This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
A U.S. Nuclear Accident Could Be a Lot Worse than Japan
I noted last week:
Reuters reported yesterday:
U.S. regulators privately have expressed doubts that some of the nation's nuclear power plants are prepared for a Fukushima-scale disaster, undercutting their public confidence since Japan's nuclear crisis began, documents released by an independent safety watchdog group show.
Internal Nuclear Regulatory Commission e-mails and memos obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists questioned the adequacy of the back-up plans to keep reactor cooling systems running if off-site power were lost for an extended period.
Those concerns seem to contrast with the confidence U.S. regulators and industry officials have publicly expressed after the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl began to unfold on March 11, UCS officials said on Wednesday.
"While the NRC and the nuclear industry have been reassuring Americans that there is nothing to worry about -- that we can do a better job dealing with a nuclear disaster like the one that just happened in Japan -- it turns out that privately NRC senior analysts are not so sure," said Edwin Lyman, a UCS nuclear expert.
I pointed out last month:
As MSNBC notes, there are 23 virtually-identical reactors in the U.S. to the leaking Fukushima reactors.
As McClatchy notes, American reactors hold much more spent fuel than the Japanese reactors (the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima - in turn - dwarfs Chernobyl):
U.S. nuclear plants use the same sort of pools to cool spent nuclear-fuel rods as the ones now in danger of spewing radiation at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant, only the U.S. pools hold much more nuclear material.
***
The Japanese plant's pools are far from capacity, but still contain an enormous amount of radioactivity, Lyman said. A typical U.S. nuclear plant would have about 10 times as much fuel in its pools, he said.
And yet the nuclear industry and American government are poo-poohing the danger. As McClatchy notes:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reaffirmed its position that the U.S. pools are operated safely.
The Nation notes:
Aileen Mioko Smith, director of Green Action Kyoto, met Fukushima plant and government officials in August 2010. “At the plant they seemed to dismiss our concerns about spent fuel pools,” said Mioko Smith. “At the prefecture, they were very worried but had no plan for how to deal with it.”
Remarkably, that is the norm—both in Japan and in the United States. Spent fuel pools at Fukushima are not equipped with backup water-circulation systems or backup generators for the water-circulation system they do have.
The exact same design flaw is in place at Vermont Yankee, a nuclear plant of the same GE design as the Fukushima reactors. At Fukushima each reactor has between 60 and 83 tons of spent fuel rods stored next to them. Vermont Yankee has a staggering 690 tons of spent fuel rods on site.
Nuclear safety activists in the United States have long known of these problems and have sought repeatedly to have them addressed. At least get backup generators for the pools, they implored. But at every turn the industry has pushed back, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has consistently ruled in favor of plant owners over local communities.
After 9/11 the issue of spent fuel rods again had momentary traction. Numerous citizen groups petitioned and pressured the NRC for enhanced protections of the pools. But the NRC deemed “the possibility of a terrorist attack...speculative and simply too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action.” So nothing was done—not even the provision of backup water-circulation systems or emergency power-generation systems.
Similarly, Pro Publica points out:
Opponents of nuclear power have warned for years that if these pools drain, either by accident or terrorist attack, it could lead to a fire and a catastrophic release of radiation.
***
The nuclear industry says fears about the storage pools at U.S. plants are overblown because the pools are protected and, even if fuel is exposed to the air, the chance of a fire is incredibly small.
***
“People should be very concerned because the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has acknowledged that spent fuel pools that are not located inside the containment have the potential to cause catastrophic accidents,” said Diane Curran, a lawyer who has represented environmental groups and governments in challenges to fuel storage plans.
“These are not high-probability accidents,” Curran said, “but we have seen how low-probability accidents can happen.”
After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Congress asked the National Academies to study the vulnerability of spent fuel to a terrorist attack.
The resulting 2005 report, “Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage ,” concluded that “an attack which partially or completely drains a plant's spent fuel pool might be capable of starting a high-temperature fire that could release large quantities of radioactive material into the environment.”
The report found that the vulnerability of the spent fuel to fire depends on how old it is and how it is stored. As the fuel ages, it cools, so it becomes less susceptible to a fire.
“The industry standard is that fuel that is older than five years can be dry-stored,” said Kevin Crowley, director of the nuclear and radiation board for the National Research Council, part of National Academies.
The report recommended that the nuclear industry take steps to decrease the vulnerability of the storage pools to fire. Some of those steps are classified, Crowley said. But he said others, like making sure there were fire hoses or spray systems above the pools, were pretty simple.
***
The nuclear industry disagreed with the national academy about the vulnerability of the spent fuel to a fire.
