Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Sun Feb 23, 2014, 07:52 PM Feb 2014

Nuclear Reactor Pool Fire/Huge Risks in U.S. According to Unpublicized NRC Study [View all]

Petition by these groups filed with NRC

Nuclear Reactor Pool Fire/Huge Risks in U.S. – 4.1 Million Displaced, 10,000 Square Miles Uninhabitable If Disaster Happens, According to Unpublicized NRC Study

34 GROUPS: REACTOR LICENSING SHOULD BE SUSPENDED UNTIL NRC ADDRESSES NEW FINDINGS ON NUCLEAR REACTOR POOL FIRE RISKS, COSTS

New NRC Study Shows Even a Small Reactor Pool Fire Could Displace 4.1 Million People; Make More than 9,000 Square Miles Uninhabitable.


In addition to the NRC’s new data on risks, the groups also pointed out that the Commission has concluded spent reactor fuel could be transferred out of high-density storage fuels (where the fire risk is the greatest) in a cost-effective manner.

The groups pointed to the findings of an unpublicized NRC study of spent fuel storage at Peach Bottom, a reactor in Pennsylvania. This investigation showed that if even a small fraction of the inventory of a Peach Bottom reactor pool were released to the environment in a severe spent fuel pool accident, an average area of 9,400 square miles (24,300 square kilometers) would be rendered uninhabitable for decades, displacing as many as 4.1 million people.

As the groups point out in their petition, the NRC has never before acknowledged such dire pool fire risks in its reactor licensing decisions. The information undermines the NRC’s conclusion in prior environmental studies for reactor licensing and re-licensing that the impacts of spent fuel storage during reactor operation are insignificant.

[...]

The NRC has concluded that the “safety” benefit of reducing the density of spent fuel in storage pools would not be great enough to justify an order requiring all operating reactor licensees to thin out their pools. But the NRC focused on the risk of cancer, which is only one effect of a pool fire. The groups contend that NRC must protect not only public health and safety but the environment as well. The environment includes a host of broader values, such as ecological health and socioeconomic well-being. The Fukushima accident illustrates the fact that land contamination and dislocation of people can have enormous effects on society and the environment, regardless of the number of deaths or cancers.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/mlf5yby

PDF of full petition here:
http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/atreactorstorage/fuelstoragepetition21314.pdf
67 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just stop and give this some thought for a moment madokie Feb 2014 #1
Yes, they love to hide behind the difficulty in tracking nuclear related cancer related fatalities kristopher Feb 2014 #14
Without a doubt madokie Feb 2014 #15
Am not pro-nuke but if we had Yucca Mtn indie9197 Feb 2014 #2
The solution to *this* problem would be to move the SNF to dry storage kristopher Feb 2014 #3
I scanned the article, do not understand legaleze so much indie9197 Feb 2014 #5
That's not a truth; it's a falsehood Altair_IV Feb 2014 #9
No, it is the truth kristopher Feb 2014 #13
Reading Comprehension Problem? Altair_IV Feb 2014 #16
A consortium of nuclear companies that self insure doesn't really qualify as "commercial insurer"... kristopher Feb 2014 #22
ANI is not "nuclear companies that self insure" FBaggins Feb 2014 #23
That is exactly what the major accident coverage is - and they don't pay "premiums" kristopher Feb 2014 #24
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #26
"James Hansen" is not "the scientific community" kristopher Feb 2014 #27
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #29
Being "pronuclear" is not the same as proving nuclear is needed kristopher Feb 2014 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #35
I said show the science if you have it - apparently you don't have it. kristopher Feb 2014 #36
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #37
No, by any standard that is not better. kristopher Feb 2014 #40
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #41
A citation for the claims you've made, please. kristopher Feb 2014 #42
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #43
You said you were going by NAS work from 1992 - start there. kristopher Feb 2014 #44
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #45
So you don't have a 1992 reference as you claimed. kristopher Feb 2014 #46
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #47
You said you have a reference and clearly you don't. kristopher Feb 2014 #48
Did you actually read the POPA report? caraher Feb 2014 #59
"We don't need citations, statistical studies, and what not. " caraher Feb 2014 #57
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #60
Nuclear power plants are not good at load following madokie Feb 2014 #49
That's not quite true. FBaggins Feb 2014 #51
You don't change the rotational speed of an AC generator to regulate the voltage output madokie Feb 2014 #53
So? FBaggins Feb 2014 #58
I didn't say it couldn't be done madokie Feb 2014 #62
You can't dodge the context of your comment FBaggins Feb 2014 #65
I corrected them too so where was I wrong madokie Feb 2014 #67
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #61
You know who is on your side? Roger Ailes et al. kristopher Feb 2014 #34
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #38
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #25
No, that's just your habit of twisting things to suit yourself kristopher Feb 2014 #28
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #30
Not at all. kristopher Feb 2014 #33
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #39
We're not talking about automobile insurance here madokie Feb 2014 #55
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #63
Find someone else to pick nits with madokie Feb 2014 #64
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #66
Remember at first she was saying she was a Physicist madokie Feb 2014 #50
Physicists aren't scientists now? FBaggins Feb 2014 #52
What ever madokie Feb 2014 #54
It isn't? FBaggins Feb 2014 #56
Nothing left over? FBaggins Feb 2014 #18
Confusion Altair_IV Feb 2014 #20
The filing to the NRC (the PDF) asks them to make changes in how they license reactors kristopher Feb 2014 #12
Whose fault is that? Altair_IV Feb 2014 #17
More misinformation from kristopher Altair_IV Feb 2014 #21
The report says just the opposite. FBaggins Feb 2014 #19
Not really madokie Feb 2014 #4
There's so much waste, it will take decades to move it. bananas Feb 2014 #6
The nuclear power companies are the ones that *want* to go to dry casks.. Altair_IV Feb 2014 #10
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #31
There was a spent fuel pool fire at Fukushima bananas Feb 2014 #7
No there wasn't. FBaggins Feb 2014 #8
That's correct. Altair_IV Feb 2014 #11
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Nuclear Reactor Pool Fire...»Reply #0