Study: High-density storage of nuclear waste heightens terrorism risks

[Susan L Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>]

The statement that a terrorist attack on stored spent nuclear fuel could

cause contamination "significantly worse than those from Chernobyl"

seems implausible to me.  Are there any RadSafers out there who can

comment on the nature of NRC's concerns reference in the press release? 



--Susan Gawarecki



News from PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Office of Communications

22 Chambers St.

Princeton, New Jersey 08542

Telephone 609-258-3601; Fax 609-258-1301



For immediate release: Feb. 13, 2003

Contact: Steven Schultz, (609) 258-5729, sschultz@princeton.edu

         

Study: High-density storage of nuclear waste heightens terrorism risks

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/people/fvhippel.html



PRINCETON, N.J. -- A space-saving method for storing spent nuclear fuel

has dramatically heightened the risk of a catastrophic radiation release

in the event of a terrorist attack, according to a study initiated at

Princeton. 



       Terrorists targeting the high-density storage systems used at

nuclear power plants throughout the nation could cause contamination

problems "significantly worse than those from Chernobyl," the study

found.



       The study authors, a multi-institutional team of researchers led

by Frank von Hippel of Princeton, called on the U.S. Congress to mandate

the construction of new facilities to house spent fuel in less risky

configurations and estimated a cost of $3.5 billion to $7 billion for

the project. 



       The paper is scheduled to be published in the spring in the

journal Science and Global Security. 



       Strapped for long-term storage options, the nation's 103 nuclear

power plants routinely pack four to five times the number of spent fuel

rods into water-cooled tanks than the tanks were designed to hold, the

authors reported. This high-density configuration is safe when cooled by

water, but would likely cause a fire -- with catastrophic results -- if

the cooling water leaked. The tanks could be ruptured by a hijacked jet

or sabotage, the study contends. 



       The consequences of such a fire would be the release of a

radiation plume that could contaminate eight to 70 times more land than

the area affected by the 1986 accident in Chernobyl, the researchers

reported. The cost of such a disaster would run into the hundreds of

billions of dollars, they said. 



       The study builds in large part on analyses already done by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, pulling together disparate sources and

adding new calculations to put the issues in sharper focus, said von

Hippel.



       "The NRC has been chewing on this for 20 years," said von Hippel.

"That's one of the reasons why we did this paper -- because they never

seem to do anything about it."



       Von Hippel, who co-directs the Program on Science and Global

Security in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International

Affairs, said the direct impetus for the study came from an

investigation conducted by undergraduate students last year. Five

students focused on the New Jersey Salem Nuclear Generating Station and

issued a report calling for the distribution of protective potassium

iodide pills to people within 50 miles of nuclear plants, improvement of

mock attack drills and reconfiguration of spent fuel storage.



       "It was a very good group of students and an excellent report,"

said von Hippel, who enlisted colleagues to conduct a more detailed

analysis of the spent fuel issue.



       Among the co-authors of the new study are analysts from the

Institute for Policy Studies and the Nuclear Control Institute in

Washington, D.C., the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in

Cambridge, Mass., and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.



       At issue in the study is how nuclear power plant operators deal

with the narrow, 12-foot-long rods of uranium that, after three or four

years of use, no longer contain enough chain-reacting material to

sustain a nuclear reaction. For the first few years after they are taken

from the reactor, the fuel rods continue to generate a lot of heat due

to their intense radioactivity. Without cooling, the rods would burst

and ignite the zirconium alloy sheaths in which they are encased.



       The water-filled cooling tanks were originally designed to keep

only about 100 metric tons of the hottest rods, while the cooler ones

would be moved to a nuclear fuel recycling plant, which was never built.

The United States also has not yet built a long-term storage facility

for nuclear waste, so the pools have been packed with 400 tons or more.

In its low-density configuration, a cooling tank could be adequately

cooled by air in the event of a loss of water, while the high-density

system could not. 



       The authors recommended returning the water tanks to their

low-density configurations and building onsite storage facilities, which

would use air-cooling, for the older fuel. Some of the cost of this work

already is budgeted as part of a plan to build a national storage

facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the authors noted. That project,

however, is not scheduled to be built for another 10 years and would

then take another 20 or 30 years to take enough waste to relieve the

water tank density.



       The decision whether to reconfigure the spent fuel storage

systems comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, von Hippel said. Even

without the possibility of terrorism, the opportunity to reduce the risk

of more conventional mishaps would justify the expense under most

circumstances, he said. The chances of a successful terrorist attack are

hard to quantify, he acknowledged, but if the odds were at least 1

percent over 30 years, then the expense would be justified.



       "The Congress really needs to make a political judgment and needs

to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission some guidance," he said.

The report authors briefed congressional staff members on Jan. 30. 



       "We've made the issue much more visible," said von Hippel. "It

will take some time for any of this discussion to turn into concrete

action." 

-- 

.....................................................

Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director

Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee

102 Robertsville Road, Suite B, Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Toll free 888-770-3073 ~ www.local-oversight.org

.....................................................

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/