28 May, 2017
Experts believe that the Commission ignores the fact that most of the country's nuclear power nuclear fuel is located in the vicinity of nuclear waste.
Spent fuel came into public view after the March 2011 disaster in Fukushima, Japan, where a magnitude 9.0 quake unleased a tsunami that crashed into a nuclear power plant and caused widespread damage.
The researchers say that this frightening scenario can be avoided if spent fuel is not housed in the pools which are used at nearly all U.S. nuclear plants to store and cool used radioactive material.
The researchers then emphasize that such a frightening scenario can be avoided if spent fuel is not stored in the pools which are used at almost all U.S. nuclear plants to store and cool used radioactive material. On average, radioactivity from such an accident could force approximately 8 million people to relocate and result in $2 trillion in damages.
The researches also stressed that a nuclear disaster could be brought about by a large quake or terrorist attack, the possibility of which was excluded by the NRC.
The researchers claim this analysis was based on the assumption that there would be no consequences from radioactive contamination beyond a 50-miles radius from a fire and that any affected areas could be cleaned up within a year. Failing to account for these and other factors led the NRC to significantly underestimate the destruction such a disaster could cause.
'The NRC has been pressured by the nuclear industry, directly and through Congress, to low-ball the potential consequences of a fire because of concerns that increased costs could result in shutting down more nuclear power plants, ' nuclear expert and co-author of the paper Frank von Hippel was quoted as saying.
"Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this unsafe situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry's wishes", he added. The projection is based on actual weather patterns that occurred in April 2015.
As the physicists explain in an article in Science, the issue is what happens to the nuclear fuel once it's all spent and removed from the reactor. A 9.0-magnitude natural disaster caused a tsunami that struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, disabling the electrical systems necessary for cooling the reactor cores.
Specifically, the wiring systems that operated the reactor cores were disabled by the rushing saltwater, leading to core meltdowns at three of the six reactors, hydrogen explosions and a release of radioactive material that led to a massive evacuation and eventual relocation of residents. There was no spent fuel in the tunnel at the time and no indication anyone was exposed to radiation. "That nearly happened at Fukushima in Unit 4".
In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, the NRC considered proposals for new safety requirements at US plants.
Specifically, the scientists say the spent fuel now housed in pools should be housed in dry casks to prevent a nuclear-waste fire that would cause a disaster larger than what happened in Fukushima, Japan, following an quake and tsunami in 2011. In such a scenario the spent fuel could heat up and catch fire within hours, releasing a large fraction of its highly radioactive contents.
However, implementing the safety measures would cost roughly $50 million per pool, a significant cost for many plants that have multiple pools.
The consequences of a fire could be truly disastrous at densely packed pools, which typically contains much more cesium-137-a long-lived, extremely hazardous radioactive isotope-than is present in reactor cores. This doesn't match up with the reality experienced at Fukushima and following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, says the report.
In fact, based on the examples of Fukushima and the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, the scientists found that millions of residents would likely have to relocate in the instance of an event in the USA, and that cleanup time would take much longer than one year, as the NRC concluded. Not that the difference matters that much to the nuclear industry: As the physicists point out, the USA government passed a law in 1957 that caps what the industry would have to pay in event of an accident at just $13.6 billion.
The researchers note that Congress has the authority to fix the costly problem if the NRC fails to take any further action.
The NRC could require plant owners to expedite transfer of spent fuel to dry casks.
"We think the NRC gamed their analysis essentially to get the answer they want", said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists and one of the authors of the article in "Science", a magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "It is time for the NRC to employ sound science and common-sense policy judgments in its decision-making process", he said.
The scientists simulated a nightmare scenario in their "Nuclear safety regulation in the post-Fukushima era" article.
