Nuclear Disaster Like Fukushima Unlikely in U.S.

July 8, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (21)

Jack Spencer is a nuclear energy policy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Years will pass before we fully understand what happened at the Fukushima nuclear power plants. Nonetheless, broad lessons can be learned based on information available.

Lesson One: Human error is a far greater threat than technology.

Unforeseen natural disasters happen, and catastrophes sometimes result. That, however, cannot be used as an excuse. Indeed, an initial review of information indicates that human error was the real culprit. The actual reactors at Fukushima worked. Nuclear reactions stopped in each reactor upon the earthquake strike, and backup power took over when primary power was lost. The problems really began as systems broke down when multiple tsunami waves overcame the safety designs of the site.

Unfortunately, many of the problems were likely preventable. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the plants' tsunami barriers were identified as insufficient, but Japanese regulators had never fully approved modifications to fix the problems. Given this, the plants' backup power sources should have been housed in flood-proof locations. In fact, all were vulnerable to flooding, which left 11 of 12 generators unworkable. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]

Additional design problems also emerged. It remains unclear exactly how Japanese officials addressed some well-known reactor steam and pressure venting issues. What is known is that the reactors had venting problems. While hydrogen-containing steam was released from the reactor's primary containment, valve malfunctions allowed it to migrate back into the reactor building. This accumulation of hydrogen caused the explosions, which then apparently led to additional severe challenges, such as those associated with the spent fuel pools.

An incoherent command structure, where real-time decision making authority was spread among multiple individuals, made managing these conditions even more difficult. Not having a single person on the ground and in charge diminished the influence of those with the most relevant experience. Instead, some critical decisions, such as when to vent steam from the reactors or when to use seawater to cool them, seemed to be pushed up to authorities with more political than technical experience.

Lesson Two: The American safety regulation system for existing plants works.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets the safety standards and strictly enforces them with on-site inspectors and ongoing oversight. The Institute for Nuclear Power Operators, a private safety organization, adds another layer of safety by providing training, best practices, and plant-specific safety audits. Finally, each plant operator is responsible for maintaining safe plant operations. [See a slide show of 10 cities with the most Energy Star-certified buildings.]

The U.S. system allows regulators and plant personnel to effectively identify and mitigate safety deficiencies while maintaining efficient operations. That is why America's nuclear power plants not only enjoy exemplary safety records but produce some of the most affordable electricity.

Lesson Three: The United States must fix its system for nuclear waste disposal.

Our lack of a nuclear-waste disposal policy is causing U.S. power plants to collect more spent fuel in pools than they were ever engineered to hold. While safe, should a plant ever face an emergency like that in Japan where pool integrity was threatened, the additional spent fuel could increase the safety risk. It is an unnecessary, federally imposed risk that could be mitigated by opening Yucca Mountain.

Lesson Four: Radiation remains a great unknown.

We need to learn more about radiation. While this lack of understanding makes nuclear power scary to most people under normal circumstances, it can cause panic during an accident. This panic affects the public and policymakers. The public can become fearful and behave irrationally, such as buying iodine pills in the United States to protect against an accident in Japan. Policymakers can act irrationally as well, as when German officials called to shut down all of their reactors. The media exacerbates the problem by writing stories that play on public fear instead of educating people about the events and their impact.

Spewing so much radiation into the ground, atmosphere, and water is not good, but we need to better understand how bad it actually is. This will allow us to respond to future accidents more effectively and place the risks of future nuclear power into a more realistic context. Additionally, the IAEA has concluded that no lasting human impact will result from the radiation released from Fukushima.

Lesson Five: An accident has not stopped the expansion of nuclear power.

This is perhaps the most telling lesson learned from Fukushima. While a few nations stated that they would either not pursue new reactors or shut down their existing ones, the fact is that support for nuclear was already waning in those places. The consensus among most was that a commercial nuclear accident anywhere threatened progress everywhere.

Given the severity of the accident at Fukushima—and that it happened in Japan, a nation widely held as a leader in commercial nuclear safety—few could have predicted that the nuclear renaissance would largely stay on track in its wake. Yet that's exactly what's happening. Progress on new plants in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee continues, and reactor designers continue to pursue NRC licensing for their concepts.

