The Nuclear Debate

From several standpoints, nuclear power seems an ideal answer to the continuing energy problem in the U.S. For utilities, it makes economic sense to construct plants that use heat from splitting atoms of uranium to spin turbines that generate electric power. Though the average plant costs 10% to 30% more to build than one that burns coal or oil, operating costs are much lower. Nuclear plants are also relatively kind to the environment. They discharge hot water that can harm aquatic life and change the characteristics of lakes; but they cause no air pollution, no spills at sea, no strip mining on land. And the uranium fuel is not subject to embargoes by foreign suppliers. Already, 44 nuclear plants produce about 6% of the U.S.'s electricity; 54 others,are under construction, and 105 more are planned. The Atomic Energy Commission predicts that the atom will provide at least 20% of the nation's electricity by 1980 and 60% by the year 2000.

Hard Question. Nonetheless, a minority of scientists, environmentalists and consumerists are determined to stop the nuclear program cold on safety grounds. Already, legislation has been introduced in eight states to impose a moratorium on the building of new nuclear plants. The debate centers on an almost insoluble question: How safe is safe enough?

The core issue is radioactivity. In large doses, it kills. In small doses, it can cause cancer and genetic mutations. To guard against harmful amounts escaping into the environment, the nuclear industry, following standards set and enforced by the AEC, has equipped plants with so many redundant safety features that the chance of a major accident seems infinitesimal. The critics cite "Murphy's Law"--if anything can go wrong, it will--and point out that after a year of operation, the average big nuclear plant contains 1,000 times as much radioactivity as the Hiroshima bomb.

Says Ralph Nader: "This is a survival issue."

In making their case, the critics have found--often with the help of the AEC'S own scientists--weak points in atomic technology, and so have spurred revisions in nuclear policies. Late last year, for example, the AEC issued new regulations to answer doubts concerning a crucial back-up safety device. Called the "emergency core cooling system" (ECCS), it is supposed to bathe the intensely hot reactor core with cooling water, thus preventing it from melting and releasing its radioactivity, if the primary cooling system fails. In 1972 an antinuclear coalition that calls itself the National Intervenors revealed in hearings that some experts, including AEC specialists, were unsure that the safety system would really work. Their complaints helped lead to new AEC rules that give greater assurance that the ECCS will function as planned.

Still the debate rages. Among the most heated current issues:

RELIABILITY. A report by the AEC'S top safety experts notes that between Jan. 1, 1972, and May 30, 1973, "approximately 850 abnormal occurrences" in nuclear plant operations were reported to the AEC. Critics use the figure to cast doubt on the reliability of nuclear plants. AEC Chairman Dixy Lee Ray cites the same figure to show how tough regulatory practices are. Both have some justification. Nuclear plants have had more than their share of operating mishaps, ranging from breaks in steam pipes to discoveries of defective welding and corrosion of reactor parts. But all the troubles were caught and fixed in time to prevent any accident involving radioactivity.

Even so, AEC Commissioner William Doub warns that there will be an "erosion of public confidence" if the "minor accidents" continue. One worrisome point: big new nuclear plants are designed to be in operation more than 80% of the time, but at least through 1972, were actually operating only 76% of the time. Perhaps the key problem is that every nuclear plant has been custom-designed. The AEC is now trying to standardize power-plant design.

LOCATION. Nuclear Physicist Ralph Lapp concedes the extreme unlikelihood of major accidents, but nonetheless advocates locating new nuclear plants far from population centers. In apparent agreement, the AEC recently forbade construction of a proposed plant eleven miles from Philadelphia. But, charges Ralph Nader, proposed AEC guidelines that aimed to force utilities to build plants in sparsely populated areas have been vetoed by utility executives because the industry fears that publishing the guidelines would imply that the safety of operating plants was in doubt. In fact, Nader says, eleven existing plants, including big ones near New York and Chicago, would not have met the proposed guidelines.

SAFEGUARDS. One of the byproducts of nuclear plants is plutonium, the critical ingredient in nuclear weapons. Several critics led by Theodore Taylor, a onetime atom-bomb designer for the AEC, fear that terrorists may steal the material. An amount the size of a softball, Taylor says, could be used to make a bomb that would be small enough to be carried in a car and powerful enough to kill tens of thousands of people. The AEC has tightened existing security restrictions for the transportation and handling of plutonium--indicating in the process that previous safeguards were less than adequate.

WASTES. After the nuclear fuel is used, the remaining liquid wastes are not only radioactive but long-lived. Indeed, radioisotopes of plutonium 239 will remain lethal for at least 250,000 years. The AEC is sure that it can handle the problem by solidifying the wastes (so that they cannot enter the environment) and then keeping them under surveillance until a safe storage technique is developed. But, says Physicist Henry Kendall, "the legacy to future generations very much disturbs us."

Critics also charge that the AEC, by both regulating and promoting nuclear power, is caught in a conflict of interest. That problem may be resolved by a Nixon Administration bill to split the AEC into two parts. One would concentrate exclusively on regulating safety standards. The other would form the bulk of a new Energy Research and Development Administration to foster development of all sources of energy.

Does the move toward more and more safety go far enough? Most scientists believe that it does. But in the end, the decision to "go nuclear" and take the risks inherent in that decision is up to the public. Safety is not the only factor involved. Of all the alternative power sources now available, only nuclear energy is far enough developed to fill Americans' ever-growing demand for electricity in the near future. Should oil and coal, with all their problems, be used to take up the gap? Or can the growth of electricity consumption be slowed enough through energy conservation and more efficient electrical devices to preclude the need for great numbers of new power plants of any kind? As long as the answers remain unclear, the great nuclear debate promises to continue.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.