AG Coakley Raising Concerns About Mass. Nuclear Power Plants

BOSTON (CBS) — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says containment at three reactors at the crippled Fukishima nuclear plant in Japan is currently intact and the situation at the plant appears to be stabilizing.

The NRC met to get an update from staffers on the ongoing crisis and devise a plan to meet President Obama’s call for a comprehensive safety review at the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S.

The commission says Units 1, 2 and 3 at the plant have some core damage, but that containment for those three reactors is not currently breached.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is raising concerns about two nuclear power plants with designs for spent fuel rod storage that are similar to Japan’s designs.

WBZ NewsRadio 1030’s Lana Jones reports.

  • timma

    what the hell does the cold fish care about the nukes plants? she gonna prosecute them ? must be getting to run for office again

  • RH

    She should concentrate on the root cause of the problem in Japan and outlaw earthquakes and tsunamis!

  • masspoliticsareajoke

    what a joke! she just wants her name in the papers for doing something. The only reason there was a problem at the japan plants is because they had one of the biggest earthquakes in History and then a tsunami. If that happens here in mass we are going to have even bigger problems because most likely its the end of the world

  • Becca

    Last time I checked we weren’t in a particularly active area for earthquakes and the such. So how does anything that happened in Japan even relate AT ALL to our reactors? If we ever experienced an earthquake and tsunami as large as the one in Japan, we would have way more to worry about. We don’t have building codes mandating that we build to withstand earthquakes – all of our precious stone and brick buildings wouldn’t stand a chance.

    I’m sick of politicians trying to gain favor by playing into fears. They need to worry about how to help the Japanese…instead of wasting time worrying about something that has extremely little chance of happening to us. This design of reactor has always been very safe – it took an absolute catastrophe to cause it problems. A catastrophe in an area that is very prone to quakes…which is definately NOT like the area we live in.

  • robert

    To all of those who take nukes lightly:
    It seems that you forgot worst nuclear disaster ever, Chernobyl. No tsunamy over there, no volcano, no earthquake. The plant was just old, built decades prior to the disaster. It malfunctioned.
    First, go and do some reading and research on Chernobyl and make comparisons.
    Second, never trust our unpredictable mother nature – there are no guarantees!
    Third, why in the world are you sure that malfunctioning or terrorist attack (stil remember 9-11?) can’t happen at any buke, any country, including ours?
    Fourth, Have you heard about concernes accros the EU with their nukes, the ones nat as old as ours, built and secured better than ours.
    Fifth, if you do not trust n goverment official expressing her concern over the nukes, why are you so eager to trust those who claim that we’re perfectly safe?
    Sixth, if you do not care about your own safety, you shoud do care about future of our kids.
    Finally, remember, your naive standpoint today may cost you your life tomorrow!

    • Roberts English teacher

      First take some of your own advice and do some research on Chernobyl. AS Scott and RH pointed out Chernobyl was a result of poor design.

      Second, I cant take anything you say seriously when you say things like:
      you shoud do care
      not trust n goverment

      Thirdly what is a buke?

      Try learning how to you spell check

    • RH

      Robert, it appears it is you that might need to educate yourself a bit. The Chernobyl disaster was a direct result of the poor design of the nuclear reactor. The US does not have any reactors built like that design. Even if ours are as old or older, ours simply do not have the same design flaw that that one did. And no, I don’t trust mother nature, but I trust politicians even less. We aren’t saying that a disaster can’t happen. We are saying that there are FAR more important and pressing issues she should be concerning herself with than whether our nuclear plant can withstand a record earthquake combined with the resulting tsunami. What about those near earth asteroids we keep hearing about? Should she be investigating whether the nuclear plants could withstand them? What about a rip in the fabric of space time??? Priorities people, priorities.

  • Scott

    The reactor at Chernobyl which had the accident was only 3 years old at the time, it didn’t fail due to age – it was a poor design (not surprising for the Soviets). The oldest unit (#1) at Chernobyl was only 9 years old, not “decades”.

    The problem at Chernobyl occurred when they were “experimenting” with the plant to determine if a known issue with cooling the plant during a loss of power had been fixed with recent modifications. As the world quickly learned, the problem was not fixed with disaterous results. These Soviet RMBK plants had numerous other quirks including susceptibiliy to unexpected surges in reactor output, no containment structures, etc.

    While I have my own concerns about nuke plants, I certainly believe we need to start the discussion with facts. I also believe the Chernobyl incident is not particulary relevant to US designed plants which are significantly different.

    I do agree that moving to newer plant designs which utilize many improvements including passive, no power required cooling is something we should be doing. Those who oppose nuclear power discourage this by protesting any proposals to build new plants – plants which would then replace older units. Utilities continue running the older plants and requesting license extensions since they are easier to obtain than permission for new plants.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Taz Show
Download Weather App

Listen Live