""" Ironically, some of the decisions that have been made in the name of improving safety margins for low probability events, may have reduced the safety margins for high probability events. The UE&C piping study uncovered numerous areas where the tolerances requested in the piping design documents might be appropriate for a machine shop oriented manufacturing operation, but are totally unrealistic for field construction. """
via https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15
The whole quote is worth reading/skimming.
More importantly this zero risk approach has to be considered relative to all the other risks arising from building other types of power plants.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
(and of course a bit more on the problems with the process at the NRC https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regu... )
Also, skimming the list of USA incidents, there are a great deal of bullshit "incidents" in recent times. Most related to natural machanical breakdowns in non radioactive systems due to everything being operated decades past its expiration date. Wouldn't be happening if new NPPs had been built to replace these ancient designs.
> Wouldn't be happening if new NPPs had been built to replace these ancient designs.
That's possible but the economics have to make sense as well. You would do well to try and extend the lifetime of a NPP and run it as an LTO NPP, this maximises profits if it is possible to run the plant past the lifetime it was originally designed for. Incremental upgrades are the way to go in such a case.