Skip to main content

NEI Statement on GAO Report on Radiological Incidents and Likely Public Response

Earlier today, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a study that concluded that the NRC needs to do a better job understanding how the public might react in response to theoretical incidents at U.S. nuclear power plants.

In response to media inquiries concerning the study, NEI issued the following statement:
The emergency planning programs and requirements that are the focus of this report are only one element of a comprehensive, multilayered strategy that is in place to assure public health and safety. Because our facilities are operating safely – as verified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a multitude of safety and performance indicators that are monitored and reported regularly – this report should be viewed within the larger context of protective measures that we take to prepare for the unexpected. Our defense in depth approach encompasses the robust design and construction of facilities, including the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant systems, and the containment structure, buttressed by severe accident management procedures, the FLEX strategy of portable, emergency equipment being implemented post-Fukushima, and these emergency preparedness programs that are exercised and evaluated regularly.

The report notes that the NRC still considers the 10-mile and 50-mile emergency planning zones to be adequate, based on health evidence from the Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents and the findings of recent NRC studies on the potential consequences of severe accidents at U.S. facilities. The State of the Art Reactor Consequences analyses, released in January 2012, showed that earlier NRC studies that projected off-site radiological health consequences for potential severe reactor accidents were extremely conservative. The analyses showed that there are significantly more fission products retained within the reactor coolant system and containment than previously believed, and that there is more time for mitigation of a severe accident than previously believed, because accidents generally progress significantly more slowly than previously believed --that is, many hours to tens of hours vs. about one hour in a related study from 1982.
Please consult our website for more information about emergency preparedness.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This statement is sort of indirect and unclear. It implies some things but doesn't come right out and say it.

Does the NEI think shadow evacuations are not a major concern because nuclear accidents are less harmful than previously thought? Then say so, make the connection. Don't make us guess what the argument is.
Anonymous said…
People like Boxer and Markey cause unnecessary fear by their unfounded statements and speculation - and simply appeal to emotion for the quick political and media spotlight. The reality is that it is far riskier and dangerous for any one of us to be in a vehicle on a public roadway in the US, or even to climb a flight of stairs, than it is to live within the vicinity of a nuclear power plant. The key is to ensure that the regulator does the job of ensuring operators comply with the regulations. Don't forget - the people who operate those nuclear power plants live near those plants with their families and friends. They take their responsibility to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment just as seriously as does the NRC.
Anonymous said…
The GAO seems to be singularly focused on traffic. Who were those involved in the "research" for the study? What were their credentials? Were they pandering to their clients? It seems one must take into account the totality of the situation which includes the basis for the 10 mile zone, new information concerning health effects, data from Fukushima residents, etc. if one is to drive new law or regulatory changes unless you have a specific agenda.
Anonymous said…
"The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress."
Anonymous said…
Fukushima accident is not a good yard stick for the effects of radiological incidents for nuclear reactors located in Illinois or Pennsylvania because most of the radioactive material went out over the ocean and into the ocean. That would not be the case for most reactors in the US. Chicago and Philadelphia are downwind of many old reactors.
Anonymous said…
Planning of responses to nuclear accidents should take into acount the fact that UNSCEAR 2012 has demolished the LNT theory. Exposures of less than 10 rem, as I understand it, are harmless.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…