（此文由本中心根据谷歌翻译系统整理编译。若与原文重大出入，请告知为盼。谢谢）
2011年3月13日
美国总统奥巴马阁下
白宫
1600年宾夕法尼亚大道西北
华盛顿特区，20500
尊敬的奥巴马总统：
我今天所要说的，是关于美国联邦政府如何在美国发生了如同日本大地震引发巨大核灾害一样事故后作出明确的的应急反应。我担心的是，根据目前的信息表明，没有一个明确的机构准备对突发性的核灾难作出反应。
在日本正在发生的危机向我们展示了我们必须准备在发生核灾难事件的反应程度，不论是由自然灾害或人为事故或恐怖袭击造成的。目前，超过20万人被疏散，福岛第一制药周围12英里半径。目前尚不清楚的时候，或者，他们将能够返回家园。在一号反应堆已被永久停用时，尝试用海水注入的方式以制止灾难。至少有一个其他反应堆也遭遇了部分崩溃，两个人有严重伤残的冷却系统。放射性铯和碘已经被释放到大气中。福岛第一制药三工人正遭受辐射中毒。两个人都出现二十辐射照射的症状。有一百七十人有辐射测试呈阳性反应。碘化钾药片正在散发，以减少对甲状腺癌的风险。
这时，紧急救援人员，应设法营救被困瓦砾成千上万的受害者，他们被洪水围困，并且暴露在因核反应堆核泄漏辐射中。
正如你所知，在美国31个反应堆和已经融化或受到溶化威胁的福岛一号反应堆是采用相同的设计。核灾难也来自恐怖分子：基地组织曾经考虑在911恐怖袭击中用一架飞机撞击一个核反应堆，一名男子于2011年2月24日被捕的规划目标也是核反应堆。这种威胁的严重性是毫无疑问的。
然而，一个内部文件审查通过的信息法（信息自由法）由环保局内的要求自由公开表明，它似乎没有一个机构，明确把核灾难作为应急响应命令中的其中一个。这些材料表明：
环保局，核管制委员会（NRC）和联邦紧急事务管理署（FEMA）不同意有关的联邦机构将导致努力应对和清理，由攻击核反应堆造成的大型辐射释放事故。
据报道，这些机构也担心，无法根据股价安德森法，需要足够的资金进行长期的清理，一个是为了确保有一个大规模的核灾难相关的巨额费用，将不会获得规约缺席，由于该公司拥有的反应堆失败破产。
也有分歧是否中期和长期清理了大规模核灾难的标准会像美国环保局目前的放射性标准更为严格。我一直以来，对这项有关核辐射的应急计划非常关注。
联邦政府应对其他灾害更为明确规定美国法律和法规。继对埃克森公司瓦尔迪兹石油泄漏舆论哗然，国会通过了1990年油污染法案（OPA）的，修正了清洁水法。 OPA的规定对泄漏规划，并明确会是谁在负责联邦响应-为泄漏内陆环保局，在海上或在海岸溢油美国海岸警卫队。一个负责领导和协调联邦响应和清理工作的过程中，指定了详细的法律和规定。同样，要解决在联邦政府对卡特里娜飓风的缺点，国会通过后卡特里娜应急管理改革法，修改了斯塔福德法和国土安全法。联邦紧急事务管理局是针对导致综合应急准备，响应国家，在减少灾害风险。在斯塔福德法明确表示，总统有权宣布进入紧急状态或国家灾害在自然灾害情况下，并在国家当局的要求。如果总统宣布一场灾难，那么这个自动授予联邦紧急事务管理局的权力来协调，如美国红十字会28个联邦机构和非政府组织的贡献。
与之形成鲜明对比的石油泄漏和飓风所设想的方案，也没有应急协调和指挥到位，以特异性核灾难的反应。在/放射事件附件框架内的核国家响应说，“[国土安全]秘书负责协调在美国联邦行动，准备，响应和恢复恐怖袭击事件，重大灾难负责，其他紧急情况。“[3]然而，该附件还表明，对事件类型的不同，可能反而会协调局，能源部，国防部，环保局，核管理委员会，或美国海岸警备队（美国海岸警卫队）。当我的工作人员是由美国环保局和NRC工作人员介绍，他们被告知这两个机构没有明确有关机构将在其中的一个核灾难的反应各方面的收费，而身份的领先优势联邦机构已在许多不同的因素而定。一个机构的正式工作人员，基本上是告诉我，如果一个核事故发生后，他们都会在手机上真正得到迅速找到答案。
