In 2012, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service filed a request to extend the emergency zone surrounding nuclear plants from a 10 mile radius to a 25 mile radius.
In the proposal submitted by the agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a secondary area set 25 to 50 miles away from a nuclear reactor would also be created. Here, preparatory steps for an extended evacuation zone would be established. Additionally, the Ingestion Pathway zone, where precautions would be established to avoid the ingestion of radioactive materials, would be extended to 100 miles.
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, along with 37 other national not-for-profit groups, proposed these recommendations in response to evidence gathered from examinations of the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear reactor disasters. In both situations, it was determined that nuclear fallout from the reactors’ meltdowns extended farther than officials expected, resulting in a delayed response to residents and individuals exposed to radioactive material.
According to the petition, the expanded response zones “would more likely provide adequate protection to the public than current regulations.”
On Wednesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected the petition in its entirety.
“The NRC remains confident that the emergency preparedness programs in support of nuclear power plants provide an adequate level of protection of the public health and safety and that appropriate protective actions can and will be taken in the event of a radiological event at an existing nuclear power plant,” said the agency in Wednesday’s Federal Register.
The commission also asserted that the current standard of expanding zones as necessary is an adequate plan in the case of a fallout that exceeds the existing zone definitions. More pointedly, it insisted that its emergency plans take into consideration the possibility of a natural disaster happening simultaneously to a fallout.
On March 11, 2011, three of the six nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant failed after the reactor facility was hit by a tsunami caused by the Tōhoku earthquake — a magnitude-9.0 earthquake off the coast of Japan that is now recognized as the fifth-most powerful recorded earthquake in history. While the initial fallout damage was limited to areas immediately adjacent to the plant, poor communications and delays in relief response led to contaminated water spreading beyond the relief areas and into the sea.
“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,” said Nuclear Information and Resource Service’s Acting Executive Director Tim Judson in a press release detailing the commission’s ruling.
“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.”
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has alleged that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision was biased due to the commission’s relationship with the National Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s trade and lobbying group.
The service has also called for biennial emergency training exercises detailing response procedures to locally-appropriate natural disasters. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has asked the commission to provide proof that its current training plan is compliant to this request, but the commission has yet to respond.
According to Ready.gov, nearly 3 million Americans live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. Currently, there are 62 commercially-operated nuclear power plants in the United States running 100 nuclear reactors. As a large percentage of Americans live within the possible fallout range of these reactors, many question why a regulatory agency would fail to concede to safer guidelines — a decision that may indicate undue influence in a public safety issue.