Experts: US Still 'Needlessly Vulnerable' to Fukushima-Style Disaster
Nuclear industry pressured regulatory commission into low-balling consequences of meltdown, especially in case of reactor fire, new article says
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) did not adequately account for safety hazards when approving certain upgrades to nuclear sites around the U.S., meaning the risk of a Fukushima-like disaster caused by a reactor fire is still high, according to an article published in the journal Science on Friday.
Researchers from Princeton University and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued that the NRC "relied on faulty analysis to justify its refusal to adopt a critical measure for protecting Americans from the occurrence of a catastrophic nuclear-waste fire at any one of dozens of reactor sites around the country."
The risk is especially high in the sites' cooling pools--basins that are used to store and reduce the temperatures of used radioactive fuel rods. Spent-fuel pools came into the international spotlight after the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan, in which an earthquake-triggered tsunami disabled the electrical systems needed for the cooling process, leading to meltdowns at three of six reactors.
NRC commissioners "did not adequately account for impacts of large-scale land contamination events," the scientists wrote. "Among rejected options was a measure to end dense packing of 90 spent fuel pools, which we consider critical for avoiding a potential catastrophe much greater than Fukushima."
Fukushima "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," said co-author Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security (SGS), in a statement.
During its "top-to-bottom" review, prompted by the Fukushima disaster, the NRC found that the potential damage from a reactor fire would be about $125 billion, and that the consequences would be limited to within a 50-mile radius. The commission concluded that imposing an upgrade could of $50 million per pool at every U.S. nuclear site would be too high.
But the authors of the Science article said the nuclear industry had pushed the NRC to minimize the risks--and that the commission's assumptions about cleanup time and consequences outside of the 50-mile radius were incorrect.
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 U.S., and that cleanup time would take much longer than one year, as the NRC concluded. That would result in $2 trillion in damages, they found--nearly 20 times the NRC's estimate.
"Unless the NRC improves its approach to assessing risks and benefits of safety improvements--by using more realistic parameters in its quantitative assessments and also taking into account societal impacts--the United States will remain needlessly vulnerable to such disasters," the article states.
Moreover, under the Price Anderson Act of 1957, the nuclear industry is only legally liable for $13.6 billion, the researchers said, meaning U.S. taxpayers would have to cover remaining recovery costs.
"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," von Hippel said. "Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry's wishes."
The article comes just weeks after a tunnel used to store highly radioactive contaminated waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeast Washington state collapsed, triggering a state of emergency.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) did not adequately account for safety hazards when approving certain upgrades to nuclear sites around the U.S., meaning the risk of a Fukushima-like disaster caused by a reactor fire is still high, according to an article published in the journal Science on Friday.
Researchers from Princeton University and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued that the NRC "relied on faulty analysis to justify its refusal to adopt a critical measure for protecting Americans from the occurrence of a catastrophic nuclear-waste fire at any one of dozens of reactor sites around the country."
The risk is especially high in the sites' cooling pools--basins that are used to store and reduce the temperatures of used radioactive fuel rods. Spent-fuel pools came into the international spotlight after the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan, in which an earthquake-triggered tsunami disabled the electrical systems needed for the cooling process, leading to meltdowns at three of six reactors.
NRC commissioners "did not adequately account for impacts of large-scale land contamination events," the scientists wrote. "Among rejected options was a measure to end dense packing of 90 spent fuel pools, which we consider critical for avoiding a potential catastrophe much greater than Fukushima."
Fukushima "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," said co-author Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security (SGS), in a statement.
During its "top-to-bottom" review, prompted by the Fukushima disaster, the NRC found that the potential damage from a reactor fire would be about $125 billion, and that the consequences would be limited to within a 50-mile radius. The commission concluded that imposing an upgrade could of $50 million per pool at every U.S. nuclear site would be too high.
But the authors of the Science article said the nuclear industry had pushed the NRC to minimize the risks--and that the commission's assumptions about cleanup time and consequences outside of the 50-mile radius were incorrect.
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 U.S., and that cleanup time would take much longer than one year, as the NRC concluded. That would result in $2 trillion in damages, they found--nearly 20 times the NRC's estimate.
"Unless the NRC improves its approach to assessing risks and benefits of safety improvements--by using more realistic parameters in its quantitative assessments and also taking into account societal impacts--the United States will remain needlessly vulnerable to such disasters," the article states.
Moreover, under the Price Anderson Act of 1957, the nuclear industry is only legally liable for $13.6 billion, the researchers said, meaning U.S. taxpayers would have to cover remaining recovery costs.
"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," von Hippel said. "Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry's wishes."
The article comes just weeks after a tunnel used to store highly radioactive contaminated waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeast Washington state collapsed, triggering a state of emergency.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) did not adequately account for safety hazards when approving certain upgrades to nuclear sites around the U.S., meaning the risk of a Fukushima-like disaster caused by a reactor fire is still high, according to an article published in the journal Science on Friday.
Researchers from Princeton University and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued that the NRC "relied on faulty analysis to justify its refusal to adopt a critical measure for protecting Americans from the occurrence of a catastrophic nuclear-waste fire at any one of dozens of reactor sites around the country."
The risk is especially high in the sites' cooling pools--basins that are used to store and reduce the temperatures of used radioactive fuel rods. Spent-fuel pools came into the international spotlight after the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan, in which an earthquake-triggered tsunami disabled the electrical systems needed for the cooling process, leading to meltdowns at three of six reactors.
NRC commissioners "did not adequately account for impacts of large-scale land contamination events," the scientists wrote. "Among rejected options was a measure to end dense packing of 90 spent fuel pools, which we consider critical for avoiding a potential catastrophe much greater than Fukushima."
Fukushima "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," said co-author Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security (SGS), in a statement.
During its "top-to-bottom" review, prompted by the Fukushima disaster, the NRC found that the potential damage from a reactor fire would be about $125 billion, and that the consequences would be limited to within a 50-mile radius. The commission concluded that imposing an upgrade could of $50 million per pool at every U.S. nuclear site would be too high.
But the authors of the Science article said the nuclear industry had pushed the NRC to minimize the risks--and that the commission's assumptions about cleanup time and consequences outside of the 50-mile radius were incorrect.
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 U.S., and that cleanup time would take much longer than one year, as the NRC concluded. That would result in $2 trillion in damages, they found--nearly 20 times the NRC's estimate.
"Unless the NRC improves its approach to assessing risks and benefits of safety improvements--by using more realistic parameters in its quantitative assessments and also taking into account societal impacts--the United States will remain needlessly vulnerable to such disasters," the article states.
Moreover, under the Price Anderson Act of 1957, the nuclear industry is only legally liable for $13.6 billion, the researchers said, meaning U.S. taxpayers would have to cover remaining recovery costs.
"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," von Hippel said. "Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry's wishes."
The article comes just weeks after a tunnel used to store highly radioactive contaminated waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeast Washington state collapsed, triggering a state of emergency.