联邦机构还没有开发出一种用于核灾难的一个协调的计划。核电厂是由联邦紧急事务管理局和NRC需要有辐射紧急情况应对计划，但“目前尚不清楚这些计划扩大到长时间的事故，扩展到大片土地，或涉及人口众多，“据2010年7月27日报告草稿关于特大核事故的总统委员会会议。委员会注意到没有作为一个永久地撤离了135,000人以下的。[4]在日本大规模撤离切尔诺贝利灾难“这种可能性规划“，超过200,000人已被疏散周围受威胁反应堆。向国会报告似乎并没有被公开的草案版本，除了由环保署内获得。通过信息自由法要求发现电子邮件消息匹配这种混乱。在回答记者到里面环保局提出的问题，一个环保署职员怀疑：“他为什么不问NRC的？他们规范NRC的监管设施的清理工作。我们不会参与的。“
我也担心，计划更充分地指定核灾难的责任，和步骤，市民应在核灾难，还没有得到充分的优先次序。去年，政府派出的响应一间规划指导核爆炸对当地的应急反应。[5]但是，对一个核爆炸计划于2010年五月，大规模演习，最后是由于在美国内华达州当地居民的反对而取消。 2011年的联邦紧急事务管理局工作，以模拟在中西部7.7级地震，据报道，正在缩减。
在日本的悲惨事件突出了更深入和具体的核灾难应急预案的必要性。石油污染法及其实施条例的起草中的埃克森瓦尔迪兹灾难之后。它不应该要求在这个国家建造核灾难联邦响应灾难性的核事件。因此，我要求你在回答下列问题及时注意：
1）哪些联邦机构为主体的正式声明，核紧急情况或灾害存在责任？请同时注明在何种情况下会发生这样的声明。
2）哪些是负责协调联邦机构在核灾难的联邦政府的工作负责，什么样的角色和责任是相互联邦机构参与救灾工作设想？如果不同的机构将用于灾害或（如核电站设施与核武器）的核设施不同类型的不同类型，指定负责请充分的条件下，每个机构将承担其作用和责任，谁就会使这些决定在活动期间。
3）那一个联邦政府机构是负责确定当一个核电厂周围（包括面积超过10英里的一座核电厂周围半径较大的疏散）必须发生面积大规模撤离，在什么基础上这样一来作出决定？
4）哪一个联邦机构负责进行及监督大规模疏散（包括面积超过10英里的一座核电厂周围半径）放大后疏散核灾难负责？目前该机构是否有权力来协调和指导，在相同的方式联邦紧急措施署其他联邦，州和非政府资源，可以承接斯塔福德法案声明？
五）联邦机构负责确定什么时候被人从他们的家撤离核灾难之后，可以返回，以什么样的基础是这样一个决心承担这样的责任？
6）条的联邦机构负责清理，以恢复辐射对人类和环境的影响方面的责任呢？将这些长期为不同的安全标准的辐射水平EPA的现行标准，如果是这样，为什么？
7）有没有为如何震害核电厂，地震破坏与其他形式的政府，也需要大量的救灾工作相结合，会影响应急和疏散工作和资源需求分析？如果是的话，请充分说明这些计划，如果没有，为什么不呢？有辐射释放的影响，在规划，占被疏散，可能也是必要的，因为其他地震对建筑物的影响？如果是的话，请充分说明这些计划，如果没有，为什么不呢？
非常感谢你注意这个重要问题。如果您有任何问题或疑虑，请您的工作人员联系我。
真诚的，
爱德华J.马基
信件原文如下：
March 13, 2011
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama:
I write to request information about how the United States federal government would respond to a nuclear disaster such as the unfolding crisis at reactors in Japan following the massive earthquake there. I am concerned that based on recent reports, it appears that no agency sees itself as clearly in command of emergency response in a nuclear disaster.
