Experts: Nuclear Power Safer Now

TWENTY YEARS AGO TODAY, the meltdown at Three Mile Island's Unit 2 shattered the confidence that such a disaster could not occur. What is the industry like today?

More than 40 nuclear-power plants, enough to increase the industry's size nearly 50 percent, were on the drawing boards in 1979. Nuclear power was touted as a cheap alternative to foreign oil, which was expected to sell for $100 a barrel by the turn of the century.

But no new reactor has been ordered since 1973, when the Arab oil embargo began. And every reactor that was proposed has since been scrapped, in large part because of the lasting legacy of Three Mile Island.

The meltdown at TMI's Unit 2 in Middletown, Pa., on March 28, 1979, shattered confidence that such a disaster could not occur.

It also cost the industry billions of dollars arising from policy changes, retrofits and other reforms, as well as $1 billion to clean up from the accident. The accident nearly broke Metropolitan-Edison, the plant's owner at the time, and General Public Utilities, the subsidiary that operated TMI.

Nuclear power today

Today, the U.S. nuclear-power industry is much smaller, but the 72 plants run much better, by most accounts.

Plants now produce 25 percent more electricity than they did 20 years ago, workers' exposure to radiation has been reduced tenfold, the volume of radioactive waste is down a hundredfold and shutdowns by reactors' automated safety devices are down from seven or eight a year to fewer than one per reactor annually.

Whether the TMI accident is to blame for the industry's slow demise in the United States is debated by watchdog groups, academics, regulators and industry representatives.

But the true, lasting impact of those tense days in March 1979 are the changes TMI caused within the industry, in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that watches over it, and in public perceptions.

"My own take on it is that plants today are safer than ever. Much safer than they were at the time of TMI," said Harold Denton, who in 1979 was director of the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. He was sent to TMI to serve as President Carter's point man during the crisis.

"At the time of TMI, I think the designers and regulators were under the misinterpretation that having all this equipment at the plant was enough," Denton said.

A wake-up call

The TMI accident, the root cause of which was human error, served as a wake-up call.

Through the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators, the industry began to police itself by raising standards for training, maintenance and engineering, and by performing its own inspections.

The NRC also took a long look at itself after the accident at TMI and discovered that it had no oversight over many basic plant activities.

The commission had operated under the premise that its regulations were being followed. That was not the case. And the NRC didn't know that because of its flawed, inadequate inspection system.

"We tried to redouble our efforts and cost the industry maybe $5 billion in direct costs to make them safer," Denton said. "Time will tell if it did the trick or not."

Rigorous training programs were instituted at all levels of plant operations. Training simulators, up to then available only in three or four locations around the country, became mandatory at all nuclear-power plants.

At TMI, for example, one shift is always training in the simulator. It's indistinguishable from the actual control room, except that in the simulator, operators can experience a variety of emergencies and situations they hope never to see in the real control room.

As part of its stepped-up monitoring, the NRC placed resident inspectors at each plant, instituted more rigorous and routine inspections, and paid more attention to operator training as well as plant security and other nonoperational activities.

"We learned that we need to identify problems at an early stage," said Hubert Miller, the NRC's Region I administrator. "We need to make a fuss about things before they become a big problem. That's the key to avoiding a TMI."

Miller said that was why the NRC has cracked down on TMI the last two years for erosions in its security, engineering and management while the plant has otherwise performed well.

"The issues were not Earth-ending issues," he said. "Overall, TMI has been a very solid operation. I would say that's my continuing assessment."

NRC resident inspectors and regional teams spend an average 2,500 to 3,000 hours on direct inspection at every nuclear plant each year, Miller said.

Critics contend the NRC is still not doing enough and in some cases has backed off. They accuse the agency of being too cozy with the industry it regulates.

"Everyone's claiming these plants are operating better. That is not the case. NRC is regulating less," said Jim Riccio, a nuclear expert at Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project.

Riccio says the NRC is flying blind, because it has been pressured by the industry to alter reporting requirements and has manipulated the data to paint a better image of safety.

He cites NRC's admittedly slow response to problems in Connecticut and New Jersey.

