February, 15 2012, 10:19am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Michael Mariotte or Dominique French
301-270-6477
Clean Energy Groups Submit Formal Petition to NRC to Incorporate Lessons of Fukushima
Expand evacuation zones, improve emergency planning around U.S. nuclear reactors
TAKOMA PARK, MD
Thirty-eight clean energy groups today submitted a formal petition for rulemaking to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking adoption of new regulations to expand emergency evacuation zones and improve emergency response planning around U.S. nuclear reactors.
Calling on the NRC to incorporate the real-world lessons of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the proposed rules would expand existing emergency evacuation zones from 10 to 25 miles around nuclear reactors and establish a new zone from 25-50 miles around reactors for which utilities would have to identify and publicize potential evacuation routes. Another improvement would require utilities and state and local governments to practice emergency drills that includes a natural disaster that either initiates or occurs concurrently to a nuclear meltdown. Currently, utilities do not have to show the capability to conduct an evacuation during a natural disaster--even though, as seen at Fukushima, natural disasters can cause nuclear meltdowns. The petition would also expand the "ingestion pathway zone," which monitors food, milk and water, from 50 miles to 100 miles around reactors.
"80% of the airborne radiation released from Fukushima went directly over the Pacific Ocean," explained Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which initiated the petition. "Even so, the Fukushima evacuation zone extended more than 25 miles to the northwest of the site, and the NRC and U.S. State Department both recommended that U.S. citizens within 50 miles of Fukushima evacuate. Such evacuations could not be effectively conducted in the U.S. under current emergency planning regulations. We need to be better prepared and we can't rely on favorable wind patterns to protect the American people."
Dominique French, who is leading NIRS' campaign to improve emergency response planning, added, "The NRC has relied primarily on the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and subsequent computerized accident simulations to support its emergency planning rules. But first at Chernobyl in 1986, and now at Fukushima, the real world has trumped any possible simulation. The fact is that far too many Americans live near nuclear reactors, but outside existing emergency planning zones. Based on real-life experience, these people need better protection."
"There is no invisible lead curtain surrounding nuclear power plants. We need to incorporate lessons learned from previous nuclear disasters. At the very least, we should stop pretending
that emergency evacuation zones of 10 miles are adequate, and expand planning to include residents living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant," said Eric Epstein of Three Mile Island Alert in Pennsylvania. "On Friday, March 30, 1979--while school was in session--Governor Thornburgh recommended a 'precautionary evacuation' for preschool children and pregnant women living within five miles of Three Mile Island. The targeted population was estimated at 5,000, but more than 144,000 central Pennsylvanians from 50 miles away fled the area--further proof that a radiological disaster is not a controlled field trip."
"Indian Point, 24 miles from New York City, sits at the epicenter of the most demographically dense area of any nuclear reactor in the nation. Even under normal conditions, traffic is congested and regional infrastructure is highly stressed. During the severe snow, rain and wind storms of the past few years, large swaths of the region have been brought to a near standstill. And yet the NRC ignores all these realities, preferring to play with its computer models. This is a dangerous game," said Michel Lee, Steering Committee, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition.
"In lieu of the recent activities around nuclear plants both in the United States and in Japan it had become obvious that a new Emergency Planning Zones be implemented. The Shell Bluff Community is asking that the NRC establish new guidelines that would expand the radius to protect the citizens that are in arms ways of these facilities. After all Japan is still experiencing unfolding occurrences that are taking place outside of their projected protected zone. The United States must move to protect her citizens who are in these dangerous pathways," said Charles N. Utley, community organizer for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
"Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is seen as a poster child by the nuclear industry: it is in a "low population zone", and not visible from any roads. However, families and businesses downwind from the nuclear plant and waste storage site do not consider themselves expendable, nor does invisibility negate the threat from two reactors and the radioactive wastes accumulated since 1984 that are stored on a site surrounded by 13 earthquake faults," said Jane Swanson of California's Mothers for Peace.
"Emergency plans of local and state government advise residents that in the event of a radiological release from Diablo Canyon nuclear plant there are two choices, depending on which way the winds blow: get in our cars in an attempt to evacuate, or "shelter in place". The former leads to congested traffic on the one freeway serving the central coast of California (Highway 101) as well-founded worries of families overload the freeway and bring it to a halt. Sheltering means using masking tape around doors and windows and turning off all air intakes into our homes for an unspecified time, in the hope that the emergency lasts only a few days rather than the many months as at Fukushima. Emergency plans need to be made effective. If this is not possible, then nuclear plants need to be shut down. Human lives cannot be traded for kilowatt hours," added Swanson.