The unfolding crisis in Japan shows us the magnitude of the response we must be prepared for in the event of a nuclear disaster, be it caused by a natural catastrophe or a man-made accident or terrorist attack. Already, more than 200,000 people have been evacuated in a 12-mile radius around Fukushima Daiichi. It is not clear when, or if, they will be able to return to their homes. The Daiichi-1 reactor has been permanently disabled when it was flooded with sea water in a desperate attempt to halt a meltdown. At least one other reactor has also suffered a partial meltdown, and two others have seriously disabled cooling systems. Radioactive cesium and iodine have been released into the atmosphere. Three Fukushima Daiichi workers are suffering from radiation poisoning. Twenty two people are showing symptoms of radiation exposure. One hundred and seventy others have tested positive for radiation exposure. Potassium iodide tablets are being distributed to reduce the risk of thyroid cancer.
At a time when emergency responders should be trying to rescue victims trapped underneath rubble, they are instead being compelled to flood nuclear reactors with water from the ocean to halt the imminent meltdown, screen toddlers for radiation exposure and evacuate hundreds of thousands of citizens.
As you know, there are 31 reactors in the US of the same designs as the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini units that have already melted down or are under threat of a melt-down. A nuclear disaster could also come from terrorists: Al Qaeda considered crashing a plane into a nuclear reactor during the 9/11 attacks and a man was arrested on February 24, 2011 for planning to target reactors. The seriousness of this threat is beyond question.
Yet a review of internal documents made public through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Inside EPA[1] indicates that it appears that no agency sees itself as clearly in command of emergency response in a nuclear disaster. These materials indicate that:
· EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are not in agreement about which Federal agency would lead efforts to respond to and clean up a large-scale radiation release caused by an accident at or attack on a nuclear reactor.
· The Agencies are reportedly also concerned that sufficient funds needed to conduct a long-term cleanup might not be available under the Price-Anderson Act, a statute that is designed to ensure that the massive costs associated with a large-scale nuclear catastrophe would not be absent due to the bankruptcy of the company that owned the reactor that failed.
· There is also disagreement about whether the medium and long-term clean-up standards for a large-scale nuclear disaster would be as stringent as EPA’s current radiological standards. I have expressed my concerns about this aspect of radiological emergency response planning in the past.[2]
The federal response to other types of disasters are much more clearly specified in U.S. law and regulation. Following public outcry about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, amending the Clean Water Act. The OPA mandated planning for a spill and made it clear who would be in charge of federal response -- EPA for spills inland, USCG for spills at sea or on the coasts. A detailed process for leading and coordinating the federal response and clean-up efforts was specified in both law and regulation. Similarly, to address shortcomings in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which amended the Stafford Act and Homeland Security Act. FEMA is directed to lead the nation in comprehensive emergency preparedness, response, and in reducing the risk of a disaster. The Stafford Act clearly says that the President has the authority to declare an emergency or national disaster, in the case of natural catastrophes and at the request of state authorities. If the President declares a disaster, then this automatically grants FEMA the authority to coordinate the contributions of 28 federal agencies and non-governmental organizations such as the American Red Cross.
In stark contrast to the scenarios contemplated for oil spills and hurricanes, there is no specificity for emergency coordination and command in place for a response to a nuclear disaster. The Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework says that “The Secretary [of Homeland Security] is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.”[3] Yet the Annex also indicates that, depending on the type of incident, the Coordinating Agency may instead be the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, EPA, NRC, or US Coast Guard (USCG). When my staff was briefed by staffs of the EPA and NRC, they were informed by both agencies that there is no clarity regarding which agency would be in charge of the various aspects of a response to a nuclear disaster, and that the identity of the lead Federal agency is dependent on many different factors. One Agency official essentially told my staff that if a nuclear incident occurred, they would all get on the phone really quickly and figure it out.
