Amid Plans to Resume Nuclear Plant Construction, Issues of Safety are Re-emerging

image
Illustration by Hadley Hooper

The partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear complex in 1979 focused the nation’s attention on the risks that come with nuclear technology. Since then, the U.S. nuclear industry has operated without a major incident, and the issue of nuclear safety has largely disappeared from the mainstream press. Now, with the possibility of a new surge in nuclear construction, the safety issue is being revisited. Here are excerpts of two views on the subject from the talk “The Case For and Against Nuclear Power.”

Jon Block, Union of Concerned Scientists
Nuclear power has certain advantages. But there is a downside. I like to compare cigarette smoking to nuclear power. Why? They both involve risks. There’s no immediate risk from one cigarette, or the second, or third, or fourth. But if you get enough exposure, chances are you’re going to die from cancer. The same thing applies to radioactivity. If you get a large enough dose, or if you get particle inhalation, the chances of getting cancer really go up.
 
The risks are going to begin at some low level — one in a million. But if you inhale the radioactive particle, which means it’s in your lung, I think the chance of getting sick go up to one over one, which means you’re probably going to get some kind of carcinoma.
 
It is unreasonable to suggest to this conference audience that they shouldn’t be concerned about radioactivity. That’s the whole enchilada. If this stuff wasn’t radioactive, there wouldn’t be a problem. You could just use it, and use it, and use it, and everything would be hunky-dory. But it does have this downside, and it needs to be considered just as seriously as the waste depository issue. Of all the sources of electrical generation, only one is so hazardous that it requires federal liability protection. Only one carries such a risk. Only one, and that’s nuclear power.
 
Jon Block is project manager for the issues of nuclear energy and climate change at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group which works to create a healthy environment and safer world. UCS was founded in 1969 through a collaboration of students and faculty at MIT.

Paul Genoa, Nuclear Energy Institute
 
Nuclear plants represent 10 percent of the installed power production capacity of the United States, yet they routinely produce 20 percent of our electricity. They can do this because they are very efficient and reliable sources of power. But, importantly, you can’t achieve that without a strong safety focus.
 
Nuclear safety has two components.Perhaps more important to the public is the nuclear safety record associated with plants. One indicator is the number of significant events at nuclear plants. They have trended down to very low numbers. (Significant events include unplanned releases of radioactivity and impaired safety equipment.)
 
The other is the safety of workers. In this area, nuclear power plants have an exemplary record. It is actually safer to work in a nuclear power plant than it is to work in a bank. I started in the nuclear power industry at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant in 1982. That plant operated for over 20 years without a single lost-time accident. Unfortunately, that record was broken by two twisted ankles. Twenty years without an accident is quite a testament to the safety culture that permeates the nuclear industry.
 
Paul Genoa is director of policy development at The Nuclear Energy Institute. NEI is the policy-making organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry.