SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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, according to an article in the May 26 issue of Science magazine. Catastrophic consequences, which could be triggered by a large earthquake or a terrorist attack, could be largely avoided by regulatory measures that the NRC refuses to implement. Using a biased regulatory analysis, the agency excluded the possibility of an act of terrorism as well as the potential for damage from a fire beyond 50 miles of a plant.
[...] "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 paper co-author Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security (SGS), based at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. "Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry's wishes."
[...] The NRC analysis found that a fire in a spent-fuel pool at an average nuclear reactor site would cause $125 billion in damages. After correcting for errors and omissions, the researchers found that millions of residents in surrounding communities would have to relocate for years, resulting in total damages of $2 trillion—nearly 20 times the NRC's result. Considering the nuclear industry is only legally liable for $13.6 billion, thanks to the Price Anderson Act of 1957, U.S. taxpayers would have to cover the remaining costs.
[...] "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 Lyman. "It is time for the NRC to employ sound science and common-sense policy judgments in its decision-making process."
Source: Phys.org
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 28 2017, @01:11PM
Do you have a reason to believe your opinion is true?
You do realize that most significant oil disasters are cheaper than a billion dollars? As to the disaster costing two trillion dollars, an obvious solution is to make it cost less than two trillion through better response to the disaster than what is proposed. But if a society wishes to turn a $100 billion disaster into a $2 trillion disaster, then they should shoulder the additional cost. It is only fair since they're the problem not the actual disaster.