Anti-nuclear groups say an emergency preparedness rule the Nuclear Regulatory Commission unveiled last week should have expanded evacuation zones around the country's 104 nuclear power plants.

At issue is the NRC's new requirement for plant operators to review how long it will take to evacuate people living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant (E&ENews PM, Nov. 22). The rule requires operators to revise evacuation estimates if population shifts are found to delay the process by 30 minutes or by 25 percent, whichever is less.

But the rule doesn't address whether such evacuation zones should be expanded. Nuclear opponents have been urging the NRC to expand such core emergency areas in the wake of Japan's nuclear crisis. A massive earthquake and tsunami struck the country's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on March 11, triggering explosions, radioactive leaks and multiple evacuations.

Shortly after the incident, the NRC called for the evacuation of all U.S. citizens within 50 miles of the plant, which exceeded Japanese officials' call for a 12-mile evacuation. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko later said the recommendation came amid confusion and sparse information from Japan and that it was made based on the assessment of conditions at the site as they were understood at the time (Greenwire, June 24).

But Mary Lampert, director of the advocacy group Pilgrim Watch, said the NRC shouldn't have finalized the rule without addressing insights from Fukushima. The event showed the NRC's standard 10-mile evacuation zones are insufficient, especially because populations have grown around nuclear plants in recent years, she said.

"Reactors were originally in sparsely populated areas, but those areas on the coasts and near cities have become increasingly populated," Lampert said.

Paul Gunter, director of Beyond Nuclear's reactor oversight project, said the NRC's rule is invalid because it doesn't address lessons from Japan. "Fukushima underscores that the conventional 10-mile evacuation planning zone and the 50-mile ingestion planning zones in current emergency plans were made obsolete before the rule was even released," he said.

But NRC Spokesman David McIntyre said the emergency preparedness rule was crafted during the past nine years to address safety gaps identified after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and was not intended as a response to Japan's crisis. NRC is implementing lessons from the accident separately and will make any changes necessary, he said.

"The NRC is analyzing the Japan lessons in a different context, and if we decide additional changes are in order, we will implement them," he said.

Industry response

Industry is also busy making safety upgrades to address issues tied to Japan's disaster, said Martin Hug, the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior project manager for emergency preparedness.

The NRC assembled an expert panel to review the accident and craft safety proposals, and the NRC and industry are in the process of reviewing safety standards to better protect the fleet, including emergency preparedness.

"There are [efforts] under way where we're taking a look and evaluating enhancements post-Fukushima," Hug said. "As we're implementing the new rule package going forward, we'll also be working on taking a look at the lessons learned related to Fukushima."

Ed Lyman, a senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the rule shouldn't have been delayed, but the NRC needs to increase the evacuation zones. "Although the rule probably shouldn't be held up at this point, NRC should include a thorough re-evaluation in light of Fukushima lessons learned in its near-term actions," he said. "Currently, most EP-related matters have been put off to the future."

Lyman did fault the rule for not requiring plant operators to conduct "hostile" action drills on a more frequent basis. The rule requires plant operators to conduct at least one drill by 2015 in which attackers try to damage equipment at the plant or take hostages as part of its ongoing biennial exercises.

"Frankly, I don't see why they shouldn't have to at least consider one in every biennial exercise. ... It's arbitrary," he said. "The terrorist threat is evolving, it's ongoing."

Hug said plant operators and workers practice safety techniques year-round to prepare for disasters and terrorist attacks, including routine simulator training. Industry also conducted voluntary "hostile" drills in 2007, he said.