The NRC was heavily criticized for failing to enforce regulations at the Millstone plant in Connecticut, where safety and oversight programs ultimately led to the shutdown of several units and the decommissioning of two units. The Salem Generating Station in New Jersey had been plagued with similar problems.

"We've been lucky rather than good," Riccio said.

Riccio said he believes the nuclear-power industry has reverted to what he describes as a "pre-TMI atmosphere" and is in denial about potential risks.

The NRC recently decided to do away with its Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance, or SALP, its industry report card. In its place, it is testing a controversial new inspection, assessment and enforcement program around the country.

Critics say the change means plants will receive less scrutiny. NRC officials say the new program will be more forward-looking, consistent and accurate than SALP.

Under the proposal, plants will face a baseline level of inspections unless performance falls below set thresholds. Under the SALP program, NRC inspectors went into plants to do intensive, spot inspections every 12 and 18 months. The system has long been criticized by the industry as subjective, inaccurate and not very timely.

The NRC, coping with a smaller staff and budget, said the changes reflect 20 years of improvements in safety, reliability and performance.

The TMI disaster was devastating for the industry and regulators. Americans lost faith in the NRC's oversight, and the accident seemed to confirm the public's worst fears and phobias about nuclear power.

What TMI did

The effect has stretched beyond the realm of nuclear power. Meat irradiation has been proposed for more than 20 years to kill off dangerous bacteria, but radiation phobias contributed to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's delay in approving the procedure, which only recently received the go-ahead.

"The social cost was enormous," said Warren Witzig, the former head of Penn State University's nuclear-engineering department.

"I think it has been a setback not just for the production of electricity by nuclear power, but it's been a setback in other areas, such as health," said Witzig, who served on GPU Nuclear's board of directors for 10 years beginning in 1983.

Perhaps the greatest issue facing the nuclear-power-generation industry these days is deregulation. Utilities such as GPU are trying to sell off their nuclear plants, while others are trying to buy them up in the belief that economies of scale will make nuclear power a more efficient energy source.

The sale of TMI Unit 1 has been under review at the NRC for three months, and it is expected to take as long as six months. GPU officials said they would be ready as early as next month to transfer ownership to Amergen Energy, the joint venture between Philadelphia's PECO Energy and British Energy.

The process is expected to take longer as state public-utility commissions and other agencies review the application, but state and federal officials expect approval.

Though no one has discussed the possibility of building new nuclear plants in the United States, industry officials say they believe that will change as the nuclear- and electric-power industries deregulate and consumers look for alternatives to fossil fuels.

James Langenbach, vice president and director of TMI, said the United States will build new nuclear-power plants again. But it won't happen until market conditions allow it.

To persuade a company to spend billions of dollars on a plant, it has to be economically feasible, he said. And the permitting process would have to be streamlined.

Then there's the public

Public acceptance also has to change, he said.

"Until the public understands how nuclear power operates . . . it will be difficult to get acceptance in any particular area," Langenbach said.

In November, NRC Chairman Shirley Jackson said she thought the industry outlook was strong because of the renewed push for non-polluting energy sources agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty intended to reduce global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 38 nations.

However, a recent study by the Worldwatch Institute concluded that nuclear-power generation has peaked and will decline beginning in 2002 because it cannot compete with lower-cost fossil fuels.

It costs $3,000 to $4,000 on average to produce each kilowatt of nuclear power in the United States, compared with $400 to $600 a kilowatt for the latest gas-fired plants. And 42 of the 103 operating reactors at the 72 plants are not competitive with the price of replacement power within their own region.

Critics and some regulators view deregulation of the industry as a taxpayer and rate-payer bailout. But other experts suggest the changes will force plants and operators to become more efficient to avoid costly shutdowns.

"In most respects, the kind of better management that is going to be required to compete economically, that same management leads to better performance," Miller said. "Plants will not make money if they don't run well."

While it's been 26 years since a new reactor has been ordered, many industry old-timers remain optimistic.

Among them is Penn State's Witzig, 78. He has been involved in nuclear power for 57 years, since working on the Manhattan Project and later taking the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine, critical in the Thames River in Connecticut.

"In the next century, nuclear is going to go, and it's going to go like mad," he said.

"If we're serious about pollution, we have to go nuclear. If we are serious about conservation, we have to go nuclear."