Restarting nuclear

It has been 22 years since the worst nuclear accident in American history, the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania. And it’s been 15 years since fires and explosions wrecked the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine and spewed deadly radioactive material over much of Europe. But now news reports, helped by Vice President Cheney’s new energy plan, regularly trumpet nuclear power’s return. What they do not talk much about, however, is that pesky high-level waste problem that has yet to be solved after decades of attempts.

Certainly, if nuclear power is to make any sort of comeback and new plants are to be built, government officials and the nuclear power industry should avoid the mistakes of the past by identifying and building the safe permanent storage facilities before getting caught again with high-level waste and having nowhere to put it.

U.S. nuclear plants have stepped up their power production by 25 percent in the past 10 years. They now deliver one-fifth of the nation’s electricity. Other countries rely even more heavily on nuclear power, with its improved safety record and relatively cheap operating costs. High gas prices and blackouts in California have driven the renewed interest in nuclear, as has a growing concern over global warming.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that 40 percent of existing nuclear plants plan to seek renewal of their licenses instead of shutting down the plants in favor of natural gas-fired operation. The cost of keeping these plants open past their expected lives may prove too high, but the commission expects many more renewal applications. In addition, Chairman Richard A. Meserve said recently, “We have even seen the first stirring of interest in the possibility of new [nuclear plant] construction in the United States – a thought that would have been unthinkable even a year ago.” Given the capital costs of nuclear power, especially important in deregulated markets, this is remarkable.

To help a resurgence of the industry, the commission has sped up its procedures for handling renewal of existing plants and has pre-approved several designs for possible new plants. Vice President Cheney is seeking renewal of the expiring Price-Anderson Act, which limits generators’ liability in nuclear accidents.

Opponents of nuclear energy, long successful in blocking new nuclear plants, are gearing up for a fight. The Union of Concerned Scientists warns that skilled operators will be hard to find and that new generating companies will be tempted to cut corners to boost profits. Kyle Rabin, of the nonprofit Environmental Advocates, maintains that construction of nuclear plants and processing uranium will produce carbon dioxide as well as radioactive pollution.

But the biggest obstacle remains the question of waste. Reprocessing spent fuel rods to separate out plutonium remains an expensive risk that does not relieve the government’s burden of storing leftover nuclear waste. A proposal to store the radioactive material permanently in an underground site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., has been stalled by Nevada’s objections for years, yet the Department of Energy has no long-term alternative.

Industry leaders wanted and got Vice President Cheney’s energy plan to encourage, as they put it, policy before politics. It would be a good idea to put safety ahead of both.