Nuclear Evacuation Zones: How Close Are You To A Nuclear Power Plant? (INTERACTIVE MAP)

AP Reporter Jeff Dunn answered in his Q&A with Huff Post readers, "The US government recommended that all US nationals evacuate to at least 50 miles from the broken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan earlier this year. And the NRC chairman suggested that we'd do the same in the same circumstances in the US."

Are you within 50 miles of a Nuclear Power plant? Would you be subject to evacuation if a Fukushima-like disaster occurred in the United States?

The Huffington Post has created an interactive map using the Associated Press data on nuclear power plants. All of the active nuclear power plants in the United States are displayed on the map below. The color of each circle is determined by the 2010 population around the plant: the darker the shade of red, the more people within the 50-mile radius of the power plant.

Increased concerns about nuclear power plants in the United States come following an AP investigation that found, "Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them."

They also reported that, "Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping."

Powered by Tableau

Data for this graphic comes from the Associated Press.

Comments

[NuclearNinja]

02:54 AM on 07/28/2011

Yay, I win! I live within 5 miles of one. I also work at one so I get to go REALLY close everyday.

[Michael Mann]

06:45 AM on 07/13/2011

Science shows a 10 mile evacuation zone around nuclear power plants is a conservative value, even at Fukushima, with multiple reactors the only way 50 miles is required is if you assume all the reactors melt and somehow 100% of the used fuel is atomized and released to the atmosphere, a theoretical extreme. I live with my family within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant, where I work as an Instrument Technician and I am not worried. The fear, uncertainty and doubt this article tries to create is more harmful than any radiation release to date from commercial nuclear energy production in the USA.

[snowballinhell]

01:24 PM on 07/13/2011

Where does science show this information? Please do tell. As far as I can tell, we have never been too far from your so called theoretical extreme, so we can be sure the Fukushima situation is damned bad. And has nothing to do with the proximity to which you yourself live to an intact nuclear power plant, worker or not. I hope you never have to eat your words about what fears others may fear about how close they live to a nuclear power plant. Obviously in the northeast of our nation, millions live close by. As a matter of fact, I don't live nearby a plant, but do live downwind. And sometimes downwind - where the wind is a prevailing one - just might be the worst place to be.

[professor]

12:33 AM on 07/13/2011

Read this if you believe their liis about Cernobyl being not very bad.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/137/

[professor]

12:30 AM on 07/13/2011

So here the tr... den!

I like how there's a really cru.ummby nuclear power plant whose emergency generators were proven never to work, within striking distance of New York City.

You see, they want us all hostage. All of us.

[Kenz300]

11:36 PM on 07/12/2011

The disaster in Japan continues 3 months after it started.

Children are going to school wearing radiation monitors.

Radiation hot spots have been detected outside the containment zone and in Tokyo.

Meat and vegetables high in radiation has been found for sale in the grocery stores.

The taxpayers in Japan will be paying for the clean up FOREVER.

Do you live near a US nuclear plant? Do you think our regulators are any better than the ones in Japan?

Chernobyl is looking to raise a billion dollars 25 years after there disaster for a new containment structure. The cost of a single mistake goes on forever.

It is time to transition to safe, clean alternative energy. Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future. The world produces a lot of trash every day. Let's make fuel and energy from that waste.

[MilesToGo]

06:08 PM on 07/12/2011

It's good to see some effort being made by mainstream media to educate the public. The full extent of the Fukushima nuclear disaster has yet to be made known my America's MSM. One had to go to Al Jazeera English last week to learn about the full extent and scale of that catastrophe, which has been under-reported...the nuclear power industry needs such ignorance.

[damudbug]

05:35 PM on 07/12/2011

Darn, I see there is one in New Orleans. I live on the Miss. Gulf Coast, just 50 miles northeast of that plant. This causes me great concern.

[willr]

12:06 PM on 07/12/2011

Why use an AP filter for this map? This information is publicaly available for everyone to review and comment on at the NRC website using Google maps.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/


http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/


Everyone should go to the source. Seek the information for yourselves and learn the basics. If the information is not readily available on the NRC website then send an email to the NRC since they are revamping the website to make it more accessible to the general public. Chairman Jaczko's goal is to make as much information public as possible.

Also here is the map for non-nuclear facilities where radiological material is stored that the AP reporter did not include.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/

Seek information and learn about the nuclear world straight from the knowledgeable sources instead of blinding playing follow-the-AP-reporter game.

[termgirl]

05:07 PM on 07/12/2011

Maybe you should suggest to HP that their followers would be better off commenting at the NRC site, and they should remove this thread.
Good luck.

[willr]

06:42 PM on 07/12/2011

HP can publish whatever they want. I just wonder why people don't go directly to the same source the AP reporter used and learn for themselves. Why use a filter such as the AP? Based on Mr. Dunn's "reporting" over the past few months relying strictly on his articles for news on the NRC would be similar to using the NEI for news on the Fukushima. All bad from Mr. Dunn and all good from the NEI. Little balance. Hence the basis of my comment.

Go directly the the NRC website and discover even more info then Mr. Dunn provided.

And the NRC is heavily weighed in favor of outside comments. The licensing issues of the AP 1000 are a prime example. Jaczko felt that he had to step into a licensing process that had already addressed years of public comment when an email campaign to stop the licensing occurred. Basically he threw his own experts under the bus solely due to emails from thousands of non-technical people, some who had already commented and had their issues resolved.

So I would say that the NRC under its current chairman is definitely on the anti-nuclear side and is willing to consider anti-nuclear groups opinoins ahead of his own people's analysis.

