Recently, a position paper has been circulated by Citizen Action for a Safe Environment, an area anti-nuclear group, that contains many misleading statements and direct falsehoods concerning the Surry Nuclear Power Station and nuclear power in general. Several of these statements are addressed in the following paragraphs.
Surry's operation has a positive impact on the environment and the health of its neighbors. Why? Because it emits no carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide or sulfur and nitrous oxides which have a detrimental effect on the environment (including the human environment).
The British cancer studies referred to in the CASE paper have, indeed, found clusters of leukemia in areas around nuclear power plants. But, they have also found such clusters in similar new (post-World War II) towns that are nowhere near nuclear facilities of any type. The British are now investigating possible causes that involve such things as population movement and viral infections. The National Cancer Institute study into leukemia was started after some questionable studies in Massachusetts alleged that there were possible cancer clusters around nuclear power plants. The study was commissioned at the urging of Sen. Edward Kennedy of, as you guessed it, Massachusetts. No surprises there.
Concerning radioactive waste, there has been, and continues to be a safe way of disposing of high level radioactive waste. In 1982, legislation was passed to establish a U.S. reposi tory. No new technology is required. Opposition to radioactive waste disposal is purely political not technological.
The volume of high level waste produced so far by all of the 113 licensed, operating nuclear power stations in the United States is extremely small compared to wastes produced by other energy sources. If it were piled on a football field, it would only stack up to be 8 feet deep! Low level waste (much of which comes from hospitals, research facilities and other non-energy applications) has been safely stored at several sites in the United States for several years.
Emergency planning has been well established for several years at U.S. nuclear power plants. Since it was initiated, however, there has never been an occasion to use it for an evacuation of an area due to a nuclear station accident. But, there have been many instances where the communities have used these plans for other non-nuclear occurrences such as chemical spills, fires, floods and other disasters for which the community had no pre-planning.
I was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, when a chemical fire forced the evacuation of a large part of the city. The local nuclear station came to the rescue, possibly saving lives due to the use of its emergency response procedure for a non-nuclear emergency.
The position paper cites "studies" done that show the potential for vast amounts of property damage due to a nuclear accident. But wait a minute. We did have a meltdown at Three Mile Island. There was no personal property damage or human injury. The only major expense incurred was the utility's expense of cleaning up the power station after the accident.
Interestingly, I'd bet that if you compared the clean-up cost per unit of energy that each could have produced, it has been less expensive per potential kilowatt-hour to clean up Three Mile Island than the oil spilled on the Alaskan coast by the Exxon Valdez.
The position paper again sites "renewable energy sources" as safe alternatives to nuclear energy. Ninety-six percent of the renewable energy produced in the United States during 1988 came from biomass (mostly burning wood) and hydropower. The larger contributor, woodburning, definitely has its own health and environmental problems, including contributing to the greenhouse effect.
What about the supposedly cleanest source, solar. Significant amounts of chemical wastes are produced while making photovoltaic cells. Besides, the electricity produced still costs at least twice as much as electricity produced with nuclear power and photovoltaic cells don't work at night.
The position paper says that the NRC has stated that the odds of a nuclear-meltdown were 5 0/50 over the next 20 years. Others have often reported that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had estimated a 45 percent chance of a "meltdown" at a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States by the year 2000. In fact, the NRC estimate refers specifically to the probability of any type of accident where "fuel integrity" cannot be maintained; this does not necesarily mean "meltdown."
The NRC re-examined the basis for this estimate and concluded that the probability is actually closer to 12 percent. However, the likelihood of an accident involving some fuel melting is not the same as the likelihood of a release of radioactivity or of public injury. Even a meltdown is very unlikely to cause public injury. A meltdown did occur at Three Mile Island, and what happened to the public? Nothing.
As a private citizen and an engineer who has worked at the Surry Station, I am appalled to see such groups putting out position papers like this. Maybe it's time that people who know the answers to these ludicrous charges should speak out instead of hoping a well-educated public will just know the truth.
If you want to talk to me, chances are, on my days off, you'll find me fishing, at the Surry Station discharge canal.
Tom Peschke is a mechanical engineer working for Stone and Webster Engineering at the Surry Nuclear Station with 10 years of design experience and 12 years of naval nuclear operational experience.