Congress, lawmakers at odds over nuclear evacuation readiness, Evacuation plans at America's nuclear power plants may not be sufficient, says a startling report out by a government agency that oversees such matters. Today, ABC News carried a story that suggests a Government Accountability Office report (or GAO) on safety and nuclear readiness, revealed a frightening scenario. The investigation reveals current disaster plans miss a crucial element of safety.
In wake of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in March of 2011, watch groups have raised concerns over emergency preparedness plans at America's nuclear power plants.
A group of Democratic lawmakers requested an investigation into community plans for getting residents out of the current 10-mile zone of danger should a nuclear meltdown or explosion takes place. Much of the focus was on so-called nuclear "shadow evacuations."
Essentially, this refers to residents housed outside of the area, which is typically considered "safe." However, the report questioned what could happen widespread panic ensues and those in shadow zones voluntarily evacuate.
The GAO's report talks about a scenario in which those who are trying to flee the epicenter within the current 10-mile nuclear evacuation zone, would get bogged down by residents not required to flee. Ironically, during the Fukushima disaster, U.S. government officials warned Americans to remain 50 miles away from the epicenter.
With over 120 million Americans living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, orderly evacuations could pose a logistical challenge.
Today, people are more informed, anti-nuclear power plant groups are on the rise and areas are suffering from encroachment. In other words, with the population expanding and a booming economy brings about more infrastructure and development, getting people out of harm's way should be a priority.
However, the 2011 report says current community plans are deficient in addressing deployment and training.
As such, experts advise expanding the evacuation zones to 25 miles from its current 10 miles.
Nonetheless, the The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is responsible for safety in such matters, disputes the report.
Have any lessons been learned from Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl?
source examiner
In wake of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in March of 2011, watch groups have raised concerns over emergency preparedness plans at America's nuclear power plants.
A group of Democratic lawmakers requested an investigation into community plans for getting residents out of the current 10-mile zone of danger should a nuclear meltdown or explosion takes place. Much of the focus was on so-called nuclear "shadow evacuations."
Essentially, this refers to residents housed outside of the area, which is typically considered "safe." However, the report questioned what could happen widespread panic ensues and those in shadow zones voluntarily evacuate.
The GAO's report talks about a scenario in which those who are trying to flee the epicenter within the current 10-mile nuclear evacuation zone, would get bogged down by residents not required to flee. Ironically, during the Fukushima disaster, U.S. government officials warned Americans to remain 50 miles away from the epicenter.
With over 120 million Americans living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, orderly evacuations could pose a logistical challenge.
Today, people are more informed, anti-nuclear power plant groups are on the rise and areas are suffering from encroachment. In other words, with the population expanding and a booming economy brings about more infrastructure and development, getting people out of harm's way should be a priority.
However, the 2011 report says current community plans are deficient in addressing deployment and training.
As such, experts advise expanding the evacuation zones to 25 miles from its current 10 miles.
Nonetheless, the The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is responsible for safety in such matters, disputes the report.
Have any lessons been learned from Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl?
source examiner
