Talk:Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States

The table entitled "Nuclear power accidents in the U.S." includes several accidents that are in no way "nuclear" other than to have happened at a nuclear power plant. While, the accidental electrocution of a worker is a tragedy for his family, it is not a "nuclear accident".

The statement that "71 percent of all nuclear accidents (45 out of 63) occurred in the United States" is based on fraudulent data. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) created the accepted INES standard that defines a nuclear accident.

"The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale - is a tool for promptly communicating to the public in consistent terms the safety significance of reported nuclear and radiological incidents and accidents, excluding naturally occurring phenomena such as Radon." - http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.htm

INES User’s Manual* defines seven levels of severity for nuclear events. The top four are considered "accidents". The lower three are considered "incidents". The electrocution of a worker is a zero -- off the bottom of the scale -- not even an incident much less an accident.

This page does not conform the the accepted international standard for a discussion of nuclear accidents. It is fiction.

• INES, The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User’s Manual, 2008 Edition. co-sponsored by: The International Atomic Energy Agency and OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2009.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.194.11 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 July 2010‎

This article is not fiction because it is based on hard data. I've added an extra column in the Table for INES ratings, if you wish to include them. And have tightened the focus of the article to "nuclear power plant accidents", rather than simply "nuclear accidents". As the article says, these accidents are defined as "incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported". Johnfos (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So the use of the word accident in the context of nuclear power is not fraudulent because you have simply redefined it within the scope of this article? That's like saying a passenger onboard a commercial aircraft dying of a heart attack while still on the tarmac should be characterized as an aviation accident. Not only do you provide no reference for the reporting limit to the USG for property damage at power generating stations, but you also provide no basis for ignoring the use of the international standard INES scale for characterizing nuclear accident severity.216.96.229.48 (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

See my reasoning below for why this definition of an accident is valid, especially when one looks across different energy systems. But more to the point: what's wrong, inherently, with this definition? If an energy system breaks down and either kills someone, or causes $50,000 in damages, or more - that's more damage than almost any automobile accident, and about half the price of most people's homes, and most nuclear accidents/incidents cause many magnitudes of this low range - why should it not count as an accident? What logic do you have arguing the opposite?Bksovacool (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no point arguing with you. Your agenda is quite clear Mr. Sovacool. If you feel the need to characterize a worker falling down a manhole as a nuclear accident, then your reasoning only serves to damage your cause.216.96.229.107 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Accident use

The use of the term accident in the context of operation of nuclear reactors in this article strains credulity. The use of the word accident to mean incidents which resulted in greater than 50,000 USD property damage is arbitrary and specious in this context. I think that this article needs to be cut down to the events which are internationally recognized as nuclear accidents, and not simply any incident which occurred in a nuclear power plant and resulted in financial loss greater than the un-referenced limit used previously here.216.96.229.48 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The definition here is close to the one the U.S. EPA uses for accidents in other energy sectors, like the oil and gas industry, as well as the Paul Scherr Institute. Why apply it to nuclear energy? Because the original source, a study I did in the journal Energy Policy, wanted to look at trends in energy accidents across many different technologies, including oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydroelectricity. So I had to pick a common definition of what constituted an "accident." I had to pick a broader definition so that accidents (and incidents) could be compared across different fuel systems and technologies. Bksovacool (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you would be conducting an analysis of "industrial accidents" across different segments of the energy sector. A nuclear accident is clearly defined by respected international organizations and widely accepted to be something categorically different from your definition. Again, you are only damaging your own credibility by attempting to characterize personal accidents unrelated to reactor safety or radiation exposure and property damage unrelated to reactor safety or radiation exposure as nuclear accidents. Nuclear implies that it concerns some radiological process or nuclear transformation. If a man falling down a hole had no effect on safe operation of the plant, exposure to himself, or release of activity to the public, it's not a nuclear accident. You are extending a term which carries the implication of catastrophe and poisoning to everyday dangers independent of any radiological risk.216.96.229.107 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Pluming Leaks

Many of these are plumbing related. If you have pipes they will leak need to be replaced occasionally.

It's NOT a nuclear incident if a pipe fails or a valve sticks. Many of the "incidents" listed aren't really incidents at all. Just a plumber call. It's an incident if the plant is dependant and the operators do not know it (it causes un-planned damage).

If there's a surprise it's where they allowed leaks and moreso how long the leaks caused shutdown (or cost).

Why is what a factory floor manager does: plans what needs to be redundant to avoid down time (ie, 24/7). What to maintain or allow to fail. Which parts to keep on hand for hot swapping.

The records look pretty good if we take the "so what, a leaky pipe" point of view. But one has to wonder how these plants have so many pipes and still not enough pipes to do the pluming! One has to wonder at the posted cost of some of these events: some go above a $1B USD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is completely ignorant of the definition of nuclear accident. Nuclear grade pipes do not commonly leak, nor do they need to be commonly replaced. Plumbing fails in residential and commercial facilities because of cheap materials, lack of maintenance, corrosive contents, less-than-professional repairs, and a complete lack of site-specific engineering. These conditions do not exist at NPP's. If a leak in a pipe or a stuck valve degrades reactor safety, then it is a nuclear incident or accident. In regards to the costs posted, I have a significant issue with the lack of citations, but given the incredible daily loss of revenue for an unplanned shutdown, it's not inconceivable that costs associated with repairs which first require significant engineering and regulatory burden can approach $1B.216.96.229.107 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing

• Salem near ATWS events in 1983
• Surry Feedwater Pipe Break (18 inches) in 1986
• Loss of all DC power in Nine Mile Point 2 in 1991 -> emergency shutdown with nearly no control functions for the operators
• Recent permanent shutdown of the units in San Onofre, caused economically by generic flaws in the newly installed Steam Generators

--2A02:120B:2C08:F3E0:6062:60:6CFF:C2C2 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Context Section? You mean, "Bias Injection Section", Should be removed in its entirety

Context Section? Really? Its an obvious violation of neutrality. All the context section does is say, there are a bunch of accidents, which if true would be evident from reading the list included IN the article. CONTEXT would be including a comparison of the US Nuclear Industry's saftey record to that of the European and Russian Nuclear Industry. Or to compare the human fatalities and property damage caused by US Nuclear Accidents to other energy sources such as hydroelectric, coal, or natural gas. Not to mention at least some of the sources used deceptively included dead hyperlinks so their so their statements appeared to be well supported, when the opposite is true. To summarize, CONTEXT section needs heavily revised or deleted entirely. yeaggermiester (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)