Skip to main content

Union of Concerned Scientists Distorts Nuclear Events in Weekly Blog Series

By

Last week, Margaret Harding, former GE engineering manager, took on a post by UCS’ David Lochbaum that misstated the nuclear events at two reactors. From Margaret:

On August 24th, Mr. Lochbaum posted a story on the Union of Concerned Scientists website about an event in 1988, then proceeded to link it to a 2005 event at a different plant and makes the case that the nuclear industry is filled with screw-ups and near misses. You can read the original article here. As it happens, my career has included learning about these particular events and leading the team that developed some of the solutions that are currently in place to prevent/mitigate the effect. From that, I can say – Mr. Lochbaum got it wrong.

To find out how Margaret is correct, stop by for the rest. As well, Dan Yurman has more background to their story.

Looking forward to reading more from Margaret, maybe this will turn into a bigger debate between her and Mr. Lochbaum.

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I always call the kooks to task when they get all wee-weed up about safety systems functioning as designed. Those are no more "incidents" than a circuit breaker opening if you have an overload on one of the circuits in your home. When a safety system operates as designed and a safe condition is attained as a result, that should count as a positive, not a fault in either design or management.
August 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM
gmax137 said…
I'm going to buck the trend here, and say that I think the 'Fission Stories' and it's predecessor 'Nugget Files' should be required reading by all of us in the nuclear industry , and especially by the managers at the operating plants. Yes, some of these stories are 20+ years old - but Lochbaum said as much in the post introducing the series.

And yes, we all have an 'OE' person or group - but I don't think it hurts to emphasize how easy it is for well intentioned efforts to go offtrack.

We need to tell and re-tell these stories to ourselves and (especially) to our new hires. What we don't need to do is feel as if we have fixed all those problems 'back in the day.' In 1990 we looked at our calcs and evals from 1980 and said, "wow we do much better now." In 2000 we said the same thing about our work from 1990, and in 2010 we have improved over 2000. This is not a bad thing - it shows that we can constantly hold ourselves to higher standards.

And finally, the important point in these stories is never the specific details of the story - the important point is the need for constant vigilance. Our enemy is complacency.
August 31, 2010 at 7:50 AM
Anonymous said…
The safety record of nuclear energy in this country is proof enough that there is no culture of complacency, or lack of desire for self-improvement and the need to keep current with technology and methodology. When problems are identified, there is always great effort expended to identify the cause, implement corrective actions, and avoid repetition. I've been involved in any number of industries over the years, things like aviation, civil engineering, petrochemicals, medical technology, and I have to say that nuclear outstrips them all when it comes to safety and quality assurance.
August 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Brian Mays said…
gmax137 - I think that you'd be hard pressed to find a person of any significance in the nuclear industry who is in favor of complacency or who is against benefiting from lessons learned. In fact, many nuclear companies have programs and policies in place specifically to capture this information.

Nevertheless, the UCS's "Fission Stories" are really more like ghost stories -- their purpose is to frighten the reader with phantasms. I can almost picture Dave Lochbaum holding a flashlight under his chin.

In any case, if the story is wrong then it is not much use to anyone, is it?
August 31, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more