As I watched the video of the rubble and terrible destruction of homes from the F-5 tornado yesterday, I was struck by how similar it looked to the rubble left by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, but without the radioactive fallout.
How lucky we are that these tornadoes have not hit one of our nuclear reactors, as they each have spent fuel storage ponds, outside of the reactor vessels that could be destroyed and dispersed by such tornadoes.
William J. Broad and Hiroko Tabuchi, of The New York Times, reports that a 1997 NRC study, by the Brookhaven National Labs, detailed what a Worst Case Scenario For Fuel Rod Fire would look like. Because, these spent fuel ponds, are not contained in the reactor vessel, radioactivity could also be dispersed by a tornado.
A 1997 study by the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island described a worst-case disaster from uncovered spent fuel in a reactor cooling pool. It estimated 100 quick deaths would occur within a range of 500 miles and 138,000 eventual deaths.
The study also found that land over 2,170 miles (sic) would be contaminated and damages would hit $546 billion.
I suspect that the "2,160 miles", should read square miles as areas require squared units.
What a shocking discovery it is to learn that because we have no approved of final depository for the radioactive waste, we are keeping the spent fuel rods on the nuclear plant sites, usually without any containment. We have turned every one of our 104 nuclear plants into a radioactive nuclear waste dump, without consent, and probably even knowledge, of the local communities.
Why are we continueing to produce radioactive wastes when we have no approved of plan for what do do with them after we are finished? Resident's around these plants may be surprised that when they agreed to allow these plants to start operation, they unwittingly agreed to allow them to become nuclear waste dumps at the same time.
Each one of these unprotected on site nuclear waste dump/spent fuel rod depositories now typically contains 20 to 50 million curies of Cesium 137! Many times more than the 6 million curies of Cesium 137 released at Chernobyl.
Fuel Rod Fire Will Create Radiation Clouds
David A Loch Baum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientist, continues in the same article:
If any of the spent fuel rods in the pools do indeed catch fire, nuclear experts say, the high heat would loft the radiation in clouds that would spread the radioactivity.
"It's worse than a meltdown," said David A. Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists who worked as an instructor on the kinds of General Electric reactors used in Japan. "The reactor is inside thick walls, and the spent fuel rods ... (are not)."
Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor
Fuel in the United States
Robert Alvarez, Jan Beyea, Klaus Janberg, Jungmin Kang,
Ed Lyman, Allison Macfarlane, Gordon Thompson,
Frank N. von Hippel, write in Reducing Hazards from Sprent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States:
Because of the unavailability of off-site storage for spent power-reactor fuel, the NRC has allowed high-density storage of spent fuel in pools originally designed to hold much smaller inventories. As a result, virtually all U.S. spent-fuel pools have been re-racked to hold spent-fuel assemblies at densities that approach those in reactor cores.
In order to prevent the spent fuel from going critical, the fuel assemblies are partitioned off from each other in metal boxes whose walls contain neutron-absorbing boron. It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures at which the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission products.
These authors are not anti-nuclear extremists, but rather some of the most respected academic experts in nuclear reactor technology, and engineering. Let me list just some of their affiliations as examples.
Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies,
Jan Beyea, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton St, Lambertville, NJ 08530.
Ed Lyman, Nuclear Control Institute,
Allison Macfarlane, Security Studies Program, Center for International Studies,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Gordon Thompson, Institute for Resource and Security Studies,
Frank N. von Hippel, Program on Science and Global Security,
On average, spent fuel ponds hold five-to-ten times more long-lived radioactivity than a reactor core. Particularly worrisome is the large amount of cesium-137 in fuel ponds, which contain anywhere from 20 to 50 million curies of this dangerous radioactive isotope. With a half-life of 30 years, cesium-137 gives off highly penetrating radiation and is absorbed in the food chain as if it were potassium.
In comparison, the 1986 Chernobyl accident released about 40 percent of the reactor core's 6 million curies. A 1997 report for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Brookhaven National Laboratory also found that a severe pool fire could render about 188 square miles uninhabitable, cause as many as 28,000 cancer fatalities, and cost $59 billion in damage. A single spent fuel pond holds more cesium-137 than was deposited by all atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Northern Hemisphere combined. Earthquakes and acts of malice are considered to be the primary events that can cause a major loss of pool water.
In 2003, my colleagues and I published a study that indicated if a spent fuel pool were drained in the United States, a major release of cesium-137 from a pool fire could render an area uninhabitable greater than created by the Chernobyl accident. We recommended that spent fuel older than five years, about 75 percent of what's in U.S. spent fuel pools, be placed in dry hardened casks -- something Germany did 25 years ago.
The NRC challenged our recommendation, which prompted Congress to request a review of this controversy by the National Academy of Sciences. In 2004, the Academy reported that a "partially or completely drained a spent fuel pool could lead to a propagating zirconium cladding fire and release large quantities of radioactive materials to the environment."
Given what's happening at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, it's time for a serious review of what our nuclear safety authorities consider to be improbable, especially when it comes to reactors operating in earthquake zones.
Updated: March 15, 2011, write that the spent fuel rods could pose a greater danger, than a core meltdown. And, because there is still no approved of final solution for spent rods in the US, we apparently, have spent fuel ponds at all 104 reactors in the US.
The Need For a Transitional Plan for Continued Operation of US Nuclear Plants
I am aware that thousands of people die each day from lung cancer and other consequences of coal burning, which also contribute to global warming. Personally, I favor a conversion to clean, alternative renewable, and sustainable energy sources, as outlined in this article from Scientific American Scientific American: Path to A Sustainable Energy Future by 2030
However, due to the urgent need to minimize CO2 emissions, I am willing to support continued operation of our existing plants until we have sustainable replacements online, which may be several decades. I oppose new plants for reasons of comparative economics and national, and global security concerns.
But, everyone, pro-nuclear, anti-nuclear, or indifferent, should agree to a "harm minimization" strategy to reduce the risk of our existing nuclear plants. These currently represent "dirty bombs waiting to happen." This risk can be greatly reduced by the "dry casking" storage of spent rods over five years old, proposed by Robert Alvarez, et. al. My understanding is such a conversion will cost between $6 billion to $10 billion, and should be paid with a tax added to nuclear energy electrical rates.
The Need For Congressional Hearings On Nuclear Safety and Lessons Learned
In the mean time, I believe, that in terms of truthfulness, and full disclosure to the surrounding communities, all nuclear power plants should be required to add "and transitional nuclear waste dump," to their official names, and for all re-licensing hearings.
I wonder how many communities would have agreed to approve these site, had they been accurately informed of these risk, and outcomes?
We need to urgently have hearings on this and implement the dry casking storage, recommended by Robert Alvarez et. Al.
And, I support Representative Ed Markey's proposal to suspend all future licensing, and re-licensing, of nuclear plants pending Congresional hearings on their safety, and lessons learned from Fukushima.
God help us, if one of these tornadoes, or a terrorist strike with airplanes loaded with fuel, or explosives, missles, or artillary shells, rips open one of these spent fuel ponds near a major US population center.
And, in the event, of such a catastrophy, we will not get away saying such an occurance was "un-imaginable." We've been warned by top scientists from around the world. We have not listened since the NRC rejected these proposals in 2003.
My understanding from kbman is that, fortunately, the operators of the Indian Point nuclear plant, have implemented this dry casking storage of old spent fuel rods voluntarily, so New York residents are much safer than others.
Will we listen now?
As far as I know, no Congressional hearings on these issues has been scheduled, yet, although Representative Ed Markey, D - MA, is trying as hard as possible.