Federal agencies have not yet developed a coordinated plan for a nuclear disaster. Nuclear power plants are required by FEMA and NRC to have Radiological Emergency Response Plans, but “it is not clear that these plans extend to long-duration accidents that extend over large land areas or involve large populations,” according to a July 27, 2010 Draft Report to the Congress of the Presidential Commission on Catastrophic Nuclear Accidents. The Commission noted no “planning for such a possibility” as an evacuation on the scale of the 135,000 people permanently evacuated following the Chernobyl meltdown.[4] In Japan, more than 200,000 people have already been evacuated from around the threatened reactors. The Report to Congress does not appear to be publicly available, except for the Draft version obtained by Inside EPA. Email messages uncovered through the FOIA request match this confusion. In response to the Inside EPA reporter’s questions, an EPA staffer wondered “Why doesn’t he ask NRC? They regulate the cleanup of NRC regulated facilities. We don’t get involved at all.”
I am also concerned that plans to more fully specify nuclear disaster responsibilities, and steps that members of the public should take in a nuclear disaster, have not been adequately prioritized. Last year, your Administration sent an interagency Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation to local emergency responders.[5] But a large-scale exercise for a nuclear detonation, planned for May 2010, was cancelled in response to local opposition in Nevada. A 2011 FEMA exercise to simulate a 7.7-magnitude earthquake in the Midwest is reportedly being scaled back.[6]
The tragic events in Japan highlight the need for more intensive and specific nuclear disaster response plans. The Oil Pollution Act and its implementing regulations were drafted in the wake of the Exxon-Valdez disaster. It should not require a nuclear disaster in this country to construct the Federal response to a catastrophic nuclear event. Consequently, I ask for your prompt attention in responding to the following questions:
1) Which federal agency is responsible for making a formal declaration that a nuclear emergency or disaster exists? Please also specify the circumstances under which such a declaration would occur.
2) Which federal agency is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s efforts during a nuclear disaster, and what roles and responsibilities are contemplated for each other federal agency involved in response efforts? If different agencies would be responsible for different types of disasters or different types of nuclear facilities (i.e. nuclear power plant vs nuclear weapons facility), please fully specify the conditions under which each agency would assume its role and responsibility, and who would make these determinations during the event.
3) Which federal agency is responsible for determining when a large-scale evacuation of an area surrounding a nuclear power plant (including the evacuation of an area larger than a 10-mile radius surrounding a nuclear power plant) must occur, and on what basis is such a determination to be made?
4) Which federal agency is responsible for conducting and overseeing a large-scale evacuation (including the evacuation of an area larger than a 10-mile radius surrounding a nuclear power plant) following a nuclear disaster? Does that agency currently have the authority to coordinate and direct other federal, state and non-governmental resources, in the same manner as FEMA can following a Stafford Act declaration?
5) Which federal agency is responsible for determining when people that were evacuated from their homes following a nuclear disaster can return, and on what basis is such a determination to be made?
6) Which federal agency is responsible for cleaning up radiation to restore affected areas for people and the environment? Will these long-term standards differ from EPA’s current standards for safe radiation levels, and if so, why?
7) Has there been analysis for how earthquake damage to nuclear power plants, combined with other forms of earthquake damage that also require considerable governmental response efforts, would affect emergency response and evacuation efforts and resource needs? If so, please fully describe these plans, and if not, why not? Have the effects of radiation release been accounted for in planning for evacuations that may also be necessary due to other earthquake impacts on buildings? If so, please fully describe these plans, and if not, why not?
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please have your staff contact mine.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Markey
No comments:
Post a Comment