生活中已充斥著幅射線－核電廠仍然得以換發營運執照 (下)

By Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reminds us that the U.S. nuclear energy industry is an accident waiting to happen. UCS says, "A severe nuclear accident has the potential to do catastrophic harm to people and the environment. A combination of human and mechanical error could result in an accident killing several thousand people, injuring several hundred thousand others, contaminating large areas of land, and costing billions of dollars."

The UCS believes that the nuclear reactor risk assessments conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are really not risk assessments at all because potential accident consequences are not evaluated. The assessments merely examine accident probabilities, which is only half of the risk equation. Union of Concerned Scientists also believes that accident probability calculations are seriously flawed and have found many irregularities in NRC reporting and the facts.

Here are a few examples:

‧The risk assessments assume nuclear plants always conform with safety requirements, yet each year more than a thousand violations are reported.

‧Plants are assumed to have no design problems even though hundreds are reported every year.

‧Aging is assumed to result in no damage, despite evidence that aging materials killed four workers.

‧Reactor pressure vessels are assumed to be failure proof, even though embrittlement (reactor walls becoming brittle due to radiation exposure) forced the Yankee Rowe nuclear plant to shut down.

‧The risk assessments assume that plant workers are far less likely to make mistakes than actual operating experience demonstrates.

‧The risk assessments consider only the threat from damage to the reactor core despite the fact that irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pools represents a serious health hazard.

Also, the NRC has failed to establish any minimum standards for the accident probability calculations, all of which are conducted by plant owners, each with their own assumptions. Union of Concerned Scientists' research has shown the fallacy of conducting studies in this way with a number of case studies done on plants that were built identically, but operated by different owners.

For example, the Indian Point 2 and 3 nuclear plants share the same Westinghouse design and sit side by side in New York, but are operated by different owners. On paper, Indian Point 3 is more than 25 percent more likely to experience an accident than her sister plant.

Owned and operated by the Union Electric Company, the Callaway nuclear plant is 10 miles southeast of Fulton, Missouri. (Photo courtesy NRC)

The Wolf Creek plant in Kansas and the Callaway plant in Missouri were built identically, sharing the same standardized Westinghouse design. But some events at Callaway are reported to be 10 to 20 times more likely to lead to reactor core damage than the same events at Wolf Creek.

To make matters worse, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is allowing plant owners to cut back on tests and inspections of safety equipment, further increasing risks. The NRC approves these reductions based on the results from the incomplete and inaccurate accident probability assessments.

Surprisingly, one of the NRC risk assessments that is assumed to be 100 percent controlled is fire suppression. It is shocking that in this day and age, fire control is actually a concern at nuclear facilities, facilities that could kill tens of thousands of people in the event of a disaster.

A few years ago, a worker at the Waterford nuclear plant, near Taft, Louisiana, reported heavy smoke in the turbine building. The plant's fire alarm was not sounded for 29 minutes so workers could search through heavy smoke for the source of the flames.

During this time, fire detector alarms in the control room were ignored by operators who were busy directing workers who searched for the fire. When the plant's fire brigade finally responded, the fire brigade leader did not allow water to be used because of the electrical equipment. As a result, the fire blazed for over an hour. When use of water was finally allowed, the fire was put out within four minutes. Another comedy of errors like this could have disastrous consequences.

The list is very long of disasters in the making. For example, nine U.S. nuclear power plants were shut down for all of 1997 while their owners made extensive repairs to emergency equipment that were long overdue. Each of these plants had operated for years with emergency systems that would not have functioned as required in event of an accident.

We have to stop this madness before it escalates. We must demand that safe, alternative forms of energy be developed rather the dirty nuclear and fossil fuels that represent the personal interests and investments of the U.S. Presidential administration. The people must demand that reason return to energy policy.

The "American Way" that President Bush seeks to protect is unsustainable and has disastrous consequences for the ecosystem and every woman, man and child alive.