DN Editorial: Three Mile Island, Japanese style

THE THREAT of nuclear calamity in Japan should wake us up but good from the national fantasy that nuclear energy is a "clean, safe" answer to our energy demands.

Following a second explosion yesterday at a reactor 150 miles north of Tokyo, Japanese engineers were working frantically to avoid a total meltdown - and with it, a massive release of radiation - into the environment.

Japan is one of the most technologically

advanced countries in the world. It had extensive emergency backups in place to deal with a nuclear accident. The only country to have experienced the disastrous effects of nuclear radiation as a result of war, its safety regulations were strict. President Obama used Japan as a prime example of the right way to go about harnessing nuclear

power.

But the extraordinary force of the earthquake and tsunami and the resulting power failures meant the backups didn't work.

And if it can happen there, something like it surely can happen here.

In fact, as U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a top member of both the House Natural Resources and the Energy and Commerce committees, pointed out, at least 31 nuclear reactors use the same design as several Japanese reactors that are experiencing major failure. Of the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States, dozens are in areas that are prone to earthquakes. Just three days before the Japanese earthquake, Markey asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hold off approving a reactor design that an NRC engineer said was too susceptible to earthquake damage. The questions about the design's safety received little attention - until now.

Also receiving little attention: U.S. preparations for a possible nuclear emergency. Today, while Japan is struggling to deal with nearly- incomprehensible physical devastation, it also is faced with evacuating at least 200,000 people from the areas near the nuclear reactors.

If faced with a similar situation, could the United States cope? Markey has more disturbing news: No single government agency sees itself as clearly in command of emergency response in a nuclear disaster. Apparently, any number of agencies, from FEMA to the EPA, the NRC, or others, could be in charge - which means, of course, no one would be.

It was at Three Mile Island 32 years ago this month that the word "meltdown" entered our vocabulary. Pennsylvanians got an up-close and all-too-personal look at the difficulty of understanding the complicated scientific and engineering issues involved in the production of nuclear energy.

On our own, we can't assess the merits and risks of this technology, which is why we need to be able to trust government agencies and our political leaders to know what they are doing. Right now, the soothing reassurances from industry and government are making us queasy.

Of all people, we agree with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., a supporter of nuclear energy who says it is time to "quietly and quickly put the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan."

Not only should there be a moratorium on building new plants, but there must be a thorough review of the design of nuclear reactors - in particular, the ones that are in "seismically volatile" areas. Also, Obama must make sure that government agencies have coordinated plans for what to do if the (so far) unthinkable happens.

There may be, as Obama continues to say, a "safe and responsible" way to provide nuclear energy. But the catastrophe in Japan provides strong evidence that we aren't there yet.