A third of the population in the U.S., or roughly 120 million people, lives within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear reactor. Current emergency planning rules require utilities to develop and exercise emergency evacuation plans within a 10 mile radius around reactors. The "ingestion pathway" currently consists of an area about 50 miles in radius and focuses on actions appropriate to protect the food ingestion pathway.
At Fukushima, and earlier at Chernobyl, interdiction of contaminated food and liquids has occurred further than 100 miles from the accident sites.
Japan is already acting to improve its emergency response capability, in the event nuclear reactors ever are allowed to operate there again. Prior to the disaster at Fukushima, the emergency planning zones for nuclear emergencies in Japan was between 8-10 kilometers (5-6 miles). The zone is now being expanded to 30 kilometers (18 miles). The actual Fukushima evacuation zone was a 20 kilometer (12 mile) radius around the site, although areas to the northwest, where the heaviest radiation on land was measured, were evacuated more than 25 miles away.
The initial co-petitioners are: Nuclear Information and Resource Service (national and lead author), Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team (TN), Beyond Nuclear (national), Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (Southeast), Citizens Action Coalition (IN), Citizen Power (PA), Citizens Awareness Network (Northeast), Citizens Within a 10-Mile Radius (MA), Citizens Environmental Coalition (NY), Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes (Great Lakes),
Concerned Citizens of Shell Bluff (GA), Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, Council on Intelligent Energy and Conservation Policy (NY), Don't Waste Arizona, Don't Waste Michigan, The Ecology Party of Florida, Empire State Consumer Project Inc. (NY), Grandmothers, Mothers, and More for Energy Safety (GRAMMES) (NJ), Greenpeace (national), Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (NY), Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch (NJ), Missourians for Safe Energy, New England Coalition, Nuclear Energy Information Service (IL), NC WARN, (NC), Northwest Environmental Advocates (OR), Not On Our Fault Line (VA), People's Alliance for Clean Energy (VA), Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE) (NY), Public Citizen Energy Program (national), San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (CA), SEED Coalition (TX), Sierra Club of South Carolina, Three Mile Island Alert (PA), Tri-Valley CARE (CA), Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah), Vermont Public Interest Research Group, We The People Inc. (TN).
The full text of the petition is available here: https://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/emergency/petitionforrulemaking22012.pdf
Nuclear Information and Resource Service is the information and networking center for people and organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy issues.
LATEST NEWS
Experts Worldwide Agree: US-Israel Attack on Iran a Clear Violation of International Law
"Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end."
Mar 03, 2026
Experts on international law throughout the world have concluded that the unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran that began on Saturday is illegal.
Adil Ahmad Haque, a Rutgers Law School professor, wrote an analysis for Just Security published on Monday that called the attacks by the US and Israel a "manifest violation of the United Nations Charter," which "prohibits the use of force against another State unless that use of force is authorized by the UN Security Council or is a necessary and proportionate act of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack."
Haque also argued that Iran, in responding to the attacks, violated the UN Charter by launching drone strikes against US allies throughout the Middle East, even though none of those nations had taken part in the US-Israeli operations.
"The United States, Israel, and Iran, have each violated international law," Haque concluded. "Hundreds of civilians have paid the price. Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end."
Marko Milanovic, a University of Reading School of Law professor, wrote at the blog of the European Journal of International Law that the US-Israeli strikes are "manifestly illegal" and "as plain a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as one could possibly have."
Milanovic also said that, leaving legality aside, the war would likely create a humanitarian disaster.
"Maybe, maybe, something good will come out of this... although I very much doubt it," he wrote. "It is far more likely that many innocent people are about to die, in Iran and possibly in Israel, and that their deaths will be for nothing."
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) condemned the attacks on Iran as illegal under international law and dismissed any claims by US and Israel that they were necessary to liberate Iranians from a tyrannical government.
"Claims that launching an unprovoked and illegal attack is about defending human rights ring hollow," CIEL wrote, "when military strikes have already killed hundreds of civilians and intensified suffering as violence escalates—particularly when those same human rights are flagrantly violated by the US and by Israel, both domestically and abroad. Bombs do not yield peace, democracy, climate justice, or human rights."
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard described the US-Israeli attack as "a grave threat to multilateralism and to the integrity of the international legal order."
Callamard also said the international community needed "to intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent further military escalation to avert additional civilian harm, and halt any further crimes under international law against populations who have already endured decades of repression."
Human rights organization DAWN demanded that the UN General Assembly call an emergency session to declare the Iran attack a violation of the UN Charter.
