The Great Nuclear Debate

The trouble is first recorded by sensitive, computerized instruments in the control room of the nuclear power plant. They warn that temperatures inside the reactor are rising fast toward a danger point -- so fast that only one explanation is possible: somehow, the main pipes carrying water to the reactor core have broken or clogged. As white-coated technicians look on helplessly, the back-up water system also fails. Deprived of the coolant that controls its temperature, the reactor begins melting in its own heat. Then the machine and its fuel collapse into a molten mass that explosively converts the coolant water into steam. The resulting blasts rip open the power plant's massive concrete dome, releasing a cloud of radioactive gases. Tens of thousands of people living near by are contaminated by radioactivity. Many die within days. Others suffer lingering illnesses and develop cancer years later.

The possibility that this grim scene will become a reality some day is highly remote. But the specter of nuclear catastrophe -- energetically raised by Consumerist Ralph Nader and heightened by such books as John Fuller's We Almost Lost Detroit and The Prometheus Crisis by Thomas Scortia and Frank Robinson -- has seeped deep into the U.S. consciousness. A growing number of Americans are now more concerned about the consequences of nuclear accidents than they are about the need for nuclear energy. To them, the menace presented by the nation's 56 operating nuclear power plants and the 64 now under construction is greater than the threat of a renewed oil embargo and energy crisis. Their fear is the driving force behind the bills now before Congress and 24 state legislatures to slow the spread of nuclear power. It has also helped citizen groups in California and Oregon to win a place on the ballot next year for initiatives that would curb the use of atomic energy in those states.

For the first time in its 20-year history, the atomic power industry in the U.S. is fearful for its future. "Uncertainty is the bane of the nuclear industry," Carl Walske, president of the Atomic Industrial Forum, recently said. The fact that the industry does $10 billion worth of research, development and construction a year (not including the sale of almost 8% of the nation's electricity) hardly fazes Ralph Nader. Addressing an audience of nuclear critics in Washington, B.C., he confidently predicted that nuclear plant construction will be stopped in five years.

The atomic industry -- and a vast majority of nuclear scientists -- believes that so drastic a step would be utterly unwarranted; there has simply never been a disastrous accident in U.S. commercial atomic power plants. That is not by chance. Each "nuke," as the power stations are called, must be designed to withstand the worst earthquakes, floods or other "acts of God" ever recorded in its area. Every piece of equipment is supposed to meet the stiffest quality controls anywhere in civilian industry. If any component fails, layer after layer of "redundant" safety features are ready to be activated. Last month the Federal Government released the final version of an exhaustive statistical study of reactor safety by a team under M.I.T. Nuclear Physicist Norman C. Rasmussen. A major conclusion: 100 U.S. nuclear plants would have an accident involving 1,000 or more deaths only once in a million years -- hardly the odds to justify a moratorium on nuclear energy.

Yet critics dismiss the study on several grounds, ranging from disagreements with Rasmussen's analytical methods to the impossibility of working into equations the possibility of human error by plant operators or the likelihood of sabotage. Then there is the disturbing frequency of small accidents. Last year alone, for instance, some 1,400 "abnormal occurrences" in nukes were reported to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Most involved routine mechanical difficulties or slight infringements of federal rules -- proof, says NRC Chairman and former Apollo 8 Astronaut William Anders, that "our inspectors are nitpickers." But to the critics, the plethora of defects simply validates Murphy's Law -- if anything can go wrong, it will.

Murphy struck most convincingly last March at the Tennessee Valley Authority's huge Browns Ferry nuclear plant near Decatur, Ala. A technician, using a candle to search for air leaks in an area where electric cables converge beneath the control room, was startled when the candle ignited some polyurethane foam surrounding the cables. As the blaze spread, the power plant's electrical system went haywire: instruments that had been shut off clicked back on; some that had been switched on turned off. Many of the redundant safety systems were disabled. There was no meltdown -- a tribute to the ingenuity of the plant's operators -- but it was a close call.

In addition, highly damaging criticism has come from, of all places, the staunchest advocate of the peaceful atom -- the old Atomic Energy Commission, which early this year was split into the NRC and the Energy Research and Development Administration. Antinuclear groups have reams of internal AEC memos and reports that were either leaked directly to them by dissident scientists or obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Some of the documents call attention to defective equipment, others to faulty procedures, and still others to laxity in the federal regulatory system. Indeed, the evidence of past bureaucratic cover-ups and bumbling has led Nader to denounce nuclear power as "our technological Viet Nam."

Many of the troubles are being solved by the NRC's tightening of safety standards. But accidental meltdowns are not the only worries of nuclear opponents. Among other concerns:

Lethal Garbage A reactor's wastes, mainly the depleted uranium fuel, are so highly radioactive that they pose serious risks to humans. Much of the waste will remain dangerous for centuries, and nuclear power critics argue that it is not fair to produce lethal garbage that could endanger future generations. Government experts are remarkably untroubled by that prospect. They point out that the total amount of waste that nuclear plants will produce by the year 2000 would fit, if stacked six feet high, on a single football field. The Federal Government proposes to bury the wastes deep in the earth, safely out of the way in stable geological formations. Possible nuclear vaults now being studied include subterranean salt beds in New Mexico, shale deposits in the Midwest and granite deposits in the East.

