The Tar Heel Thursday, July 3, 1986 17
LETTERS: . ?
CP&L misleads public by making comparisons to
To the editors:
It is heartening to see The Summer
Tar Heel foster debate on the Shea
ron Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Timely informing of the public is
critical since CP&L hopes to load
fuel this month and start commerical
operation by the end of the year.
CP&L has recently spent a lot of
money trying to win us over to its
point of view on the plant. Some
other commentators have studied the
discussion. Nevertheless, all citizens
have the capacity to decide this issue
for themselves, regardless of what the
experts say.
Nuclear power is touted as safe,
clean and cheap. Specifically, CP&L
would have us believe that Shearon
Harris is strong enough to withstand
the likes of a direct hit from a 747.
The Chernobyl plant lacked such a
conrete containment structure, and,
by implication, a Chernobyl accident
could not happen here. No one would
deny that Harris is different from the
Chernobyl reactor. CP&L misleads
us in making the comparison. We
LETTERS NEEDED
The Summer Tar Heel always welcomes letters provided they are
typed double spaced including the author's name, major, and
year in school. Drop in the box outside DTH office.
Even the government says
operation of nuclear plants
is subject to human error
To the editors:
We think it's human to make
errors. That's one reason we don't
feel safe about a nuclear power plant
within 30 miles of us. We know that
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has identified horrible nuclear acci
dents that can happen in American
plants and cause more death and
destruction than happened at Cher
nobyl. The NRC Reactor Safety
' Study says 3,000 square miles (a circle
over 60 miles across) could be so
contaminated that it .could not be
used for 100 years. A recent NRC
study says a Harris type containment
could "quite likely" have early failure
in a bad accident. Another study,
Dynamic Evacuation Analyses by the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency (1981) warns that radiation
releases could begin half an hour after
a nuclear accident starts. These are
facts the US government has found.
CP&L doesn't seem to advertise
them, but CASH thinks you might
like to know about them before
CP&L starts up a nuclear plant
within 25 miles of Chapel Hill. -
Mr. Thomas Spencer, who
recently wrote to you, may have erred
in not checking his sources far
enough. Dr. Inhaber's report was
withdrawn from distribution by its
source, Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited, due to its errors. Inhaber's
report has been called the most
discredited scientific paper ever
written. (For details, see the work of
Dr. John Holdren et al. of University
of California, Berkeley e.g., ERG-79-3
The safety of alternatives is
discussed in Metzger's report for the
National Audobon Society (1981).
should be more immediately con
erned with what might happen inside,
not outside, the containment dome.
Ways in which the containment
design could be employed at Harris
could fail are described in the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission document
NUREG 0956. Moreover, NRC
Reactor Systems Division Chief
Brian Sheron has said thatt he is not
sure whether a containment dome
would have contained the Chernobyl
event (The Washington Post, June
1, 1986). In any case, Chernobyl was
designed to prevent explosion by a
pressure-suppression system. Similar
technology is used at about half of
commercial U.S. reactors, although
not at Harris. In sum, while a
Chernobyl-type accident could not
happen at Harris, a concrete dome
is no guarantee of safety.
Design and technology aside, the
practical safety of Harris includes a
human component. "Human error"
contributed to the Three Mile Island
accident and earned CP&L a
$600,000 fine at its Brunswick reac-
Atomic Eneregy of Canada
Limited are the folks whose linear
accelerator cancer treatment machine
was recently reported to have killed
one patient and disabled another due
to excessive radiation does delivered
because of a computer error one
that happened at least twice. AECL
is the Canadian government corpo
ration that promotes nuclear power
and the like in Canada. Perhaps Mr.
Spencer could have deduced that a
possible reason for accusing Dr.
Inhaber of pro-nuclear bias was his
affiliation with this nuclear corpora
tion. Another reason would be the
systematic bias of Inhaber's errors,
virtually all of which tend to raise
the risks attributed to non-nuclear
energy sources.
