The NRC failed the American people

Fukushima radiation plume overlaid on map centered at Indian Point reactors. Can anyone (other than NRC) seriously believe this area can be successfully evacuated in a nuclear accident? From Samuel Lawrence Foundation website.

Fukushima radiation plume overlaid on map centered at Indian Point reactors. Can anyone (other than NRC) seriously believe this area can be successfully evacuated in a nuclear accident? From Samuel Lawrence Foundation website.

Today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission formally denied the petition for rulemaking initially submitted by NIRS and 37 co-petitioners on February 15, 2012 to make modest improvements in the NRC’s emergency planning regulations. More than 3,000 people later signed on as additional co-petitioners and nearly 6,000 submitted comments in support of this petition–only some 40 comments opposed it. Yet the NRC ignored this plea to instill some sanity and real-world experience into their regulations and provide a greater level of protection for all Americans.

Our press release on the decision says it all:


April 9, 2014. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) today formally denied a petition originally submitted by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and 37 co-petitioners to make modest improvements in emergency planning for nuclear reactor accidents.

The petition for rulemaking, submitted February 15, 2012, called for increasing the size of the existing Emergency Planning Zone around commercial nuclear reactors from 10 to 25 miles, establishing a new zone but with less stringent requirements from 25-50 miles around reactors, expanding the existing Ingestion Pathway zone from 50 to 100 miles, and requiring existing biannual emergency training exercises to include scenarios involving initiating or concurrent regionally appropriate natural disasters. 3,281 people asked the NRC to consider them co-petitioners, and there were a total of 5,993 comments on the proposal. 5,953 of those comments supported the petition. The NRC denied the petition in its entirety.

“The NRC has failed the American people,” said Michael Mariotte, President of NIRS. “Rather than learn from Fukushima and act appropriately to protect the public, the agency has chosen to protect the nuclear power industry yet again. The agency claims the evacuation at Fukushima was a success—yet it took more than three weeks for Japan to fully evacuate the most contaminated areas. Moreover, as we pointed out in our petition, Japan was spared a far worse disaster only because 80% of the airborne radiation released at Fukushima—and nearly 100% in the first critical days—never went over land. Instead it was sent by the wind directly over the Pacific Ocean. The United States should not have to rely on favorable wind patterns as an emergency response measure.”

The petition was based on the real world experiences of Fukushima and Chernobyl, where toxic radiation spread far beyond 10 miles and has resulted in the creation of uninhabitable regions much larger than a ten mile radius as well. NIRS argued that the NRC’s regulations are based on computer models more than actual events, that delayed evacuations at both Fukushima and Chernobyl unnecessarily endangered people and the existing regulations would likely lead to similar delays, that evacuation criteria are unrealistically based on slow-developing accidents, and numerous other issues. The petition can be read at

NIRS’ Acting Executive Director Tim Judson said, “Effective, realistic emergency planning is literally the last line of protection for the public in a nuclear accident. Unfortunately, NRC’s decision today is based more on science fiction than on real-world experience. Over the last thirty-five years, five nuclear reactors have had catastrophic accidents, all requiring evacuations, and four involving massive releases of radiation that have left large areas of land unsafe for human habitation. The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents required much larger evacuations and emergency response measures than nuclear power stations and state and local governments in the United States are currently prepared for. NRC’s decision indicates it would rather the American public not think about a nuclear emergency until it happens. That may be a good public relations ploy for atomic power, but it does nothing to protect the millions of Americans living near a nuclear reactor.”

The Ingestion Pathway zone is meant to protect against the distribution of contaminated water, milk and other food. At both Fukushima and Chernobyl, such basic elements of life were interdicted from well over 100 miles away (in Chernobyl’s case, more than 1,000 miles); yet the NRC insists with little rationale that its 50-mile zone is adequate.

Indeed, the NRC’s denial is little more than a series of assertions that its present 10-mile zone is adequate and can be expanded quickly in an actual accident if necessary. “Emergency preparedness means just that: like the Boy Scouts, it means ‘Be Prepared,’” said Mariotte. “But the NRC’s approach is ‘don’t worry, be happy; if we need to be better prepared in the midst of a nuclear accident, we’ll manage.’ That approach is callous and indefensible.”

Mariotte said NIRS has not decided whether to appeal the denial to the courts, but noted that several Congressmembers have expressed interest in the issue and at least two bills already have been introduced to expand emergency planning zones.

The NRC also asserted, without providing documentation, that existing emergency exercises already do include scenarios involving natural disasters. NIRS has asked the NRC to provide documentation of that—especially of scenarios involving initiating or concurrent earthquakes (the fundamental cause of the Fukushima disaster), and will make that information public upon receipt.

The NRC’s decision is available here:

This press release is available here:

Michael Mariotte

April 9, 2014


You can now support GreenWorld with your tax-deductible contribution on our new donation page here. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size–your support is what makes our work possible.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to Thank you!

Note: If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail daily, send your name and e-mail address to and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a address and not a address, so watch for it.


We welcome your comments here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s