Fearsome Fuel Another byproduct of reactors is plutonium, which can also be used as nuclear fuel. But long-lived plutonium is deadly to man and must be handled carefully. A tiny speck in the lungs, for example, can cause cancer. More important, plutonium is the prime ingredient of atomic bombs; as little as 22 lbs. is all that is required for a crude fission bomb with the explosive force of 100 tons of TNT. Thus the material must be safeguarded so as not to fall into the hands of terrorists or blackmailers -- and this requires tight security regulations. Nader and other critics worry about the unlikely prospect that such security measures would turn the U.S. into a "garrison state," where civil liberties are suppressed.

Expensive Breeder The next generation of atomic reactors, now being developed in a demonstration project by a Government-industry consortium, is called the "fast breeder." Astonishingly efficient (it uses 60% to 70% of the energy in its fuel v. 1% to 2% in today's nukes), and almost alchemic (it actually creates more fuel than it consumes), it would extend nuclear fuel supplies for centuries. But critics are attempting to stop the breeder, arguing that it not only creates hard-to-handle plutonium but also is siphoning enormous amounts of research and development money.*

Ironically, economics may accomplish what Nader and his allies have so far failed to do with their safety campaign: to put a halt to the construction of new nuclear power plants. In the early days of nuclear power, scientists forecast that the electricity from nukes would be "too cheap to meter." Today, points out Nuclear Opponent David Dinsmore Comey, the economic advantage "has turned out to be an illusion."

One contributing factor is that nukes are more complicated to build than other types of power plants; they take about ten years to complete, while coal-burning plants can be built in seven years. The extra time is money -- lots of it -- because the costs of building and borrowing are skyrocketing. Thus, the cost of a nuclear power plant planned for Midland, Mich., in 1968 was estimated to be $260 million; the plant, not yet finished, is now expected to cost $1.4 billion. In total, says Power Plant Builder Leonard Reichle of Ebasco Services, Inc., a nuke costs $1,005 per kilowatt of generating capacity, while a coal-fired plant costs between $690 and $910 per kilowatt.

Even so, atomic power has been considered a bargain because of the plant's low operating costs. "It's like spending more for a car that gets better mileage," explains Jerry Stanbrough, a spokesman for Illinois' big electric utility, Commonwealth Edison. But even these numbers now look shaky. Instead of being available to churn out electricity 80% of the time, as advertised, nukes have been shut down for inspection or repairs on the average of 40% of every year. Like cars that often go back to the shop, they have not delivered their "better mileage."

Beyond that, uranium prices have more than tripled, from $7 per lb. in 1973 to $25 per lb. today; uranium delivered in 1982 might cost about $43. The Federal Energy Administration has launched an investigation into possible causes of the price spiral, which is upsetting the best laid plans of the nuclear industry.

Meantime, inflation has made all electricity, whether generated by nukes or conventional power plants, more expensive -- and U.S. consumers are beginning to economize on power. Growth in demand for electricity, which for decades climbed by a steady 7% a year, actually declined by .1% in 1974 and rose by only 2% in the first six months of 1975. Seeing no pressing reason to build the increasingly expensive nukes, utilities have canceled orders for 14 reactors and deferred orders for 96 others. That adds up to a de facto moratorium -- almost exactly what the nuclear critics want.

How long this slowdown lasts depends largely on actions taken in Washington, where the Ford Administration strongly favors expansion of our nuclear capacity. The President wants 200 nukes in operation by 1985 as a key part of his program for national self-sufficiency in energy. "It is time to set aside emotion," adds Frank Zarb, chief of the Federal Energy Administration. "We must get on with the job of utilizing this vital, clean and abundant energy source." Without it, he says, the U.S. would be at the mercy of foreign oil producers, a prospect that he fears could be "devastating" to the national economy.

The Administration is already helping by allotting more than half of this year's Energy Research and Development Administration's $2.7 billion budget to nuclear power research. It has also proposed a new Energy Independence Authority, which would channel $100 billion from the capital markets to private companies developing domestic energy resources, including nukes (TIME, Oct. 6). Another Administration bill, now being drafted, would allow utilities for the first time to include the cost of building power plants in their current rates for electricity -- in effect charging today's customers for tomorrow's power.

Despite its drawbacks, nuclear power is a necessity. Utilities are not building any more power plants that burn increasingly costly oil and natural gas. Production of coal -- the one plentiful U.S. energy resource -- can be expanded, though mining and burning it cause a host of environmental and public health problems. As for the alternate energy sources -- sunshine, winds, the earth's heat -- none of them is likely to generate significant amounts of electricity for decades. A strong effort to promote energy conservation -- the critics' favorite solution -- is surely needed. But even with sharp cutbacks in energy use, the country's need for electricity is bound to grow with the population and industry -- and with new uses for the power, like more mass transit and recycling of raw materials. Thus the U.S. really has no choice but to use all of its possible domestic energy sources. At least until something better comes along, the mix must include nukes.

* A total of at least $10 billion in federal funds to develop a commercial fast breeder reactor by the mid-1980s.

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