"To err is human," CASH agrees,
and we do make mistakes. We are
trying to rescue the Triangle region
from a multi-billion dollar mistake
called "Shearon Harris Nuclear
Plant." It would cost CP&L consu
mers over $17 billion (including
profits) to operate for 25 years.
Sometime after that, it would be
nuclear waste to be disposed of,
sooner or later, unless it had a bad
accident first. We just cant see any
reason to charge people higher
electric bills to create nuclear waste
and an ever-present risk of horrible
accidents. We think that would be
just plain irresponsible, and we are
trying to get information to the public
so we and they can stop it.
Wells Eddleman
CASH Regional Steering Committee
Chapel Hill
tors. Thanks, John deVille, for your
views on human error (STH, June
12K 1986).
CP&L asserts that absolutely no
radiological injuries or damage
occurred as a result of the TMI
accident, the Katagiri Report of the
Three Mile Island Public Interest
Resource Center will tell you other
wise. Give them a call at (717) 233
4241 for the other side of the story.
Stated conservatively, the jury is
still out on the short- and long-term
effects of radiation at different
dosages. We do know that some
lethal radioactive isotopes will be
with us for thousands of years to
come. The United States has not
solved its radioactive waste disposal
problem. If you follow the news, you
know that Governor Martin and the
State of North Carolina have
objected to the location of a high
level nuclear waste dump in Wake
County and are reluctant to allow
a low-level regional dump in the state
withour further study. In the mean
while, Shearon Harris would be
GASH sensible but CP&L deceives
To the editors:
What fun Scott Greig's column on
"Shearon Harris" was. What was he
smoking when he wrote it? Shearon
Harris nuclear plant has been
opposed since 1971 by folks in
Chapel Hill. Among them in the early
days, were such Grateful Dead fans
as James Wallace now the Mayor,
and Jane Sharp, the past President
of both the North Carolina Consu
mers Council and the Conservation
Council of North Carolina. ;
Over 500 citizens from all walks
of life signed a newspaper ad oppos
ing the Harris plant. Why . does
CP&L get laughed at? It may because
they try to sell us public relations
fantasies like, radiation from the
Harris plant could never reach
Chapel Hill after an accident. (Seen
any magic radiation barriers lately?)
The Harris plant is economical and
will create jobs. (Actually, its cost is
Greig's drunken apathy deserves
rude awakening in his Troll's booth
To the editors:
It is ironic that the so-called
"liberal fishwrap," the DTH, was the
home for two anti-CASH columns
(not to mention a column embracing
Reagan's proposed abrogation of the
SALT II treaty) in its June 19 issue.
The less said about Scott Greig's
column, the better. Greig apparently
is championing the cause of social
apathy in the guise of warning against
blindly following others. Frankly, if
Greig is going to sit blissfully
unaware in the back booth at Troll's,
then he fully deserves the rude
awakening of a major nuclear acci
dent in the Chapel Hill vicinity. Let's
hope he's sober enought to evacuate.
In fact, the apathy championed by
Greig may well explain why the
Shearon Harris opposition (which
began in 1971, with the Conservation
Council of North Carolina's efforts)
was unable to prevent the construc
tion of the plant.
accumulating waste on-site, just IS
miles from Raleigh and 20 miles from
Chapel Hill.
The most damning arguments
aganist Shearon Harris are eco
nomic, however. For example,
CP&L will tell us that nuclear fuel
is cheaper than fossil fuels. Their
publicity never factors in the costs
of waste disposal. ($4.5 million per
year) and plant decommissioning
($1-3 billion or more). This is in
comparison to CP&L's own estimate
of $1-1.5 billion for converting the
plant to coal fuel: The cost of
decommissioning the plant in a short
25-40 years would be calculated into
CP&L customers' rate base from a
year after the plant opens. After
decommissioning the plant, a new
one would have to be built; a coal
plant built today would still be
operating then.
