most disturbing of all may be the report's assertion that the NRC is only able to audit about 5 percent of the activities at nuclear plants in a given year, meaning the problems found represent only a small fraction of the total risks.

The UCS overview of these 14 "near-misses" found that many of them happened "because reactor owners, and often the NRC, tolerated known safety problems."

Click through below to see where and why the 14 "near-misses" occurred at U.S. nuclear plants in 2010.

Caption information gathered from the UCS report. CLICK HERE to view in full.

1 of 13

HB Robinson - Florence, SC

1 of 14

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

This Progress Energy plant experienced two near-misses within 6 months in 2010. Ironically, on the 31st anniversary of Three Mile Island accident (March 28, 2010), this event revisited nearly all the problems that caused that meltdown. An SIT, later upgraded to an AIT, was sent to investigate electrical fires after the plant experienced an unplanned reactor shutdown and emergency declaration. The team documented numerous problems from over the course of many years, including bad design, poor maintenance of problematic equipment, inadequate operator performance and poor training. The UCS report says, "There is simply no excuse for the fact that the company and the NRC had not detected and corrected at least some of these problems before this event." Nearly the same problems caused another visit by an SIT on October 7, 2010 after an automatic reactor shutdown was followed by equipment failures and operator miscues.

Texas Tornadoes 5/15/2013

Least Environmental Senators

Threatened Animals

Weirdest Animal Mating Rituals (GRAPHIC)

Anteater Birth Leaves Zoo Staff Puzzled

Celebrity Vegetarians

This Progress Energy plant experienced two near-misses within 6 months in 2010. Ironically, on the 31st anniversary of Three Mile Island accident (March 28, 2010), this event revisited nearly all the problems that caused that meltdown. An SIT, later upgraded to an AIT, was sent to investigate electrical fires after the plant experienced an unplanned reactor shutdown and emergency declaration. The team documented numerous problems from over the course of many years, including bad design, poor maintenance of problematic equipment, inadequate operator performance and poor training.

The UCS report says, "There is simply no excuse for the fact that the company and the NRC had not detected and corrected at least some of these problems before this event."

Nearly the same problems caused another visit by an SIT on October 7, 2010 after an automatic reactor shutdown was followed by equipment failures and operator miscues.

comments(380)

Total comments: 380 | Post a Comment

1 of 14

This 'Near-Miss'

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Not a big deal Can't believe it

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

5 Most Surprising 'Near-Misses'

loading...

5 Most Surprising 'Near-Misses'

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[DrStrangelov]

09:42 PM on 04/27/2011

This is not the end of nuclear power. By far, the industry will learn from Fukushima. Just like the auto industry learned from the Ford Pinto. How many lives lost there?

[DrStrangelov]

09:10 PM on 04/27/2011

You have to take the UCS with a grain of salt. A "near miss" is really not quantified. A disgruntled guy ramming a front gate of a nuclear plant may be a security incident, but hardly a "near miss" to a meltdown. Here is some perspective - a lay person visiting the air traffic controller tower notices on the screen two airplanes that seem to be heading for a collision course. As they get closer, one blip veers off. It would appear a "near miss" however the seasoned controller says "no worry", one plane is at 30,000 ft and the other at 5,000. To the trained eye, it looked as if disaster never was an issue. So it is with the UCS. They would be the "lay person" in this regard, an outsider just looking at snippets of NRC reports and trying to make safety hay out of it to justify their existence and funding. Some of these "near misses" are to be taken seriously, but others need a "graded approach" and can be dismissed as not important to overall safety. Just the perception of a "near miss" is enough I would suppose for the UCS. I would think they would understand better, even if Lochbaum spent 20 years in the industry. His conclusions without really being there, are just speculation.

[MSaxe]

02:43 PM on 03/21/2011

So the NRC found out about these and sent an SIT in. Two questions:
1) Are these problems fixed, inspected and approved for safe operations?
2) What others have been hidden from the NRC?

[elljay1]

09:27 PM on 03/20/2011

What we should be evaluating is the entire cost of the nuclear power generating system/industry
and treating it as any enterprise that is to be a for profit.
Also if any nuclear plants are privatized. federal support should be rescinded ,and they must carry the appropriate insurances as any private business must.
If I am wrong please explain.

[JPETERB]

01:56 AM on 03/22/2011

These breeder reactors were first developed for weapons production. That development and the infrastructure was wholly paid for by US taxpayers as part of the cost of WW II. Essentially this is continuous and hugely expensive socialism for giant corporations and the civilian electric power industry by subsidizing the design and construction and underwriting of dual use nuclear fission reactors. Nuclear power is not a profit making business without taxpayer subsidies and protection from actual liability for private industry. The profits are private, the cost is public. It is also called crony capitalism.

[elljay1]

05:01 PM on 03/22/2011

Why does no one seem to understand this?
And pro nuke people say it's cheep and clean!
Just hide the hidden costs deeper.

