[ RadSafe ] Robert Alvarez says Spent nuclear fuel pools are unsafe

[Roger Helbig]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: nuclear-news <comment-reply at wordpress.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Subject: [New post] Spent nuclear fuel pools are unsafe
To: rwhelbig at gmail.com


Christina MacPherson posted: "Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods and Storage
Pools: A Deadly and Unnecessary Risk in the United States. Based on an
Institute for Policy Studies report by Robert Alvarez entitled “Spent
Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Risks of Storage.”
 Ì M"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on nuclear-news

Spent nuclear fuel pools are unsafe

by Christina MacPherson

Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods and Storage Pools: A Deadly and Unnecessary
Risk in the United States. Based on an Institute for Policy Studies
report by Robert Alvarez entitled “Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the
U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Risks of Storage.”

Ì More than 30 million highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods are
submerged in vulnerable storage pools at reactors all over the United
States. These pools at 51 sites contain some the largest
concentrations of radioactivity on the planet. Yet, they are stored
under unsafe conditions, vulnerable to attacks and natural disasters.

Ì Spent nuclear fuel rods have enough pop to cause a catastrophic
radiation fire, a nuclear chain reaction, or explosion. As the
Fukushima Dai-Ichi tragedy shows, the risk to the public is all too
real.

Ì Spent nuclear fuel rods are so deadly that a motorcyclist blasting
past them at 60 mph at a distance of one foot would be killed from the
effects of that fleeting radiation exposure.

Ì The metal tubing that holds the spent nuclear fuel is thinner than a
credit card. This thin sheath is the only major barrier preventing the
escape of radioactive materials. Cracked or damaged metal tubing that
was holding deadly nuclear material at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear
reactors resulted in the release of an enormous amount radioactivity,
much of which seeped into air, soil, and nearby ocean water.



Ì Approximately 75 percent of U.S. spent nuclear fuel rods are kept
tightly packed together in storage racks, submerged in pools located
at nuclear reactors. These storage facilities resemble large
above-ground swimming pools and this practice puts the American public
at risk. Spent fuel storage pools are often housed in buildings no
more secure than a car dealership. Instead, these fuel rods should be
safely stored in dry, hardened, and sealed storage casks.

Ì Spent fuel storage pools are vulnerable. Massive land contamination,
radiation injuries, and myriad deaths would result from a terrorist
attack, earthquake, or even a prolonged electricity blackout — as
happened at the Fukushima DaiIchi reactor site in Japan following an
earthquake and tsunami. Pools need electricity to pump water to cool
the rods, as well as to maintain a high water level to diffuse the
escape of radiation. Despite these dangers, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) doesn’t require nuclear reactor operators to even
have back-up power supplies for these spent-fuel pools to prevent
disaster.

Ì If the water in a spent nuclear fuel pool drains to six feet above
the fuel rods, it would give off life-threatening radiation doses to
workers on site. These pools were originally designed to hold less
than one fifth of the radioactive material they now contain.



Ì If the water were to drain entirely from a spent fuel pool, it could
trigger a catastrophic radioactive fire that would spew toxins and
render hundreds of thousands of square miles uninhabitable. The
devastated area would be larger than the wasteland that resulted from
the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident.



Ì Life-threatening incidents have occurred at multiple U.S. spent fuel
storage pools. In Haddam Neck, Connecticut, a pool sprung a leak in
August 1984. About 200,000 gallons of water drained in just 20
minutes, according the NRC.



Ì Dry cask storage is a much safer alternative to pools — which were
originally designed to hold less than one-fifth of what they now
contain. It doesn’t rely upon a constant supply of electricity or
water, and it also can be stored in separate blast-proof containers,
making it less susceptible to terrorist attack or earthquakes.



Ì Over the next 10 years, we could remove all spent fuel older than
five years for a cost of $3 billion-$7 billion. The cost of fixing
America’s nuclear vulnerabilities may be high, but the price of doing
too little is incalculable........https://ratical.org/radiation/NuclearExtinction/IPS-RA-ReportFactSheet.pdf

Christina MacPherson | July 23, 2016 at 8:41 am | Categories:
Reference, technology, wastes | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-oBp

http://nuclear-news.net/2016/07/23/spent-nuclear-fuel-pools-are-unsafe/