In order to regulate industries whose products and/or operations may impact human health, various agencies of the United States government have assigned a dollar value to a human life. Then, when discussing improvements to a companies' products and/or operation to reduce their potential impact on health and life, the government can measure the cost of improvements against the saving of lives and, because of the value assigned, the savings in dollars. If the projected aggregate death toll and cost is greater than the cost of improvements, government regulatory agencies will lean on the company in question to make the improvements. While it may be questionable that a human life can be reduced to a dollar figure, still, if the valuation is high enough it may allow government regulators the leverage they need to force life-saving changes in products and/or operations.
The U.S. Department of Transportation values each human life at nine million dollars. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission values each human life at three million dollars. This means that if an unsafe car takes your life, that is worth nine million but if you die because of a nuclear accident, your life is only worth three million. However questionable it is to put a dollar figure on a human life, it defies reason that the same human life could be worth such different figures based on the way that someone died. The lower valuation placed on human life by the NRC makes it much more difficult to pressure the nuclear industry into making needed changes in the name of saving lives.
The European Union is trying to pressure the U.S. into more stringent regulations with respect to nuclear safety. The valuation of a human life is part of that discussion. The more valuable a human life, the more pressure can be applied to the nuclear industry. “Using this low value has a significant effect on nuclear plant license renewals and new reactor approvals,” said Ed Lyman, a Washington-based physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Nuclear plants are not required to add safety systems that the NRC deems too expensive for the value of the lives they could save.”
The U.S. is resisting an amendment proposed by the E.U. to the Convention on Nuclear Safety. The amendment would force regulators to show how they are improving safety and mitigating against nuclear accidents. Of course, the nuclear industry in the U.S. complains that the NRC is forcing them to comply with regulations that have nothing to do with safety.
After Russia withdrew its opposition to the amendment, the U.S. became the last major holdout against adopting the amendment. The U.S. is spending more on nuclear safety but the French currently outspends the U.S. by four to one. If the U.S. is going to place a value on human life for regulatory purposes, then it should be the same valuation across the board. Having a special low valuation to save the nuclear industry money is just not acceptable.