[mairs]

05:33 PM on 07/12/2011

One of the nuclear advocates here said that NRC Chairman Jaczko was an idiot for saying that the fuel pools at Fukushima had gone dry. Do you agree with that opinion?

[willr]

06:31 PM on 07/12/2011

Jazko was wrong to state a 50 mile evac zone since he was stepping into the State Dept terroritory. It created a diplomatic incident and the basis for the 50 mile radius turned out to be incorrect since his team appeared to be using information that was available to anyone with an internet connection and a TV.

One would think the head of a US regulatory agency would not step so heavily into international politics and comment on reactors design that his organization was not responsible for licensing.

He also declared emergency powers which may be in violation of intent of the Congressional act that created the NRC. His declaration of emergency powers allows him to restrict access to critical information to only those he approves.

As former Commissioner Rogers states in his opinion piece, Jaczko has set several dangerous precedents.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2015331074_guest16rogers.html

So no, I do not consider Jaczko an idiot. However I do consider Jaczko a political appointee to keep Yucca Mt. from seeing the light of day and who may be an anti-nuclear activist considering he started his political career with Rep. Markey and was right up the road from the UCS. I also consider Jaczko ill-suited and ill-equipped to run the NRC based on the NRC IG report that was released several weeks ago.

[mdinoregon]

12:03 PM on 07/12/2011

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X8tODVCso4w/ThtnC4flH_I/AAAAAAAAB2U/_Fpl2v5x7_k/s1600/fukushimareactor27-11-2.JPG
This chart is from readings of a robot in building #2 at Fukushima showing 1600 berq/cc of I-131 in the air inside the building. I-131 has a half life of 8 days, but this was taken 7/8/11. Meaning that #2 is still not in any kind of shut down, still cooking and venting and NOBODY can turn it off. If you want to believe nuclear is safe...well your choice. Yes, it could and almost has happened here. Just google "nuclear near misses" 274,000 hits. You decide.

[mjegan59]

08:00 PM on 07/12/2011

Would you mind interpreting the chart for those of us who don't speak math? :)

I really want to understand it, but my eyes glaze over when I see 1.6E-04. I am favoriting and fanning in the meantime.

[mdinoregon]

10:44 AM on 07/14/2011

Basically, I-131 should be long gone if it was in shut down. High reading means there is still fission reacions. It is still burning somewhere but more directly (bottom od chart)
1.6 X (10 to the 4th) or X 1000=1600 where cesium (in air) is 13+14= 27.

[haljett]

11:38 AM on 07/12/2011

Florida only has two plants? That is some info that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for posting this map. Gives a good idea of what evacuation route to avoid during hurricane season.

[willr]

11:53 AM on 07/12/2011

The nuclear facilities in Florida have already survived several hurricanes.

Turkey Point took Hurricane Andrew basically dead on and survived with very little damage.

Emergency plans are being prepared to further strengthen the plants based on Fukushima. Florida has not experienced a tsunami since it is not in a earthquake zone.

So what is your concern?

[haljett]

02:45 PM on 07/13/2011

Just that I don't want to take any unnecessary risks. I don't have any trouble with them being here. But life is full of risks we all weigh.

[Marion Clarke]

11:35 AM on 07/12/2011

Everyone in NJ lives within 50 miles of a nuke plant. From what I've read, a nuclear catastrophe can affect a 180 mile radius. So one of our 4 reactors could potentially cause trouble for Manhattan and Philadelphia. The biggest concern is Oyster Creek, next to where they filmed Jersey Shore (popular destination in summer), 50 miles from NYC, and about 70 from Philly.

[cityseeker]

08:47 AM on 07/12/2011

In 1993 I created a map of the safest places to live in the U.S. My maps were purchased by public and university libraries including Dallas Public LIbrary, Harvard and Yale. Proximity to nuclear reactors was included. What your map neglected was the smaller reactors in universities around the country and the experimental reactor facility I.N.E.L. in Idaho where dozens are sitting.

[mamacat]

04:04 AM on 07/12/2011

The nuclear plant at San Clemente, CA, has over 8 and a half million people living within 50 miles. Only the nuclear plant at Buchanan, NY, has more people living near it.

When Chernobyl went berserk, the radiation leaked well beyond 50 miles.

An interesting question to ask would be, how many people in the United States do not live within 50 miles of a potential nuclear disaster?

[willr]

11:47 AM on 07/12/2011

Considering that Chernobly style reactors are not built here in the US, your concern that a Chernobly like event happening here in the States is just another example of the anti-nuclear groups spreading fear and doubt in pursuit of their own agendas.

[mairs]

12:23 PM on 07/12/2011

Deliberate misinterpretation of what mamacat wrote. Fukushima radiation has gone beyond 50 miles as well.

The more you brush off any concerns, and more than that..... accuse people who are concerned of having nefarious motives, the worse the industry looks. Go ahead, post more like this.

[termgirl]

05:18 PM on 07/12/2011

What agendas would that be?
Not wanting to see evacuation zones in the future?
Not wanting to see school children with dosimeters strapped to their chests?

(As we have seen, it doesn't take a Chernobyl to create an evacuation zone.
You twisted mamacat's words.)

[Atoms4Peace1]

01:41 AM on 07/12/2011

The fallacy of the story is that 50 miles is not the NRC required evacuation zone. People will believe anything they read.

[professor]

12:58 AM on 07/12/2011

On the contrary, if they are so safe, why don't they build them dead center New Yawk City, where the energy is needed?

Save money on transmission.

[Brian Stanfield]

06:41 PM on 08/26/2011

The same reason they don't put garbage dumps there. People don't want to live next to them. And, as for NY City, the builders couldn't afford the property costs or city taxes. In the early days of Nuclear, one was planned for just across the river from Manhattan.