Re: background vs man-made emmissions

["Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@lanl.gov>]

Norm,

Take a look at the article below, for a brief and limited look at your 
"safe" replacement for nuclear power.  Perhaps some of your efforts should 
address the issues raised in the article before you plan to replace nuclear 
power with natural gas.

The on-line version can be found at 
http://www.poweronline.com/content/news/article.asp?DocID={755E191F-F537-11D 
3-8C25-009027DE0829}&Bucket=Power+Online+Columns

Mike



At 03:16 PM 5/1/00 -0500, you wrote:

>Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 14:25:56 -0400
>From: Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: background vs man-made emmissions
>Message-ID: <390DCC34.52A254CA@bellatlantic.net>
>
>Short term - a phase out of nuclear and coal, replaced by natural gas. 
>Long term - real investments in all of the alternatives out there, from 
>wind to solar to hydro to wave to fuel cells. As well as a real commitment 
>to efficiency. This is really more of a national policy question - whether 
>we as a country have or can get the necessary will to make these changes.
>
>norm


Electron Café by John Glenn: Uneven Playing Fields
3/8/2000

A recent National Public Radio feature on “All Things Considered” genuinely 
shocked me. The feature concerned the aging pipeline infrastructure for oil 
and natural gas. I was aware that leaks sometimes occurred. The shocking 
news was that major leaks had caused on average five deaths a year since 
the 1970s.

Can you imagine the outrage and concern if the nuclear power industry had:

1. One offsite leak every other day.
2. The deaths of 1 - 5 members of the public each year.
3. Six major accidents in 1999 with one accident killing a fisherman and 
two boys (who happened to be fishing or playing along a creek bank).
4. 139 fatalities since 1970.

Amazingly, there are no national siting and inspection criteria. Pipelines 
may run next to or under the playgrounds of schools. Companies determine 
how often pipelines are inspected for leaks and deterioration. Unlike 
nuclear power plants, pipelines are not licensed for set periods of time 
based on a safety analysis of the reliability of structures and components.

Industry spokespersons noted that pipelines have a much better safety 
record than the major alternative—tanker trucks. Even here, the contrast 
between oil and gas transport versus nuclear is startling. Governors are 
notified and escorts are required every time a truck hauls spent nuclear 
fuel. The licensed nuclear containers have not leaked in tests conducted 
with real crashes involving heavy trucks and railroad locomotives. Under 
such severe accident situations, gasoline trucks would lose contents and a 
fire or explosion is likely.

The graph from the National Transportation Safety Board shows fatalities 
for large trucks. [Specific information on oil and gas tankers was not 
available.] The data confirms our worst suspicions. Automobile occupants 
are four times more likely to be killed than truck occupants. What if the 
death frequency for the nuclear power industry were only 99.9% better than 
the large truck industry? Then one worker and four members of the public 
would die in accidents each year.

I am not arguing for letting the nuclear industry relax its standards. I am 
suggesting that credit should be given where credit is due. This industry 
routinely demonstrates a safety record that should be the envy of any other 
large industry. Not only are fatalities unheard of, each year the industry 
does better and better with regard to performance indicators.

Good news is too often treated as no news. If other industries had received 
the same level of oversight, perhaps their records could be as good. 
However, the situation for other industries does not allow for the same 
level of attention to design, ongoing analysis and performance improvement. 
The number of nuclear plants is very small compared to the number of 
pipelines or the number of gasoline tankers. Each nuclear plant can support 
the regulatory overhead of about 20 federal employees. The federal 
bureaucracy would have to expand unacceptably to provide even one inspector 
for every gasoline tanker and 100 miles of pipeline.

The nuclear industry is not risk free. Plants have small releases of 
radioactive gases every once in a while. A larger release occurred at Three 
Mile Island more than 20 years ago. But there were no fatalities at Three 
Mile Island or since. The number of minor accidents has decreased 
remarkably during those 20 years. Give the nuclear power industry credit 
and work to make pipelines at least 10% as safe!

To respond to this column or to contact the author, please send an e-mail 
to editor@poweronline.com.

__________________________
Michael C. Baker

Environmental Technology Group
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Mail Stop J594
Los Alamos, NM 87545

mcbaker@lanl.gov

(505) 667-7334 (phone)
(505) 665-8346 (fax)
(505) 996-3519 (pager)
__________________________


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html