In the end, we will undoubtedly learn many lessons from Fukushima. But it is important to understand that Fukushima was not America's accident. The United States had its accident at Three Mile Island and learned immensely from it. Indeed, the way our industry is organized is a direct result of those lessons. Fukushima was Japan's accident, but we both can learn from it.

Tags:
nuclear power,
energy,
energy policy and climate change,
Japan

Reader Comments Read all comments (21)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

In the deep underground cavities where USA has successfully tested the 70 MegaTons H bombs, you can let fall much nuclear garbage: it is so or so radioactive forever, and it is km deep underground!

What happens when a nuclear reactor melts down (super gau, China syndrome) should be planned into the specifications:

Under every nuclear reactor should a deep well be drilled, with a long waterproof stainless steel pipe under vacuum: when the reactors melt down, the liquid incandescent uranium oxide will immediately melt the stainless steel pipe top, and then the vacuum will aspire the incandescent liquid uranium oxide Km deep underground, as deep as where the 70 MegaTons H bombe has been successfully tested!

Jean-Francois Morf, Charrat, Switzerland 5:31AM July 19, 2011

The odds now appear to be one major nuclear accident at least every 25 years. The stakes are visible in the destroyed and damaged areas around the Chernobyl and Fukushima complexes.

The US Corn Belt is one dam break away from disaster and permanent contamination and ruination. The Corps of Engineers was not taking the Calhoun and Cooper plants into consideration in its water management. Does anyone have an emergency plan to blow levees if needed? Are the materials and personnel on standby? Or are the bureaucracies too thick to do such a thing?

Above ground nuclear testing was ended largely because the fallout was increasing background radiation levels toward epidemics from mutating microorganisms in the environment. How much fuel was at the Fukushima Daiichi complex? Is it true it was about 3,400 tons? How much of it burned, how much will still burn, how much are those reactors still spewing? From a small survey meter, and with a limited knowledge, I find that the background level of radiation in SW Missouri appears, very roughly, to be about 70% higher than it used to be. Who knows for sure what the truth is, no government is monitoring it and virtually no sources reporting it.

If nuclear power is so safe, and the NRC and industry so keen, how come its been decades and there are scores of plants with known safety hazards which any intelligent person would have corrected by now?

How come nobody in the industry ever mentions Brown's Gas flame as a means to take the radioactivity out of radioactive wastes? Is it because the owners and managers of the industry and its regulatory lapdog are too greedy and would rather risk the world while managing waste forever, instead of reducing it to mere chemical elemental waste and dealing with it quickly and for good?

The nuclear industry is dangerous, because boiling water with fission is a Lake of Fire way to do it, and because there is not enough integrity in any current human governmental or economic sysem, to do it safely. There's always some greedy owner and his or her bureaucracy trying to keep from spending the money needed to even rectify known safety hazards.

Everyone who thinks nuclear power is safe ought to live in Fukushima Prefecture at least long enough to piss radioactive urine. They also ought to consider that Tokyo, a city of 13 million people, is now radioactive.

It's an industry guilty of negligent homicide, all the time, and if it weren't for the 'full faith and backing' of the already broke federal government, it would not exist.

John of 1:23PM July 16, 2011

Your 'Lesson 3' brings up some interesting points. It is the operation of the reactors that actually creates spent fuel (aka nuclear waste). One would think that the full cost of waste disposal should be covered by the plant owners. The federal government assumed responsibility for this waste decades ago. If the present is any indicator of the past, this was done at bequest of the organizations that operate the plants.

Given that no waste disposal solution that is both safe and socially acceptable has been found in the last 50 years it may be time to concede that such a solution will not be found.

This point should be restated 'Lesson 3: What we learned from Yucca Mountain. No nuclear facility should be granted a license or relicense until reliable and continuously safe disposal space exists for the waste that that plant is expected to create.'

John Harragin of NY 10:00AM July 16, 2011

On Energy

Perspectives from all sides of the burning energy issues of the day. Follow it on Twitter @USNewsOnEnergy

advertisement

Economic Intelligence

What Apple Gets Wrong About Taxes

Apple's CEO is pushing for a big tax giveaway to already hugely profitable companies.

Latest Videos

advertisement