So a Fukushima-type disaster was inevitable ... and will be inevitable in the U.S. as well, unless steps are taken to make the plants safer.
I reported last month:
In 1982, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs received a secret report received from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission called "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences 2".
***
In that report and other reports by the NRC in the 1980s, it was estimated that there was a 50% chance of a nuclear meltdown within the next 20 years which would be so large that it would contaminate an area the size of the State of Pennsylvania, which would result in huge numbers of a fatalities, and which would cause damage in the hundreds of billions of dollars (in 1980s dollars).
Similarly, renowned physicist Michio Kaku told Democracy Now today:
The American people have not been given the full truth, because, for example, right north of New York City, roughly 30 miles north of where we are right now, we have the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has now admitted that of all the reactors prone to earthquakes, the one right next to New York City is number one on that list. And the government itself, back in 1980, estimated that property damage would be on the order of about $200 billion in case of an accident, in 1980 dollars [more than $500 billion in today's dollars], at the Indian Point nuclear power station.
In 1996, Time Magazine quoted George Galatis - former Senior Engineer at Northeast Utilities company in Connecticut - as warning:
Because the Federal Government has never created a storage site for high-level radioactive waste, fuel pools in nuclear plants across the country have become de facto nuclear dumps—with many filled nearly to capacity. The pools weren’t designed for this purpose, and risk is involved: the rods must be submerged at all times. A cooling system must dissipate the intense heat they give off. If the system failed, the pool could boil, turning the plant into a lethal sauna with clouds of reactive steam. And if earthquake, human error or mechanical failure drained the pool, the result could be catastrophic: a meltdown of multiple cores taking place outside of the reactor containment, releasing massive amounts of radiation and rendering hundreds of square miles uninhabitable.”
Indeed, Galatis now argues that the U.S. could suffer a much worse nuclear accident than Japan:
Right now the true risk to public health and safety associated with the generation of nuclear power is intentionally kept from the public. Because of misplaced trust, these enormous risks are in effect being enforced on the public without their knowledge or consent. People need to know about and agree to accept the real risks involved so that when a scenario like Fukushima—or worse—arises here, there is already a degree of acceptance. Without this formal public acceptance, nuclear power will never be cost effective nor will it survive.
[T]he risks associated with nuclear power and in particular, the storage of spent fuel in the spent fuel pools, have not been properly addressed by the nuclear industry and its Federal regulator. Without appropriate action, the nuclear tragedy in Japan may very well be reproduced on American soil at some point in the near future.
***
One of the big surprises the public has become aware of is that the spent fuel pools in the Japanese nuclear power plants do not have a containment structure over them to prevent the escape of radioactive contaminants. People today can not believe how the design of a plant could so grossly compromise the health and safety of the general public. Yet this is one of the key safety issues we have right here in the USA as well: 23 American reactors are based on the same ‘Mark I’ blueprint as the Fukushima plant, and all 33 US Boiling Water Reactors share the same spent fuel pool design.
***
These pools were originally designed to hold less than half of a reactor’s core of fuel as a normal mode of operation, and that on a temporary basis. They were never intended to serve as a long-term nuclear fuel storage facility. However, today most nuclear plants in the USA contain more than five cores, which is at least ten times their original design for normal operation, and at least 2-3 times more than the amount held at the Fukushima unit 4 spent fuel pool. This means the US power plants, especially those with elevated spent fuel pools, are potential ticking timebombs, waiting for earth quakes, human error, acts of malice, or terrorism to cause a radiological crisis.
***
After the 9/11 attacks here in the USA, a Congressional Commission was formed and one of the issues was how vulnerable the nuclear plants were to terrorist attacks, especially airplane attacks. In response, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a public proclamation that the plants are safe because of the concrete dome protecting the ‘reactor’. Their initial answer was entirely beside the question, and the issue of the spent-fuel pools remained unanswered, in my opinion intentionally.
***
In my experience, official sources of information are often confusing and of little transparency. Given the enormous risks involved, it is vitally important for everyone to do their own research and become more informed. Fortunately today, thanks to the Internet, there are sufficient resources available.
And earthquakes, terrorist attacks and error aren't the only risks to U.S. nuclear reactors (and see this).
- advertisements -
CO2 is vastly more difficult to deal with than plutonium spread all over the countryside? Or Cesium in the drinking water? I don't think so. Neither will my great great grandchildren. Let's go to the Ukraine and see what they think. Or anywhere in northern Japan. And anyway, it's a false choice. Why do I have to decide whether to grow coal power or nukes endlessly? How 'bout neither? And yes, I will ride my bike to work and live with windmills and not have instant-on on my TV if that means I don't have to die by choking on my own vomit when Diablo Canyon blows.
if as you said "CO2 is vastly more difficult to deal with", how can you stand yourself when every day you exhale pounds and pounds of CO2?
how can you look at yourself in the mirror knowing you responsible for major CO2 pollution?
the only way you can stop your pollution of the earth is self asphysication whereby your will end the vicious O2 - CO2 cycle.
