Fukushima lessons learned? None! NRC ends consideration of expedited unloading of radioactive waste

[bananas]

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/radioactive-waste-whatsnew/2014/5/28/fukushima-lessons-learned-none-nrc-ends-consideration-of-exp.html

Fukushima lessons learned? None! NRC ends consideration of expedited unloading of radioactive waste pools

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission snuck out a major decision on the Friday before Memorial Day Weekend. Its generic study of whether or not to require the expedited transfer of "spent nuclear fuel" (irradiated nuclear fuel rods, highly radioactive waste) out of vulnerable storage pools will be unceremoniusly ended, with no requirement to unload pools into dry cask storage. The study was undertaken as part of NRC's Fukushima "lessons learned" process, created by former NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko in the immediate aftermath of the Japanese nuclear catastrophe.

<snip>

The sole dissenting vote on the NRC Commission came from its Chairwoman, Allison Macfarlane.

<snip>

Chairwoman Macfarlane provided a more than 10-page analysis explaining her dissent. Three of the other Commissioners who blessed the staff's recommendation for inaction provided a page, or less, of explanation for their own votes.

In Jan. 2003 (nine years before she would be appointed as NRC Chairwoman), Macfarlane herself co-authored a study, published by Princeton's Science and Global Security, warning about the potentially catastrophic risks of densely-packed storage pool fires.

<snip>

U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) blasted the NRC decision, stating:

“Overcrowded spent nuclear fuel pools are a disaster waiting to happen. Experts agree an accident at one of these pools could result in damage as bad as that caused by an accident at an operating nuclear reactor. Pilgrim Nuclear Plant’s spent fuel pool contains nearly four times more radioactive waste than it was originally designed to hold. It is time for the NRC to post the ‘Danger’ sign outside the fuel pools and begin to swiftly move spent fuel to safer storage now before a disaster occurs.”

<snip>

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a leading critic of Entergy's Vermont Yankee atomic reactor, responded:

“We are one natural disaster, mechanical failure or terrorist attack away from a disaster. The sooner we get the spent (fuel) out of the pools and into dry casks, the better, and if the NRC will not change the rules, I will continue to work with my colleagues to change the rules through legislation.”

<snip>

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said she was “deeply troubled” by the NRC’s inaction, adding:

“Earlier this month, a wildfire came within a half mile of the now-closed San Onofre nuclear plant, which is storing most of its spent fuel in pools rather than in dry cask storage.”

Boxer chairs the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), on which Markey and Sanders also serve. EPW has oversight on NRC. Two weeks ago -- coincidentally, on the very day those fires threatened San Onofre nuclear power plant -- Boxer convened a hearing to address the risks of high-level radioactive waste pool storage. Boxer, Markey, and Sanders had just introduced legislation the previous day, requiring expedited transfer of irradiated nuclear fuel from pools to dry casks. The three Senators grilled a top official from the NRC, as well as the top official from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's DC lobby HQ.

<snip>

Along with Macfarlane, Lyman served as a co-author of the 2003 independent study.

David Wright, physicist and co-director of Global Security at UCS, has also published a blog on the NRC decision, entitled "Nuclear Power Regulator Sticks Its Head Further Into the Ground." Wright's blog contains numerous additional links to further analyses and documents.

<snip>

[PuraVidaDreamin]

1. I just don't understand

Why these people do not care about our planet. Their children. Future generations.

[djean111]

2. Profits. Profits. Profits. Profits. Profits. Profits. Profits. Profits. Profits. Profits.

Profits. Profits. Profits.

[JayhawkSD]

3. I think the decision is a bad one, but...

...the reference to "lesson learned at Fukushima, None." is largely spurious. The problem at Fukushima was the result of power loss and loss of coolant to the reactor cores and had nothing whatever to do with the spent fuel storage.

The presence of the spent fuel pools is adding to the cleanup problems, but the vast majority of spent fuel storage pools in this country are in-ground structures and are not elevated in the manner of the ones at Fukushima.

Again, I am not defending the decision, it is an unfortunate one indeed, but the parallel with Fukushima is largely an exaggeration.

[bananas]

6. Japan is urgently removing fuel rods from the spent fuel pools because it's an urgent problem.

Japan and TEPCO have lied, denied, and done everything they can to downplay this ongoing disaster.

If it's as safe as you've been misled to believe, they would just leave them there.

They've been removing the "easy" fuel rods first.

They still have plenty of opportunities to fuck this up really bad.

[JayhawkSD]

7. I didn't say there was anything safe about any part of Fukushima

I said that the problem did not develop due to the fuel storage, it developed due to loss of coolant to the reactors so, prior to the incident, the fuel storage did not present a safety hazard which led to any kind of disaster and there was no "lesson to be learned" from them due to the disaster of March 2011.

They are not "urgently removing" the fuel rods "because it's an urgent problem." They did not begin removing them for well over two years after the accident. That's hardly urgent. They have removed fewer than half of them in the six months that removal has been in progress. That's not "urgent removal." That is slow, deliberate and careful action, which is what is required for a dangerous operation. They are working on them first simply because they have to start somewhere and these are the most easily reachable and the least damaged.

What I said in my comment was that the fuel storage in this country are mostly in-ground pools which are less subject to damage than are the above ground pools which are contributing to the cleanup difficulty at Fukushima.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. Pray harder.

[FBaggins]

5. Hard to see how this is a Fukushima lesson

Removing the fuel early doesn't make an accident less likely... since the vast majority of any heat produced in a damaged fuel pool will be from the spent fuel that's too new to move to dry casks anyway.

Making Sens Markey & Sanders' comments pretty useless (since they explicitly try to leave the reader with the contrary impression).

Sen Boxer's statement is particularly unusual... since dry-casks out in the open would be more at risk from a wildfire than fuel at the bottom of a pool of water.

Nothing wrong with shifting spent fuel to dry casks... just no particular urgency to do so.