Omar Shakir, executive director of DAWN, said that the war is also illegal under the US Constitution, which states that the US Congress has the power to declare war.
"This war is patently illegal," Shakir said, "and it must be stopped."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corbyn Accuses Starmer Government of ‘Echoing Tony Blair’s Obedience to Washington’
"Blair dragged the UK into an illegal war that triggered a spiral of hatred, conflict, and misery," Corbyn said. "Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to follow in Blair’s footsteps."
Mar 03, 2026
As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer allows British bases to be used as part of the US-Israeli war against Iran, the former leader of his Labour Party says he's making the same mistake that another Labour PM made 23 years ago.
Jeremy Corbyn, the socialist member of Parliament who led Labour from 2015 to 2020, said on Tuesday that Starmer was "echoing Tony Blair’s obedience to Washington", referring to the then-prime minister's decision in 2003 to join US President George W. Bush's war in Iraq.
"Ignoring the wisdom of ordinary people who could see the catastrophe ahead, Blair dragged the UK into an illegal war that triggered a spiral of hatred, conflict, and misery. More than a million Iraqi men, women, and children paid the price." Corbyn wrote in a Tuesday piece for the democratic socialist publicationTribune.
Infamously pledging to Bush, "I will be with you, whatever," Blair helped to promote the false claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. And despite a lack of support from the United Nations, he joined Bush's "coalition of the willing," committing 46,000 British troops to the war.
"This was the last time a Labour prime minister blindly backed the wishes of the US and its warmongering president," Corbyn said. "Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to follow in Blair’s footsteps and drag us into a catastrophic, illegal war."
Unlike Bush, US President Donald Trump has not yet put boots on the ground in Iran, instead waging a destructive campaign of aerial bombings and missile strikes that have taken out the nation's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other senior Iranian officials.
As of Monday, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), a US-based monitor of human rights in Iran, reported that at least 742 civilians had been killed since Saturday by US and Israeli attacks, with nearly 1,000 injured and more than 600 deaths still under review.
While Starmer has stressed that the UK "had no role" in launching the war, he has lent credence to the questionable case the US and Israel have made to justify it, including emphasizing that Iran "must never have nuclear weapons."
Iran has always contended its nuclear program was not for military purposes, and it had no desire to produce a nuclear weapon. Prior to Saturday’s strikes, reports indicated that Iranian negotiators had offered to give up the nation's entire stockpile of enriched uranium.
And though he has accused Iran of launching "indiscriminate strikes" across the Gulf, Starmer has been reticent to criticize similar actions by the US and Israel, which have had vastly larger death tolls, including the bombing of a girls' school that reportedly killed 165 people, most of them girls between ages 7 and 12, and attacks on several hospitals.
One day after the first strikes were conducted, and following mounting pressure from Trump, Starmer announced that he'd given the US approval for "specific, limited defensive" use of three Royal Air Force (RAF) bases—Fairford in England, Akrotiri in Cyprus, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean—in order to destroy Iran's missiles "at source" after a drone hit Akrotiri, causing minimal damage.
However, Starmer continued to claim that the UK had learned the "mistakes of Iraq," and "will not join offensive action now."
Corbyn said that Starmer's insistence that bases would only be used "defensively" was merely "meaningless vocabulary that reveals Starmer’s contempt for the intelligence of the British people."
In Parliament on Monday, Starmer said that "the use of the bases is to allow the US to use its ability to take out the ability of Iran to launch the attacks in the first place."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday used similar reasoning to justify launching the war, explaining that Iran was likely to retaliate against a planned Israeli attack and that it therefore posed an "imminent threat" to US personnel even though that threat was contingent on Israel attacking first.
Corbyn described the idea of a "preemptive strike" as a contradiction in terms. "Under this convoluted reasoning," he said, "almost any attack on anybody can be classified as a defensive measure. Starmer’s words are Newspeak—and cannot shield his government from complicity in the devastation ahead."
Like in the United States, the British public has expressed low support for American and Israeli actions against Iran. According to a YouGov poll published on Monday, 49% disapprove of US military action, compared to 28% who support it. Fewer than 1 in 5 Labour voters said they supported it.
Voters also said they oppose their government's involvement. Compared with just 32% of Brits who said they supported letting the US use British bases, 50% said they opposed it.
"For too long, Britain has blindly followed the US as it indulges in disastrous imperial fantasies," Corbyn said, noting the UK's continued support for Israel over two years of US-sponsored genocide in Gaza.