Thomas Spencer, in his letter to
the STH (June 19, 1986) points out
the dangers of coal power. He and
others who do their homework must
be aware that safe coal technology
so high that it will raise industries
electric bills by 25 percent or more,
and it will destroy more jobs than
.it can create.) Shearon Harris is none
of Chapel Hill's business.
You can trust the Nuclear Regu
latory Commission to keep CP&L in
line. (The NRC certified Three Mile
Island safe soon before that accident.
They OK'd CP&L's Brunswick plant
improvements in 1979, and in the
next four years fined CP&L nearly
$750,000 for repeated violations of
NRC requirements at Brunswick.
That included an unmonitored radi
ation release and repeated failures to
test containment.
The $600,000 fine CP&L got in
1983 was like one for rolling through
a stop sign. (There is a nuclear
insurance company that won't insure
a handful of U.S. nuclear companies.
Reportedly, CP&L and the owners
of Three Mile Island are among the
On the other hand, Thomas
Spencer's letter raises several points
that merit more serious discussion.
CASH may well be guilty as charged
of playing to public fears in order
to -gain support. But that fear is
hardly groundless, given the expe
rience of Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl plus CP&L's abysmal
safety record at the Brunswick plant.
While Spencer is correct in point
ing out that other energy sources,
such as coal and oil, are far from
hazard free, there is a difference in
the degree and kinds of risks involved
in conventional and nuclear energy
production. Some miners and con
struction workers are going to be
injured and killed in conventional
accidents. But this is a risk that they
are willing to take in the course of
earning a living, just as police
officers, airline pilots, and volunteer
soldiers do. Has a voting majority
from, the Shearon Harris area been
Cbernoby
is available. The urgency of stopping
Shearon Harris has upstaged the
ongoing concern of plant opponents
for cleaner conventional power also.
Moreover, opponents to the' nuclear
plant favor conservation and least
cost energy planning as solutions to
our power dilemma; call Critical
Mass at (202) 546-4996 for details.
Finally, to attack opponents of
Shearon Harrison the basis of per
sonalities or tactics, as both Thomas
Spencer and Scott Greig do (STH,
June 19, 1986), is a sidestep to the
debate. It also offends the many
citizens and government officials who
oppose the plant from well-informed
positions. Many of these opponents
have been active for over a decade
on their own, through the North
Carolina Conservation Council,
through Kudzu Alliance and now
. through CASH. Perhaps we hear
their voices louder now because the
stakes are high and time is so short.
Robert Anderson
graduate
. . romance languages
few.)
Why try to stop it now? Because
for 15 years the official "regulators"
have not listened to the public when
the public cried out against the
excessive costs and unnecessary risks
of the Harris power plant. If a drunk
driver had been getting away from
the police for 15 years, would that
mean they shouldn't catch him when
they have the chance?
CP&L leaders seem to rely on
public relations. CASH relies on
ordinary peoples' good sense and
information from experts who are
not paid by . the nuclear power
industry. I hope Scott Greig has a
pleasant time in Charlotte, sur
rounded by four Duke Power nuclear
plants with weak containments.
Maybe they could have used a CASH
there years ago.
Steve Katz
Chapel Hill
allowed to declare its willingness (or
unwillingness) to take the risk of
nuclear power?
The atmospheric and environmen
tal damages resulting from the
burning of oil and coal, causing
smog, acid rain, the greenhouse
effect, and ozone depletion, to name
a few, is- an important concern. While
the extent and endurance of this
pollution are uncertain, a shift to
clearer fuels such as natural gas and
solar power appears to be warranted.
But is it sensible to trade one group
of pollutant fuels of uncertain levels
of environmental damage for nuclear
energy and the certainty of radioac
tive half-lives extending into thou
sands of years? Add to this the risk
of a major nuclear accident and the
choice becomes even less appealing.
Mitchell M. Pote
instructor graduate
political science