Skip to main content

The Industrial Safety Accident Rate in the Nuclear Energy Industry

The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO)'s mission is
To maximise the safety and reliability of the operation of nuclear power plants by exchanging information and encouraging communication, comparison and emulation amongst its members.
WANO provides a wide variety of data on the nuclear industry, and today, we're going to look at the Industrial Safety Accident Rate or ISAR. According to WANO, the ISAR at U.S. nuclear power plants is far lower than the rate at related industries like electric utilities or manufacturing.


The ISAR is calculated by taking the number of accidents resulting in lost work, restricted work, or fatalities for every 200,000 worker hours. The Bureau of Labor Statistics refers to this as 100 full-time workers (100 workers * 40 hours per week * 50 weeks = 200,000 worker hours). Please note that the rate reported from BLS does not include fatalities.

To find what these rates are for other industries in the U.S. go to the BLS IIF webpage. If you scroll down to Get Detailed IIF Statistics under Create Customized Tables (one screen), you can click on Occupational injuries and illnesses (2003 forward). From here you can query any industry in the U.S. You won'’t be able to find nuclear power plants but you will be able to find Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution as well as the Manufacturing industry. For kicks, check out what some of the rates are for Financial Activities -- you'll be surprised at what you find.

On WANO's website, world performance indicators are available. The ISAR for the world is lower (.21) than the U.S. (.25) for 2004. However, only half of the plants outside the U.S. report that data. The WANO data I refer to here is for members only, so here'’s NEI'’s link to the data back to 1980.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...