Corbyn is now an independent MP who co-founded a new political party after being thrown out of Labour in 2020 over dubious accusations of antisemitism, which he has alleged stem from his strong criticism of Israel.
"It’s time to forge a different path. Now is not the time to try to rescue a ‘special relationship’ characterised by impunity, genocide, and war," he said. "Now is the time to forge an independent foreign policy based on international law and peace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's Not What F*cking Happens to Them—It Happens to Us': Graham Platner Emerges as Potent Anti-War Voice
"It is the American people who are asked to make the sacrifice," said the Senate candidate. "It is never those in power. It is never those with wealth. It is always asked of us."
Mar 03, 2026
As the death toll in the US and Israel's assault on Iran rose to nearly 800 on Tuesday and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle pushed for the passage of a war powers resolution to stop President Donald Trump's "horrific war of choice," US Senate candidate Graham Platner, a Democrat from Maine and a combat veteran, is speaking out loudly against another war of choice by the United States.
In a new video posted on social media, Platner noted that his 2026 rival, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), recently said the US should attack Iran only "as a last resort"—something that did not come to pass, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who admitted Monday that the US and Israel waged war due to an "imminent threat" posed by the fact that Israel was planning an attack that Iran was likely to retaliate against.
Platner said Rubio's comments pointed to "quite possibly the most ridiculous excuse for starting a war" and warned that the situation is "spiraling out of control" before emphasizing that Collins "has the power to stop this."
Collins has been named as a potential Republican "yes" vote for the War Powers Resolution that Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has said he'll bring to the Senate floor this week.
"Sen. Collins, I'm just going to ask you straight up," said Platner. "You voted to send me to Iraq. Did you not learn anything from that experience? You need to stand up. The American people do not want this war."
Polling out Sunday showed that just 25% of Americans support the US attack on Iran, and Platner's comments to Collins were just his latest in which he tied Trump's war to the unpopular wars in which Platner himself fought and lost numerous friends.
"They are willing to sacrifice the lives of young American men and women and the lives of Iranian civilians simply to protect their political interests," Platner said at a campaign event in Brewer, Maine on Monday, accusing Trump of waging war partially to distract the public from the Epstein files.
"I cannot think of a more reprehensible act," he said. "I cannot think of a more unpatriotic act, of a more un-American act, than to send our sons and daughters off to die, to kill, to bring immense violence to innocent civilians abroad simply because you're afraid you might lose the midterms. It is disgusting."
Thank you to all who joined us in Brewer yesterday to fight to stop this senseless war.
Full remarks and video below.
*********
First, I want to say thank you to Food and Medicine for having me. The work of Food and Medicine, the Eastern Maine Labor Council, quite frankly,… pic.twitter.com/mi3BqmyuGl
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) March 2, 2026
He continued:
It is the American people who are asked to make the sacrifice. It is American families who have to bury their dead sons and daughters. It is American friends who have to watch their best friends come home from a war and struggle for years with physical and mental trauma.
That is who bears the brunt of all of this. It is never those in power. It is never those with wealth. It is always asked of us. And that is why we need to only wage war when the American people know it is actually in their best interest. And if it isn't, we do not do it. This war needs to end. And it needs to end now.
[...]
Watching people who do not know the realities of war, watching people who know nothing of the horror that comes with this kind of violence, people who could not even imagine what it feels like in the pit of your stomach when you hear that one of your friends has been killed; or watching one of your best friends be ripped apart by explosives; watching people who have no idea what any of this looks like or feels like celebrate this, disgusts me. And then watching them turn around and tell us that these sacrifices are just "what happens." We just need to be prepared for more casualties, because that's "what happens." It's not what fucking "happens" to them. It's what "happens" to us.
Platner emphasized that the ongoing assault on Iran "is only possible because we have had a Congress that for decades has abdicated its responsibility, its constitutional responsibility, in making war," and demanded that the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force be repealed and that Congress go further than the War Powers Resolutions that have been proposed to to rein in Trump's attacks in the Middle East as well as Latin America.
"We need a truly reformed War Powers Act, where we really pull the power back," said Platner. "We need to know why military force is used right off the bat. And it needs to be approved by Congress right off the bat. The Constitution is clear about who is supposed to have the power of waging war in this country. It is the body that is most representative of the American people because it is the American people who have to bear the brunt of combat."
He closed his remarks with a moment of silence for the American service members and hundreds of Iranians who have been killed in Iran in recent days.
"Working people in this country, working people in Iran, working people around the world have everything in common with each other," said Platner. "All of our needs are exactly the same. And we are used as pawns in the games of the powerful and the wealthy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