[DrStrangelov]

09:47 PM on 04/27/2011

LWRs are not breeders. Breeders are fast reactors. LWRs slow neutrons down, which interact with U-235, which is thermal fissionable. Fast reactors, a highly energetic neutron hits U-238, ultimately making Pu. These reactors were specialized and located on DOE reservations such as Hanford and Savannah River. Commercial LWRs in the USA were never used for weapons production. Actually civilian nuclear power was an offshoot of the nuclear Navy, with Rickover. The first commercial venture in the USA was when the Nautilus sub reactor was converted into the Shippingsport PA reactor. It was the Nuclear Navy, and the need for the LWR that kept technologies such as Molten Salt, and LFTR from being developed. Google Milton Shaw and Alvin Weinberg. Oak Ridge had it right. Nuclear power can be a profit making enterprise. Infinite safety means infinite cost. You have to set the bar somewhere. We can not have zero-risk for anything. Its not realistic.

[JPETERB]

08:27 PM on 03/20/2011

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Aug 1949 - Google Books Result
Vol. 5, No. 8 - 56 pages - Magazine
BACKER: I think nuclear reactors will have a great effect upon the lives of the ... there has been under construction during 1948 a reactor for research use ...
books.google.com/books?id=LQwAAAAAMBAJ... - More book results »

[JPETERB]

08:26 PM on 03/20/2011

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, United States Senate Atomic Energy Commission Hearings
August/September 1949
(partial transcript)
Dr. Bacher: The reactor program has not gone ahead as fast as we had hoped it would. One reason is that it had to take second place to the weapons development production and to the problems of the production of fissionable material.
But I believe today we stand on the threshold of a great development in this field. I am sure that if we--and by "we" I mean the people of the United States--are not timid in going ahead with this work, major successes will come to us. Timidity and playing safe simply is not a proper background for atomic energy development.
The Chairman: If it works, what will it mean to the people of the United States?
Dr. Backer: I think nuclear reactors will have a great effect upon the lives of the people in this country.
(later)
Senator Hickenlooper: There must be a point where the design is frozen and construction begins.
Dr. Bacher: It is my own conviction that in the development of reactors a certain boldness is needed. We must go ahead with the design and construction long before all of the problems are understood.
(later)
Rep. Jackson: If the scientific knowledge is in good hands, the only other danger would be the dissemination of this knowledge we now have if it is not properly managed...

[DrStrangelov]

09:50 PM on 04/27/2011

LWR reactors were the paradigm of the government back then. If nuclear changes its paradigm to LFTR for power, LWR for Navy vessels, and fast reactors for materials testing, then you might be singing a different tune. Medical Isotope Reactors - should be AHRs as well. Whats an AHR? That technology was around since the 1950s. Shoulda woulda coulda. Solution reactors went away because the AEC, Milt Shaw wanted heterogenous reactors so that the Navy reactors (which are parked in Seattle, Norfolk, San Diego) can be further developed. So blame Rickover, not the need to make Pu. N Reactor at Hanford never was intended for commercial power.

[jsgaetano]

07:28 PM on 03/20/2011

Fortunately, Ann Coulter is convincing conservatives that radiation is good for you, and that it should be a solid part of any Red Stater diet.
 
Coal Ash for breakfast!

[njack]

07:50 PM on 03/20/2011

Incredible!

[Ioan Lightoller]

08:03 PM on 03/20/2011

Nah, nothing surprises me where the reichies are concerned.

[DrStrangelov]

09:52 PM on 04/27/2011

The Kingston TN coal ash spill released more radiation to the atmosphere than TMI. Really. THink of how that can be? Can you say "natural uranium" in coal? Oh and natural uranium decays to --- drum roll--- Radon. The same Radon in your basement. Why basement radon kills more people every year than any nuclear power plant.

[Chicagowill]

03:19 PM on 03/20/2011

Nuclear energy is only viable because it gets three subsidies from the Federal Government.

1. No private firm will build a nuclear reactor without government guarantees for the construction loans. Construction takes over 10 years. Too many things can go wrong in ten years for a prudent utility to be exposed that long.
2. The Anderson-Price Act caps a utility's losses at $10 billion per incident. Above that, the taxpayer pays.
3. When we develop a place to store nuclear waste, it will have to be done by eminent domain. The industry could not pay anyone enough to store the waste in their backyard for thousands of years.

[rainkitty]

12:50 PM on 03/20/2011

How close are you to a nuclear plant? Enter your zipcode:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nuclear_power_plants_locations/index.html

[Howard Pearlman 13]

12:42 PM on 03/20/2011

10 out of the 14 are in RED STATES ...... See what dumbing down the electorate does for making disasters more likely !

[wakawaka09]

08:58 PM on 03/21/2011

And the red state I'm in makes money storing other state's nuclear waste.

[DragonFly]

12:15 PM on 03/20/2011

There is little doubt in my mind that we presently possess viable forms of technology that are safer and cleaner - AND - had we implemented them early on, we would not be in the precarious position we find ourselves today - both politically and energy wise.

The problem is - and always has been - the safer/cleaner'/renewable sources are not profitable enough for the gargantuan energy industry - and/or they haven't figured out how to monopolize them -- yet.

And because of this unfortunate fact, we're all forced to play footsie with fate to the ever-increasing sound of ticking.

[DrStrangelov]

09:53 PM on 04/27/2011

When you really sit and think about it, if we had developed nuclear safer these past 30 years, which we have, and deployed it, then our industrial society would not contribute to global warming and green house gasses. Think about it. The irony of the antinuclear movement is that they made the environment WORSE!

[DragonFly]

07:59 AM on 04/28/2011

When one really thinks about it - your rationale is clearly myopic.