Code Red: Report warns of danger in the resurgence of the nuclear power industry

Code Red

Report warns of danger in the resurgence of the nuclear power industry

IT IS 4 AM. The date is March 28, 1979. The place is Middletown, Pa. A warning siren wails across the landscape. Suddenly, a plume of steam shoots into the sky over the island nuclear plant with enough force to blow windows and floor boards of nearby houses. Residents of Middletown and other small towns south of Harrisburg don't know it yet. They know something has happened. They won't learn until later that a series of problems—both human and mechanical—have combined to create the worst nuclear disaster in United States history. During the TMI disaster, radiation was damaged and the thousands of people were evacuated from their homes.

Panic ensued, especially among pregnant women. Was the radiation level high enough to cause permanent damage to DNA?

It would be much later that the nation learned how dangerous the situation really was. The temperature of the reactor's core had approached a temperature of 4,300 degrees Fahrenheit—enough to turn uranium into a liquid.

At the time, the industry continued to insist that such an accident would have been inevitable. Because of increasing oxygen and hydrogen levels in the reactor, engineers began to worry that the reactor might blow the chamber.

The reactor was well on its way to becoming a hydrogen bomb. Scientists are 100 to 1,000 times more powerful than atomic bombs, with the potential to kill millions and make large geographical areas uninhabitable for thousands of years.

Nuclear annihilation—not just for meltdown, but the entire East Coast—became a distinct possibility. Fortunately, workers were able to defuse the reactor and the threat passed. And east world's worst nuclear disaster occurred at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union. While taking a reactor, workers disregarded several safety procedures.

A chain reaction in the reactor went out of control, causing explosions that blew off the reactor's heavy steel and concrete lid.

Rescue workers who tried to contain the accident died from radiation exposure. Estimates suggest 135,000 people died to be treated.

The full scale of the accident is still not yet known, but workers and residents alike have developed illnesses that may be directly related to radiation exposure.

plant or acquire an existing one at this point.

"But because of the low-cost, high reliability and safety of nuclear power, we think it should remain an option for the expansion of our fleet," he says.

The COL procedure has been tested and Higginbottom says it's first test, sodium's application will be effective, he says.

"It involved a lot of financial risk and uncertainty," Higginbottom says. "The new program allows us to do several things and it removes a good bit of uncertainty and removes financial risk."

The Department of Energy unveiled its Nuclear Power 2010 program in February 2002. The program is a public/private sector cost sharing arrangement. The utilities are to have orders for one or more new nuclear plants by 2005 and 2010 have new nuclear power plants in operation.

"Part of Vice President Cheney's energy task force goals," says DOE, which is not yet online by 2010. Barczak, it took several years. This puts two things together, which could lower several on public reaction time."

The COL process provides ample opportunity for public comment.

"I think the public is anticipating opportunity to speak out," he says. "The public is very concerned to doing the public the opportunity to address these issues. Have that gone away in recent years? Smith says yes.

"There's a combination of forces," Smith says. "The current administration has embraced nuclear power and has promoted it. We haven't had the fear we have a whole generation of people who've no recollection of Three Mile Island or even Chernobyl," Barczak says. "We have spokespersons in the industry. Mile Island happened. They lack a historic memory of the accident's scope and the panic that ensued from it. They also are unaware of the economic history."

Barczak says nuclear power is a "50-50 public/private partnership," she says. "You and I are footing half of the bill."

The nuclear power infrastructure is extremely costly to build. For example,

such, including various types of cancer, birth defects and heart problems.

The public's reaction to the incident was so intense that it seemed for a while the nuclear industry was dead, or at least dying. But the industry did not die out as its infrastructure aged. Nuclear power has been built in the U.S. since 1979, although there is talk that new construction at the time have been completed.

"The industry never really backed off from building new plants," says Steve Smith, executive director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which works to promote clean air and clean energy technology in the Southeast.

Billions of dollars have been spent on research and development of nuclear power, Smith says.

"It's a very lucrative market," he says. "They're consistently trying to figure out how to expand the nuclear industry."

In 2001, the Bush administration allocated $111 billion was spent on total energy research and development. Of that, 59 percent was spent on nuclear power, an industry that produces only 20 percent of the nation's electricity.

"There are four nuclear power reactors that present 27 percent of the nation's electricity. If there were more reactors within 15 miles of Georgia's borders.

Sara Barczak, ACCS Safe Energy director, is the co-author of CoalFreeAct, Confronting Nuclear

Power in Georgia. The report, which was co-written by Rita Kilpatrick, took 2 1/2 years to compile.

The report is aimed at policy makers. It must-reading for anyone who is concerned about what is going on in the world of nuclear business," Barczak says.

Locally, the Southern Company, the parent company of Savannah Electric, has plans to expand its nuclear plants to form a consortium. NuStart Energy Development LLC. Each member of the consortium has committed $1 million per year for seven years to the project.

The utilities in NuStart have combined to jointly pursue a "COL"—a combination construction and operating license. In the past, a two-step process was required for the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. After lobbying by the industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission streamlined the process, making only one license necessary. It's COL license is granted to the consortium, every utility in the group will be licensed to construct and operate a nuclear power plant.

Southern Nuclear is the subsidiary of Southern Company that operates Plant Vogtle near Augusta and Plant Hatch near Baxley.

