U.S. Nuclear Power after Fukushima

The Union of Concerned Scientists outlines 23 recommendations to improve U.S. nuclear safety, arguing that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prioritizes business interests over public safety. Key proposals include extending regulations to cover 'severe' accidents, expanding emergency planning zones beyond 10 miles, and mandating the transfer of spent fuel from pools to dry casks. The report also calls for more realistic terrorist threat assumptions, stricter fire protection enforcement, and an increase in the dollar value assigned to human life in cost-benefit analyses to justify necessary safety retrofits.

• The NRC's current regulatory focus is on 'design-basis' accidents, leaving reactors vulnerable to 'severe' accidents that can cause reactor core damage and containment failure, similar to the event at Fukushima.
• U.S. emergency planning is limited to an arbitrary 10-mile radius, which is insufficient for severe accidents; the report suggests a science-based assessment of populations at risk, noting that the U.S. government advised evacuations up to 50 miles during the Fukushima crisis.
• Spent fuel stored in pools is more vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attacks than fuel in the reactor core; the report recommends transferring fuel to dry casks after five years to reduce the risk of radiation release.
• More than three dozen U.S. nuclear reactors are currently in violation of fire protection regulations issued in 1980 and 2004, yet the NRC has been tolerant of these violations, recently extending compliance deadlines to 2016.
• The NRC's 'design-basis threat' (DBT) for terrorist attacks is unrealistically modest and fails to account for real-world weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades.
• The NRC uses a dollar value for human life in cost-benefit analyses ($3 million) that is significantly lower than other U.S. government agencies ($5 million to $9 million), which leads to the rejection of safety features as too expensive.
• The NRC's use of probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) is flawed due to the omission of key data, inconsistent methodology, and a failure to rigorously evaluate seismic risks.

APA

Union of Concerned Scientists (2011). U.S. Nuclear Power after Fukushima. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/ucs-rpt-nuclear-safety-recs.pdf

Chicago

Union of Concerned Scientists. U.S. Nuclear Power after Fukushima. 2011. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/ucs-rpt-nuclear-safety-recs.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=U.S. Nuclear Power after Fukushima |date=July 2011 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/ucs-rpt-nuclear-safety-recs.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{unionofconcernedscientists2011nuclear, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{U.S. Nuclear Power after Fukushima}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2011}, month = jul, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/ucs-rpt-nuclear-safety-recs.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }