Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by n1 on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the godzilla dept.

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

Nuclear safety regulation in the post-Fukushima era (Science 26 May 2017: Vol. 356, Issue 6340, pp. 808-809 DOI: 10.1126/science.aal4890)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 29 2017, @08:53AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday May 29 2017, @08:53AM (#517070) Homepage
    You're displaying a complete disregard of the laws of physics. It's easier and cheaper to send the waste to Alpha Centauri than it is to send it to our own sun. And the comparison of ease is a stark one - with current rocket technology we can send something to Alpha Centauri, but we can't send anything directly into the sun. Sure we can scrub orbital velocity off using repeated fly-bys of a planet and of course the sun, but each of those accelerative periods stresses the structural integrity of the vehicle. There's a good chance we'd end up just spraying it into interplanetary space, which isn't a tidy thing to do.

    Personally, I don't see why a reactor producing 3m^2 of pyrex-encased HLW a year is a big thing. In particular given that we're digging holes hundreds of thousands of times bigger in order to get radioactive sources out in the first place.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2