Re: US nuke regulators criticized for false safety methods

["Hank" <bicehous@gso.uri.edu>]

I find it interesting that the Union of Concerned Scientists  has opposed
and helped to block fuel reprocessing in this country leading to the need
for extensive onsite storage of spent fuel and DOE efforts to site a
disposal facility for spent fuel to compound a problem they helped to
create. Now they have the gall to complain that the presence of the stored
spent fuel increases the risk at the power plants.

By the way, the Union of Concerned Scientists has become an organizational
name that is a classic oxymoron since most of them are lawyers these days.

The views expressed are mine alone.

Hank Bicehouse

----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy Perle <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: US nuke regulators criticized for false safety methods


> US nuke regulators criticized for false safety methods
>
> WASHINGTON, Aug 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
> was charged on Thursday with using faulty risk assessment methods in
> determining the safety of the nation's nuclear power plants, putting
> cost containment ahead of safety, according to the Union of Concerned
> Scientists.
>
> In a strongly worded report, the activist group detailed how in its
> opinion, NRC risk assessments ignore common sense and allow nuclear
> operators to use so-called "don't worry, be happy" methodologies that
> cloud the actual risks of plant failures.
>
> "The NRC is cutting safety margins based on counterfeit safety
> studies," said David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer at the Union
> of Concerned Scientists and author of the report, entitled "Nuclear
> Plant Risk Studies: Failing the Grade."
>
> "The agency is acting irresponsibly, increasing the risk to millions
> of people living near nuclear plants," he said.
>
> Nuclear power provides 20 percent of the country's energy needs, and
> is seen by the industry as a safe, and emissions free method to meet
> increasing demand for electricity.
>
> A spokesman for the NRC said the report was not given to them until
> Thursday, leaving the NRC no time to comment on the specifics of the
> 25-page study.
>
> The agency had asked for the report last week, but now will have to
> wait until Friday to review the charges in detail.
>
> In general though, a NRC spokesman said the agency takes it safety
> charge "seriously" and does not risk public health.
>
> "Our principle mission is to protect the public health and safety,"
> said William Beecher, NRC director of public affairs.
>
> Using data from as early as 1982 to the present, the activists'
> report says the advent of deregulation in the electric power industry
> has spurred cost cutting at nuclear plants, resulting in an erosion
> of risk protections.
>
> "An accident at a U.S. nuclear power plant could kill more people
> than were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki," Lochbaum
> said. "Yet, the NRC fails to establish minimum standards for plant
> owners to follow when calculating the probability of an accident."
>
> Some of the faults include assumptions in NRC risk assessments that
> nuclear plants always conform with safety requirements. "Yet each
> year more than a thousand violations are reported," the report said.
>
> Other factors ignored include no factoring in for the aging of
> plants, reactor pressure vessel failures, plant worker mistakes and
> health hazards of irradiated fuel in spent fuel pool on-sight at the
> nation's 103 operating commercial plants.
>
> The Union of Concerned Scientists want the NRC to halt current risk
> assessments, and establish minimum standards for all plants for
> public consumption.
>
> "Congress should then provide the NRC with the resources necessary to
> calculate the risks and fix any shortfalls," the report said.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html