And by the way did you ever consider that while you are biking to work you are at least doubling your CO2 pollution - oh the inhumanity of it all.
rj
I like plants. Plants like CO2. Therefore, I like CO2. Is that one of those dumb logic things? But seriously, ALGORE sold his 10% stake in the CCX, that he started with Hank Paulson. If he's given up on the CO2 thing, why don't you just give it up, too. The carbon tax scheme is not gonna happen, and that was the whole point, anyway. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, it's getting colder in both hemispheres. I bet they noticed it in England this winter.
And, I agree, if you don't like CO2 so much, then just stop breathing.
and it's when, not if.
George
you've got to be shorting the crap out of the nuclear industry - as you certainly talk your book nonstop.
Unfortunately fo you, real, actual statistics whether long, medium, or short term don't match your horror prognostications.
Past performance may not be indicative of future returns - unless your poor George whose always has time to bash.
Critical thinking never been your strong suit, eh george?
rj
Hmmm. "Critical thinking", huh? I seem to recall a troll going by that name hereabouts... you aren't related by any chance?
"A typical U.S. nuclear plant would have about 10 times as much fuel in its pools"
And why so? Because libs opposed shipping it to Yuma where we have spent $16 billion to build a facility that can far more safely store this stuff for at least 16,000 years...but not for 350,000 years so a progressive judge stops the project.
So instead we store it in unsafe pools at each reactor site and invite a disaster.
Feel free to ship it to Yuma, Arizona if you want. I don't give a crap.
Just don't even entertain the thought of shipping it to Yucca Mountain, Nevada for one moment. The state of Nevada didn't build those reactors, didn't benefit from those reactors, doesn't want that waste now, and doesn't want to be stuck with that waste after the United States collapses.
Will that $16 Billion refund from Nevada to the American taxpayer be cash, check or charge?
You want your money back, then take it up with Bechtel and the other contractors you blew it on. The State of Nevada wasn't the one cashing those checks.
they should shoot reality tv... you know some show about dancing with nuclear power... or survivor Japan so US citizens can inform themselves about the role nuclear energy can and does play in our everyday lives
I love disaster articles with "could" or "might" in the headline. The author sets such a difficult proof standard for himself.
doubleplusunjunk
Someone junked the above... wow, pathetic...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-rad...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/11-2
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24060
GW, doesn't predicting liberal enviro doomsday scenarios get old? I mean, you must have posted 20 or so "what if we all get sick and die" stories about B.P. Yet none of them came to fruition.
I'm still waiting for that 200 mile long oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico to reach shore.
It's been weeks, GW, when's that oil slick going to arrive?
Could be as early as 45 days from now when hurricane season starts on June 1:
"On December 8, 2010, Klotzbach's team issued its first extended-range forecast for the 2011 season, predicting well above-average activity with 17 named storms, nine hurricanes, and five major hurricanes." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Atlantic_hurricane_season)
From the Klotzbach and Gray paper (http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2010/dec2010/dec2010.pdf):
"PROBABILITIES FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE LANDFALL ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COASTAL AREAS:
1) Entire U.S. coastline - 73% (average for last century is 52%)
2) U.S. East Coast Including Peninsula Florida - 49% (average for last century is 31%)
3) Gulf Coast from the Florida Panhandle westward to Brownsville - 48% (average for last century is 30%)
PROBABILITY FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE TRACKING INTO THE CARIBBEAN (10-20°N, 60-88°W)
1) 62% (average for last century is 42%)"
Its hiding inside the dolphins!
Hey fucktard, go to the gulf where these people are getting sick.
Better yet, go to fucking hell. It's calling you.
"Better yet, go to fucking hell. It's calling you."
Yeah, that's what I'm rooting for, and especially for the pathetic dickheads that have to have avatars sporting weaponry- must be small-dicked fuckers...
Pandora's Box.
Nucular, bitchez!
Any of you ever considered the effect of one Electromagnetic Pulse weapon over any country that has several nuclear plants? Over time as the generators failed and the cores melted or burned the resulting radiation from scores or hundreds of nuclear power plants would fry the planet. The same thing could happen as the result of a Coronal Mass Ejection from the sun like the one we experience in 1859.
Nukocular penetration, bitchy...
Some solar flares like 1859, and all of them will be spewing full bore. Back-ups? sure
"problem here.... ok back up plan....back the fuck up and get the hell out of there."