A lack of vital action from regulators could leave the public at high risk from nuclear-waste fires, claims a new report. Read more: Journey deep into the Finnish caverns where nuclear waste will be buried for millenia
In an article in Science, researchers from Princeton University and the Union of Concerned Scientists found that a reliance on "faulty analysis" by US nuclear experts could result in a catastrophic fire that has the potential to force some 8 million people to relocate, and result in a staggering $2 trillion (£1.5 trillion) in damages.
Fallout from such a fire could be considerably larger than the radioactive emissions from the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan and the team claims such a fire at any one of dozens of reactor sites around the country could be triggered by a large earthquake or a terrorist attack. The researchers argue that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – a government agency tasked with ensuring the safe use of radioactive materials – refuses to implement regulatory measures that could avoid such a disaster.
"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," said co-author Frank von Hippel, research physicist at Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security (SGS).
"Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry's wishes."
The paper continues that the public is at risk from fires in pools used to store and cool radioactive fuel rods because the water-filled basins are so tightly packed with nuclear waste.
Similar ‘spent-fuel’ pools were brought into the spotlight following the March 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan. A tsunami triggered by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, knocking out electrical cooling systems and leading to meltdowns of three of the facility’s six reactors and the release of radioactive material.
"The Fukushima accident could have been a hundred times worse had there been a loss of the water covering the spent fuel in pools associated with each reactor," von Hippel said. "That almost happened at Fukushima in Unit 4."
Following the Fukushima disaster, the NRC considered a variety of new safety features including a ban on densely packing spent-fuel pools and a requirement to move cooled spent-fuel to dry storage casks after five years.
The NRC concluded that a spent-fuel pool fire would cause around $125 billion (£96 billion) in damages while transferring the fuel to dry casks could reduce radioactive releases from pool fires by 99 per cent. However, the agency considered a fire to be so unlikely that it would not justify the cost of around $50 million (£38 million) needed to secure each pool.
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. This doesn’t match up with the reality experienced at Fukushima and following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, says the report.
The researchers note that Congress has the authority to fix the costly problem if the NRC fails to take any further action. They also suggest that state-level subsidies could be limited to plants that agree to make their spent-fuel pools safer.
"In far too many instances, the NRC has used flawed analysis to justify inaction, leaving millions of Americans at risk of a radiological release that could contaminate their homes and destroy their livelihoods," said co-author Edwin Lyman, from the Union of Concerned Scientists Lyman. "It is time for the NRC to employ sound science and common-sense policy judgments in its decision-making process."
While the NRC has, so far, not instructed plant owners to move spent-fuel away from pools, it did implement a series of safety improvements following the Fukushima disaster.
In March 2012, it issued three orders requiring nuclear power plants to obtain additional emergency equipment, install enhanced equipment to monitor water levels in spent-fuel pools and install or improve emergency venting systems to relieve pressure in the event of a major accident.
Power plants were also told to re-analyse their earthquake and flooding hazards to formulate more effective emergency plans.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
