Making Plans in Case of Nuclear Energy Radiation Leaks

Ken Silverstein | Apr 11, 2013

The Japanese nuclear disaster two years ago has gotten people thinking about what they might do if such an accident happened in their neck of the woods. Here in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are in charge of radiological emergency preparedness.

That’s why some leading members of Congress asked the Government Accountability Office to look into what those federal bureaus are doing and if there is anything that they could do better in this regard. To that end, the NRC and FEMA, as they are known in shorthand, conduct activities to ensure that plant owners and operators as well as local and state officials have the information and the tools in place to evacuate those at risk in a 10-mile radius. All of the parties practice what they would do in case of emergencies.

The GAO, as it is called, is giving good marks to those response systems in place within that 10-mile zone. The principal health risks inside of the affected region is from exposure to radiation. But the congressional watchdog agency is expressing concerns about the protocol to be used for those on the boundaries: The lack of public awareness in such places may lead to mass confusion -- something with which the NRC disagrees, saying that the public response outside of the zone would have little affect on evacuations.

“It is unknown to what extent the public in these areas is aware of these emergency preparedness procedures, and how they would respond in the event of a radiological emergency,” says the GAO report. “Without better information on the public’s awareness and potential response in areas outside the 10-mile zone, NRC may not be providing the best planning guidance to licensees and state and local authorities.”

Fukushima is the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986. Japanese authorities immediately evacuated everyone within a 19-mile radius. Three Mile Island, in which the internal core of the reactor partially melted but in which no radiation actually escaped, happened in Pennsylvania in March 1979. But a year before that, a joint NRC and Environmental Protection Agency task force provided the planning basis by which communities would respond to accidents. That’s when the 10-mile radius code was first established.

Logistical Concerns

They also created a 50-mile ‘exposure pathway” whereby communities would need to be informed about about the dangers of ingesting contaminated water and foodstuffs. Cows, for example, would have to be removed from pastures and held in sheds. Of course, the 10-mile radius could be expanded depending on the situation and how rapidly the radiation might spread.

Government officials revisited the whole schematic after Fukushima. The NRC looked at decision making, radiation monitoring and public education, says GAO. While the plant owners are responsible for managing efforts to limit the fallout of radiation leaks on site, it is FEMA that is in charge of off-site activities. It is working with state and local officials to keep the public informed and for creating a center from which all activities would be coordinated.

Ultimately, the nuclear agency felt that making additional changes to both the 10-mile and 50-mile radius rules would be unnecessary. It says that it has examined the findings not just at domestic facilities but also at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and has concluded that current evacuation procedures remain adequate.

During an actual scare, however, migration patterns might create a logistical nightmares. The NRC disagrees, saying that such “shadow evacuations” would not create a mass exodus and the resulting havoc.

“The NRC staff has conducted considerable research into evacuations including the impact of shadow evacuations on evacuation outcomes,” says R.W. Borchardt, executive director of operations for the NRC. “Based on the research, NRC has confidence that show evacuations generally have no significant impact on traffic movement and concludes that the licensee’s current emergency planning bases continue to provide reasonable assurance protection.”

The congressional watchdog agency is not as confident. It says that more information is needed, specifically just what the public knows and how all people living around a nuclear facility might respond, noting that if it were greater than a 20 percent migration rate then it would impede the ability of those living inside the danger zone to leave. GAO says that community responses to hurricanes, tornados and earthquakes are not necessarily accurate predictors.

The NRC and FEMA are continually striving to do better. The record is supportive: Cool heads prevailed during Fukushima while improvements are ongoing with respect natural disaster response times here.

EnergyBiz Insider has been awarded the Gold for Original Web Commentary presented by the American Society of Business Press Editors. The column is also the Winner of the 2011 Online Column category awarded by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has been honored as one of MIN’s Most Intriguing People in Media.

Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein

energybizinsider@energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energybiz.com

http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/04/making-plans-case-nuclear-energy-radiation-leaks