Southern Nuclear spokesman Steve Higginbottom emphasizes that Southern Nuclear has no plans to build a nuclear

'We have a whole generation of people who have no recollection of Three Mile Island or even Chernobyl. We have policymakers in office who weren't in office when Three Mile Island happened.'
– Sara Barczak, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Local environmental agencies say nuclear power plants require far too much water to operate. "Understanding and reducing the negative consequences of nuclear power and nuclear weapons on our region should be a top public health and environmental priority," says Charles Belin of the Savannah Riverkeeper. "This report helps us move in that direction." "Once a plant is built, you have to dedicate the water resources to it for a long time," Barczak says. "You have to have water flowing continuously to cool the reactors. The fuel has to sit for 10 years. Georgia is already in a major water crisis."

Nuclear power plants use enormous volumes of water for cooling the reactor and nuclear waste. "Nuclear power plants impose an unjustifiable burden on water resources and threaten aquatic life," says David Kyler, executive director of the Center for a Sustainable Coast.

"These resources are essential to Georgia's commercial fishing and seafood industries, as well as other nature-based businesses," Kyler says. "Combined, these businesses are worth more than $1 billion a year to the coastal Georgia economy. As a result, using nuclear energy works against our own economic self-interest, as well as creating avoidable public health risks."

Nuclear power plants have a life span of just 40 years, and many are at that age or near it, Smith says.

"The industry has gone to the NRC to petition for license extenders," he says. "That will expand the life of a plant 20 years beyond what is was designed to operate."

Plant Hatch is one of those plants that has been granted a 20-year extension. "The Hatch license was renewed recently," Higginbottom says. "We think Hatch can safely and reliably serve our customers well into the 21st century. The structure has been highly maintained and the plant is highly proficient."

As the population grows, there is more demand for electricity, so plants will be working harder than they have in the past. "It's an aging fleet that they want to run longer and run harder than it was designed to," Smith says. "The threat (of a nuclear accident) is low. But we are concerned that as the fleet ages, the risk will increase. And we're living in a different world post 9/11. Terrorists have targeted nuclear power plants."

Barczak notes that at one time, mock terrorist attacks were conducted to test security at nuclear plants. "Almost half the plants failed the test," she says. "You don't get a second chance."

One plant that failed its test was Plant Hatch. When the plant's operators filed complaints about the way the test was conducted, a retest was scheduled for fall of 2001. But after 9/11, the testing was halted and has not been resumed.

Higginbottom points out that the nuclear industry is one of the most secure in the country. "The FBI called nuclear reactors 'difficult targets'," he says. "Our security officers undergo 270 hours of initial training," Higginbottom says. "Then they have 90 hours of training each year to requalify. Thirty hours of that is aimed at dealing with terrorist attacks."

Many of the security officers have either military or law enforcement backgrounds. Higginbottom says. "They're highly trained, well armed and fully capable," he says.

There are various safety plans in place to provide further security, Higginbottom says. "You don't go on a nuclear site unless you have business there," he says.

But could a nuclear reactor withstand the force of an airplane being flown into it? "These structures are robust, but they are not perfect," Barczak says. "They're not designed to withstand that type of thing."

Barczak is concerned that even new plants would be substandard. "The safer designs are always more expensive, and it comes back down to economics," she says. "The safer designs are almost never used."

Safe alternatives to nuclear power are the solution, Smith says. "We have energy sources and opportunities to counter global warming that would not require nuclear power," he says. "We waste a tremendous amount of the energy we consume."

Energy efficiency is an important key to solving the problems, Smith says. Development of alternative technologies, such as coal gasification, wind and solar power, also is needed.

It's not too late to reverse the trend that favors nuclear power, Smith says. "It's still very early. It would not take much to send a clear sign. This is being driven by the financial interests of large nuclear companies and the current administration. It's more a policy decision the country needs to make," Smith says.

"The November election is going to be a referendum on a whole host of things," he says. "That includes this administration's energy policy. Do we want to support it?"

The National Energy Policy Development Group recommended in May 2004 that President Bush "support the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy."

To do that, the group recommends creating and licensing new nuclear plants, licensing new ones and developing more advanced nuclear technologies.

Yet despite its endorsement of nuclear power, the group also recognizes that barriers to new nuclear plants include the disposal of the nuclear waste that could result from accident incineration and a high-level waste repository.

As nuclear waste will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, disposal is of utmost importance. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which set methods for disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

So far, the Department of Energy has pursued just one high-level waste repository project—Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It is licensed to hold about 70,000 metric tons of waste.

But is that enough? As of January 1998, there were 1,665 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel stored in Georgia. Transportation of the waste to Yucca Mountain would require trucks and trains used to haul the waste are subject to accidents and can be met by terrorists.

"It's an issue that the nuclear industry must work with Congress to solve," Higginbotham says. "Together, we can come to a solution."

SACE is recommending that Georgia and the entire Southeast phase out nuclear power plants and replace them with safe, clean and economical energy supplies. The organization is building a coalition of businesses, community leaders, policy makers, educators and citizens who are concerned about the nuclear industry.

Proponents of nuclear power say that nuclear power plants generate electricity with no emissions—a claim that is hotly disputed by environmentalists.

"You don't see smoke stacks like you see at coal plants, but there are radioactive air emissions," Barczak says.

"Radiation is invisible. Out of sight, out of mind."

Although wind farms and solar energy technology are options there is not enough time. There is no infrastructure in place to support them.

"If we had solar and wind, small generating facilities would also in a cover to a small number of places," Barczak says.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to develop new technology, she says. "Most polls say most people are apprehensive of nuclear power. It's not too far along to stop," Barczak says.

"The nuclear industry is moving at a pace under this administration, although the nuclear industry obviously asks for getting paid for other both Democratic and Republican administrations. If the presidential election could have a direct impact on the nuclear industry."

"If Bush were elected, it would put this issue on a train that would be difficult to stop," Barczak says.