I. AUTHORS' BIOGRAPHIES

Dr. Ian A. Forbes---profession: chairman, dept. of nuclear engineering, Lowell Technological Institute. Education: Univ. of Newfoundland, B.S. in physics; M.I.T., Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. Memberships: American Nuclear Society, former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Forbes has served as a consultant to Mass. P.I.R.G. East, the Appalachian Mountain Club and was one of the four authors of the first U.C.S. paper on emergency core cooling. He is active in reactor safety, fast reactor physics, nuclear fuel management and neutron transport theory research. He has lectured at U. Mass. (Amherst) and has authored numerous technical articles, including 13 U.S.A.E.C. reports.

Marc W. Goldsmith---profession: nuclear engineer. Education: N.Y. Maritime College, B.S. in marine nuclear science; M.I.T., M.S. in nuclear engineering; M. I.T., nuclear engineer's degree. Memberships: American Nuclear Society. He has served as consultant on nuclear power to the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and is knowledgeable in the engineering, licensing, research and safety aspects of marine and central station nuclear power.

Dr. Joseph P. Kearney---profession: Nuclear scientist. Education: Manhattan College, B.M.E. (mech. engineering); M.I.T., M. S. in nuclear engineering; M.I.T. nuclear engineer's degree; M.I.T., Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. Memberships: American Nuclear Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Kearney has specialized in nuclear economics, nuclear fuel management and modeling and power system optimization. He has consulted for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the New England Committee on Energy, Social Goals and the Environment. Dr. Kearney has authored numerous technical, economic and research articles, has guest lectured at universities and has held research and engineering positions in industry.

Dr. Andrew C. Kadak---profession: nuclear engineer. Education: Union College, B.S. in mechanical engineering; M.I.T., M.S. in nuclear engineering; M.I.T., Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. Memberships: American Nuclear Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science. He is specialist in improved reactor control and analysis methods.

AUTHORS' BIOGRAPHIES (cont.)

Dr. Joe C. Turnage---profession: nuclear scientist. Education: Mississippi State University, B.S. in nuclear engineering; M.I.T., M.S.in nuclear engineering; M.I.T., Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. Memberships: American Nuclear Society. He is a past consultant on energy policy to the Natural Resources Defense Council. His specialty is computational methods for reactor analysis, core physics and nuclear fuel cycle economics.

Dr. Gilbert J. Brown---profession: instructor, nuclear engineering, Lowell Technological Institute. Education: Cornell Univ., B.S. in engineering physics; M.I.T., M.S. in nuclear engineering; M.I.T., Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. Memberships: American Nuclear Society, Sigma Xi. Dr. Brown's specialties are fuel management economics, fast reactor physics and radiation damage to materials. He teaches advanced reactor engineering and reactor design courses.

This paper expresses solely the personal views of the authors and not the positions of any organizations with which they are or were associated.

As a group of scientists and engineers who have investigated, argued and evaluated both sides of the energy controversy, we have become increasingly concerned about the quality and accuracy of the information about nuclear power that has been presented to the public by consumer advocates and industry spokesmen. Emotionalism does not provide the public with the information it needs to judge nuclear safety. In fact, it does just the opposite. It polarizes the debate and makes reasoned decisions more difficult. This paper attempts to compare the safety, environmental impact, availability and economics of our major sources of electrical energy--coal, oil and nuclear power--in a balanced manner, in the hope that it will contribute to greater public understanding of the issues.

The recent debate over how the United States should produce clean, safe and economical energy is dismaying. One would expect leaders in science, engineering and government to be leading national discussions, educating the public on available, viable energy technologies. Instead our technological leadership has floundered. The Federal Government, has failed to take substantive action to alleviate the immediate shortages, and appears to be incapable of implementing long-term solutions. As a result, the burden has fallen on the pub lic to form its own opinion and to direct its elected representatives, at all levels, toward the solutions they feel are appropriate. In light of this need, it is disheartening to see the issues involved in the energy question being oversimplified, to see

1

2

blatant attempts to polarize the public around non-issues, and to see participants, who are highly valued as protectors of the public, making unsupportable statements on key issues.

3

Unfortunately, the energy dilemma is not a problem with simple solutions. Oversimplifications of a complex issue sound very alluring, as they permit decisions to be made with little difficulty. However, they generally lead to shortsighted or incorrect decisions. An ex

ample of such a simplification is lumping the nuclear safety issue into the question of President Nixon's credibility. A recent radio commercial from the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, Inc. (MASS PIRG) states:

"Whether Richard Nixon or Ralph Nader is
telling the truth about atomic safety is
a life or death matter for Massachusetts
.... Many scientists and people who live
nearby [nuclear plants] think that the
risk of an accident is too high. They
believe Mr. Nader more than Mr. Nixon."

It would be very simple if testing Richard Nixon's credibility would solve the nuclear safety problem; but it won't. This type of reasoning presented to the public is similar to the now ancient claim that "What is good for General Motors is good for the U.S." When a public interest spokesman, however, stoops to using this tactic of polarizing opinion around a non-issue he degrades the entire concept of public advocacy. At a time in history when this nation so desperately needs public advocates, the use of this tactic severely damages their credibility and hence their future impact.

Public interest groups should serve the very necessary functions of introducing new values and of refocusing on existing values. Public interest activities must continue and must be consistently and vigorously supported to maintain a healthy, growing society. However, vital issues must be kept in focus and personal interest must balance not overshadow, the facts. One issue currently being publicly debated is the question of nuclear power plant safety and its relationship to the broader issue of clean, economic and safe energy supplies for the future. These issues will be addressed in the remainder of this report.

The next 15 to 25 years of decisions and technological change require careful, concise analysis to insure that optimum solutions are achieved within economic, technical and social constraints. following areas have received much attention in recent debate:

The

Although the issues involved in discussing safe energy supplies are not simple, it is our belief that their pertinent technical aspects are not incomprehensible to the public. Dr. Ralph Lapp did an admirable job of demonstrating this in a recent New York Times Magazine Section article.

*

Availability is the fraction of time during the year that a power plant can produce power. This term is commonly used interchangeably with reliability, c.f., Section V.