The Japanese government had established a 20 km (12.8 mile) evaluation zone around the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant, a recommendation supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The US NRC had several experts on the ground to assist the Japanese government. The Americans had access to the same information that was available to Japanese authorities and the IAEA. Then on Thursday March 17, 2011 an unusual thing happened.
NRC Chairman Jaczko came straight from a meeting in the White House and told members of Congress that Americans in Japan should evacuate to a distance of 50 miles from the reactors. His comments sparked alarm across the globe because he also stated the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 fuel storage pool was dry, the uncovered used nuclear fuel was overheating, and they could expect large releases of airborne radioactive contamination.
Jaczko’s statement included this:
Now, in addition to the three reactors that were operating at the time of the incident, a fourth reactor is also right now under concern. This reactor was shut down at the time of the earthquake. What we believe at this time is that there has been a hydrogen explosion in this unit due to an uncovering of the fuel in the fuel pool. We believe that secondary containment has been destroyed and there is no water in the spent-fuel pool. And we believe that radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures.
Jaczko’s statements were factually wrong and the NRC’s recommendation to evaluate 50 miles were not based on any credible assessment of the risks. The Japanese government and the IAEA disputed Jaczko’s recommendation. In the days since, the media and anti-nuclear groups have jumped on the 50 mile bandwagon, questioning the basis for the current 10 mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) criteria in US regulations. Jaczko has yet to issue a retraction or apologize for his remarks.
- Did Chairman Jaczko jump to conclusions and simply misspeak? OR
- Was he intentionally setting the stage to ratchet US nuclear plants into a much larger emergency planning zone?
Anti-nuclear groups have long been arguing for expanding nuclear emergency planning zones from the current 10 miles to 50 miles. They know this would create an almost impossible financial burden on nuclear plants, and would foster political pressure to shut them down.
Issuing overly conservative evaluation orders can have serious consequences. The unnecessary movement of large numbers of people carries significant risks: traffic accidents and panic alone can kill people. Jaczko should have issued a retraction as soon as the basis for his recommendations were proven to be wrong. Instead he has been silent.
This is not the behavior we expect of an appointed official in which we place public trust.
#1 by NRCer on March 20, 2011 - 3:11 PM
There was no technical justification for the 50-mile evacuation. This did not represent the NRC’s opinion. Jaczko either mislead the White House or was told to do it by the White House. Either way, the reputation of the NRC has been as damaged.
#2 by Fifi on March 20, 2011 - 7:12 PM
I think Jaczko is mostly positioning himself to get the boot. His statements have badly created a lot of anger and damaged the reputation of the NRC. I don’t see this bozo visiting Japan anytime soon.
#3 by Dan Yurman on March 20, 2011 - 11:08 PM
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2011/03/fukushima-nuclear-crisis-unwrapped.html
This is the first blog post at Idaho Samizdat about Japan’s nuclear crisis. It examines the factors which may have played a role in NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko’s decision to tell Americans in Japan to evacuate to a distance of 50 miles from the Fukushima reactor complex.
#4 by Rod Adams on March 21, 2011 - 3:10 AM
John – I have sources of information that have verified your analysis. Jaczko’s testimony was not based on any technical analysis or any medical necessity. It was a political decision that could have incredibly dire consequences if allowed to stand. I have no idea why the NEI has decided to accept it without a strong condemnation. Even the 10 mile EPZ is excessive if you use realistic models instead of the currently assumed “source terms” with unrealistic distribution that ignores the effect of gravity on heavy particles.
I declared Jaczko’s announcement to be wrong in the following post:
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2011/03/focus-on-food-water-shelter-dr-greg.html
I followed that up with a post declaring that the whole notion of spent (used) fuel fires is silly and based on simplified models that ignore physical reality:
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2011/03/stop-worrying-about-spent-fuel-pool.html
#5 by David Lewis on March 21, 2011 - 3:54 PM
Your post briefly appeared at The Energy Collective then disappeared. Yurman’s latest effort same story.
Jaczko’s action looks like blundering around to outsider such as myself. I thought it had potential to create panic and it should mean he’s finished in this job no matter if he was correct in his assessment or not. He should have coordinated with the Japanese authorities.
This industry is in trouble if it can’t present a better more unified idea to the world from its senior leadership at at time like this as to what the legitimate threat was, if the pool went dry.
Blundering around spreading panic rather than cooly assessing exactly what reasonable people agree the threat consists of and explaining this to the public is what people want during an event like this, and if the nuclear industry can’t supply it, it is as if the industry wants to shoot itself in the head, or is being sabotaged from within.