Artificial Barriers To Nuclear Power

In a recent speech in Pittsburgh, Dr. George Keyworth, the President's Science Advisor, made a statement which I believe deserves our very careful consideration. Dr. Keyworth said that there is no energy crisis. The crisis, he explained, is simply that people refuse to accept the solution. The solution which Dr. Keyworth has in mind is increased utilization of our abundant supplies of solid fuels and, in particular, uranium. I share his view concerning the solution to our energy needs. The use of uranium fuel is a safe, clean, and dependable means to generate our electric power. It is time that we addressed the real energy crisis: the refusal to accept the nuclear solution. The reason for the refusal is not difficult to find. It is nihilistic thinking about risk. Under this thinking, we assume the worst possible case and act accordingly, simply because we cannot prove to a total certainty that nuclear energy is perfectly safe. If this absolutist approach were generally applied throughout our society, there is no doubt all of us would soon be sitting around our campfires fearfully holding the wild animals at bay with our trusty spears. Today I am here to enlist your support in reversing the regulatory trend that threatens the very extistence of the nuclear power industry. As distinguished scientists, engineers and businessmen, you can use your influence to help bring rational regulation to the industry. Our industry supports strong safety and environmental protection programs. We understand the need for and do not object to reasonable regulation. Many anti-pollution measures can be practical to implement, cost effective and highly successful in minimizing environmental impacts. However, it is a fact of life that in the field of health and safety regulation, the law of diminishing returns operates with a vengeance. Absolute or near-absolute safety is impossible and any attempt to achieve it is intolerably costly. Fixation on absolute safety is particularly acute in the regulation of the nuclear power industry. Government Agencies, overly anxious to allay the irrational fears of those opposed to nuclear power, are literally regulating the industry to death - exactly the result sought by the anti-nuclear groups. Dr. Robert L. DuPont wrote in a recent issue of [Business Week]: "The nuclear power industry has been virtually stopped in the U.S. [because of fear]. This is true despite the fact that for more than 20 years the commercial nuclear industry has operated under unprecedented public health scrutiny and that to date there have been no radiation-related injuries, let alone deaths, suffered by any member of the public."1 I believe a useful way to convey the nature of the problem faced by the nuclear industry is to review an example of [unreasonable] regulation. While the example relates to our domestic industry, I am certain there are similar situations in other countries. For the example I will use the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recently issued regulations governing the stabilization of uranium mill tailings.2 These regulations, known as the Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements, specify, among other things, that radon emanation from uranium mill tailings be limited to no more than 2 pCi/m2-sec. First, one must understand that this standard will have virtually no impact on the total amount of radon to which the public is exposed. Radon emitted from even completely unstabilized tailings piles is a tiny fraction--much less than 1%--of the amount of radon released from natural soils in the United States.3 In fact, it is far outweighed by natural variations in the background flux. For example, changes in the level of the Great Salt Lake in recent years have had [eight times] as much effect on the amount of radon released into the Salt Lake City regional air than the annual release from the Vitro Mill tailings pile located in that city.4 Nevertheless, NRC claims that the standard is required to protect the public. The Commission admits, however, that there are no studies which establish that exposure to radon at the low levels associated with uranium mill tailings will result in any adverse health effects.5 In the absence of actual evidence, the Commission assumes that some such effects will occur on the basis of the linear, non-threshold model.6 Employing this model, NRC calculates that the maximum hypothetical risk for the average member of the population is only about 1 in 70,000,000 from the radon that would be emitted from [three times] the number of mills now in existence, even if the tailings produced through the year 2000 are left unstabilized.7 NRC has elsewhere explained that this level of risk would be equivalent to the risk posed by "a few puffs on a cigarette, a few sips of wine, driving the family car about 6 blocks, flying about 2 miles, canoeing for 3 seconds, or being a man age 60 for 11 seconds." This level of risk is [de minimis] in comparison to other risks commonly and readily incurred in our society.9 Moreover, even this remote risk is overstated. A group of prominent health physicists, including experts from the Department of Energy, The Environmental Protection Agency, Britain, Canada and Germany recently published a study indicating that the risk to the public per unit exposure to radon can be no greater than one-third that suggested by the Commission, and [may in fact be zero].l0 Regulators routinely rationalize the need for their regulations. For example, NRC attempts to justify the radon flux standard because it is necessary to reduce the risk to someone who builds a house on top of a tailings pile. This possibility, however, is totally unrealistic because the Mill Tailings Act requires that stabilized tailings be transferred to