Issues Facing the Nuclear Industry: Selling Refrigerators to Eskimos?

Speech by David Lochbaum to the American Nuclear Society, November 17, 1998

Good afternoon. I'd like to thank Mr. O'Hanlon for inviting me to participate in this session this afternoon. In many ways, UCS's views on issues facing the nuclear industry are similar to those of the nuclear industry. Instead of reviewing the areas of common ground, I'm going to focus my remarks on a few of the areas where our views differ. My objective in conveying these views to you is not to change your minds--although please feel free to do so. My purpose this afternoon is to leave you with a better understanding of our position.

The nuclear industry is presently touting nuclear energy as a necessary element in solving the climate change or global warming problem. Without commenting on the validity of this campaign, I'd like to provide some reasons why it probably will not persuade the average American.

Twenty-five years ago, the United States faced an oil shortage. Prices increased and folks waited in long lines at the gas pumps. The nuclear industry launched a campaign touting nuclear energy as the best solution for energy independence. The campaign did not lessen opposition to nuclear power by any appreciable amount. The rising prices forced Americans to become more energy efficient. The reduced demand for electricity spelled doom for many nuclear power plants then under construction. Dozens of nuclear plants were cancelled because their output was no longer needed.

Nearly twenty years ago, the United States experienced its worst nuclear power plant accident. There was a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor core. The nuclear industry responded with a campaign extolling the virtues of defense-in-depth. The campaign did not lessen opposition to nuclear power by any appreciable amount. The accident forced Americans to become more concerned about nuclear safety. The increase in safety regulations following TMI spelled doom for many nuclear power plants then under construction. Dozens of nuclear plants were delayed as their owners added the safety upgrades.

The United States is now dealing with climate change caused by global warming. The nuclear industry rolled out a campaign promoting nuclear energy as being an invaluable part of the solution to this serious problem. The ads advocate extending the operating lifetimes of existing nuclear plants and building new ones. It is too early to judge the effectiveness of this campaign. But, at the same time that these ads are running, the premature closing and sale of nuclear power plants is making news.

In the past two years, the owners of the Haddam Neck, Maine Yankee, Zion Units 1 and 2, Millstone and Oyster Creek plants have closed or announced the closure of these facilities long before the end of their 40-year operating licenses. In each case, unfavorable economics was cited as the deciding factor. In other words, it was cheaper to shut down these nuclear power plants than to continue generating electricity.

The Three Mile Island Unit 1 facility was sold this past July for a reported $100 million. The nuclear fuel at TMI was supposedly purchased for about $77 million, reducing the price tag for the plant itself to roughly $23 million. If these numbers are correct, it's like buying a used car and paying more for the gasoline in its tank than for the car.

More recently, the Pilgrim plant is being reportedly sold for about $50 million. The plant's owners listed the book value of the plant at nearly $745 million. If these numbers are correct, it seems that operating nuclear plants are selling for less than ten cents on the dollar on the open market.

The American public hears the nuclear industry proclaim nuclear power as a valuable solution to our future energy needs. Yet, the public sees many nuclear plants closed because they are uneconomical and others sold at far below book value. Since actions speak louder than words, the public gives this financial information more weight than the industry's promotional materials.

What else does the American public know about nuclear energy? From headlines in just the past two years, they know:

  • that nuclear waste from our atomic weapons program is leaking into the environment at Hanford, Oak Ridge, and elsewhere

  • that a worker was killed at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory because previously identified safety concerns were not properly handled by the facility's management

  • that there's no final solution to the high level nuclear waste problem despite 40-years and billions of dollars

  • that a court recently awarded several million dollars to people living downstream of the nuclear facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania as compensation for radiation-related illnesses

  • that researchers reported a three-fold increase in radiation-related deaths in the Harrisburg area caused by the TMI accident

  • that the owners of the Millstone, La Salle, and D C Cook nuclear plants were fined $2.1 million, $600,000 and $500,000 respectively by the NRC for numerous, longstanding safety violations

  • that nine US nuclear power plants were shut down during all of 1997 due to degraded conditions caused by bad management

  • that in many states they will be paying a surcharge each and every month for many years to cover nuclear power's high costs.

After seeing these news accounts, the American public turns to the ads proclaiming nuclear power as an answer to the climate change problem. Do you really expect the average American to embrace nuclear power after all that bad news? If you do, please see me after this session. The Washington Monument is for sale and I might be able to get you a deal at a fair price.

There is one other area that I want to discuss in some detail this afternoon. I worked for 17 years in the nuclear industry before joining UCS two years ago. I attended several NRC public meetings on behalf of licensees in my pre-UCS days. I sincerely felt that the public had full and unfettered participation in the regulatory process.

Since joining UCS, I was shocked to discover how wrong I had been. As a nuclear professional, I am truly embarrassed by the way the public is systematically excluded from the regulatory process. It reminds me of the old Soviet bloc countries when they conducted elections with only one name on the ballot. Those were not free elections. The NRC permits the public to observe its public meetings. That is not public participation.

Town council meetings are generally in the evenings so members of the public can attend. The majority of NRC public meetings, including those that were held to discuss the SALP results, are conducted during the day during normal working hours. The public is "welcome" to attend, but they must take a vacation day from their jobs to do so. Take my word for it--attending an NRC public meeting is no vacation.

The majority of NRC public meetings are held in either the NRC's headquarters in Rockville, Maryland or in its regional offices. The public is "welcome" to attend, but they must travel at their own expense to do so.

Despite these obstacles, some members of the public do show up at NRC public meetings. How are they treated? They are not allowed to ask a question or provide a comment during the majority of NRC public meetings. They may listen and observe. That's attendance, not participation.

I could continue listing the many ways that the public is quite literally abused when they attempt to participate in the NRC's regulatory processes, but I doubt that you'd believe me. I really did not understand the public's plight until I experienced it myself. Therefore, I challenge you to put yourself in the public's place. Try to find out about an NRC public meeting through the tools available to the public. Attend an NRC public meeting--at your own expense and on a vacation day--and try to understand what is being discussed based on only the information made available at the meeting. Try to get an acronym or some oblique reference explained. Unlike the popular TV commercial, "Try it, you won't like it!"

As bad as conditions are, the NRC and the industry are considering placing further restrictions and constraints on public participation. At last week's stakeholders' meeting, Commissioner Diaz contemplated changing the license amendment process to totally eliminate public involvement. As the lone member of UCS's nuclear safety staff, I greatly appreciate such efforts to make my job easier. It is sometimes tough to interest local citizens and reporters in dry technical concerns like steam generator flaw indications detected by bobbin coil vs. eddy-current inspections. It is far, far easier to rally folks around government and big business attempts to cover-up safety issues and prevent their open debate.

Literally hundreds of license amendments are reviewed and approved by the NRC each year. The public gets involved in a very small percentage and causes an actual delay in an even smaller percentage. The NRC talks about risk-informed regulation. Why risk aggravating so many members of the public for such small gains? The public views such proposed changes by the NRC as evidence that the agency is a mere puppet of the industry. I am amazed by efforts to further restrict public involvement in the regulatory process.

The nuclear industry is carrying a sign in one hand proclaiming that nuclear power is a solution to the global warming problem. Its other hand is locking the door on public participation in the regulatory process. It doesn't make sense. The public outside cannot read your sign. The public inside the room can see your message, but they are wary about your actions. The public will accept your message only if they trust your actions. You can gain their trust by discouraging the NRC from restricting public participation--meaningful public participation--in the regulatory process. Otherwise, the current campaign is little more than trying to sell refrigerators to Eskimos.