Special Report: Election

Proposition 15: Will The Voters Buy Nuclear Power? 

Pacific Gas and Electric Planned to build a nuclear power plant right on top of the San Andreas Fault. Frustrated by environmentalists' opposition, one PG and E official reportedly remarked, “We’ll build this plant if we have to put it on ball bearings.” 

I am resigning from General Electric (Nuclear Division) effective today. My reason for leaving is a deep conviction that nuclear reactors present a serious danger to the future of all life on this planet." 

These words were written by Gregory Minor, the $30,000 a year Manager of Advanced Control and Instrumentation for GE's Nuclear Division in San Jose. Minor worked for GE for sixteen years. He resigned, along with two other top GE Nuclear officials, to work full-time for passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Initiative. 

Proposition 15 could change the energy future of this country. With more than 50 nuclear power plants in operation around the nation, and 200 more planned for the year 2000, Proposition 15 marks the first time that the nuclear industry has been challenged to demonstrate the safety of nuclear power to anyone beside the federal government-which both regulates and promotes nuclear power.

If passed, the Nuclear Safeguards Initiative, termed the "Shutdown Initiative" by opponents, would not necessarily curtail the development of nuclear power. Rather, it would regulate it more strictly to insure safety and accountability. 

Currently, California has three nuclear plants in operation, which account for 5 percent of the state's energy production. Four more plants are under construction, and 24 are being planned. 

Proposition 15 would require the nuclear industry to convince two-thirds of the California Legislature by 1979 that nuclear plants are safe, and that adequate waste disposal systems have been developed. If the industry fails to win this vote of confidence, operating plants would have their outputs cut to 60 percent of licensed limits, and no new plants could be built. If the nuclear industry has not proven their plants safe by 1981, operating reactors would have their outputs cut by 10 per cent per year until the Legislature is convinced that the plants are safe.

 CANCER AND CATASTROPHE 

Backers of the Initiative argüe that nuclear power is unsafe, untested, and unnecessary. As an example of the lack of testing and safety, they cite the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) built into all operational nuclear reactors. In the event of a loss of coolant, the ECCS is designed to flood the reactor core to prevent a "meltdown" --where the uncooled reactor becomes so hot that it melts its casing and releases toxic radioactive vapor into the air. The catch is that the ECCS has never been tested on a working reactor, and tests on models have failed six out of six times.

Backers of Proposition 15 point to a lack of candor by federal agencies involved in nuclear regulation. In 1969, two Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) scientists were threatened with firing because they revealed that federally-set allowable radiation release limits from nuclear plants would increase cancer deaths by 32,000 per year. Only after substantial outside pressure did the AEC lower the allowable radiation release limits. 

Supporters of Proposition 15 also charge that nuclear industry officials display a reckless contempt for public safety. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) planned to build a nuclear power plant at Bodega Bay, California in the '60's, right on top of the San Andreas fault. Frustrated by the vehemence of environmentalists' opposition to this reactor, one PG & E official reportedly remarked, "We'll build this plant if we have to put it on ball bearings." Opponents of the plant finally stopped it. Many now work for Proposition 15. 

Those in favor of nuclear power claim that the chance of an accident are "a billion to one." They say that nuclear plants are safe and represent the only hope for producing the energy to meet our growing needs. 
 

Proposition 15 supporters reply that if the plants are safe, the Nuclear Safeguards Initiative poses no threat to nuclear power. All the nuclear industry has to do is demónstrate the reactors' safety, and the industry could continue to grow as it wishes. 

Proposition 15 requires that nuclear waste disposal systems be proven safe. Currently, there is no safe system for radioactive waste disposal. A major nuclear waste is plutonium, the most toxic substance known. One nickel's weight of plutonium is enough to cause 10,000 cancer deaths. Radioactive plutonium wastes must be stored for 480,000 years before they become safe---100 times longer than the history of human civilization.

Furthermore, it takes only 12 kilograms of plutonium to produce an atomic bomb. By 1980, 12,000 kilograms of plutonium will be produced, according to federal estimates. This plutonium must be protected from falling into hands that would fashion A-bombs for nuclear blackmail. "Even if nuclear plants were completely safe," commented one supporter of Proposition 15, "we'd need a police state to guard the plutonium." 

Supporters of nuclear power count on technological advances to solve the waste disposal problem. But after 30 years' work and billions of dollars for research, the waste problems remain. One idea the nuclear industry calis "promising" is reprocessing nuclear waste into new reactor fuel. But in 1972, GE abandoned its Morris, 111., reprocessing plant as unworkable-a $64 million loss. 

The initiative would require nuclear operators to insure their plants fully against accidents. The federal Price-Anderson Act set a nuclear accident liability limit of $560 million in 1957. The Act was passed because the embryonic nuclear industry refused to develop nuclear power further unless accident liability limits were set at a figure they could live with. But the AEC estimated in 1964 that a single nuclear accident could cause $17 billion 

continued on page 26 

(Editor 's Note: "What Presidential Primary?" remarked one San Francisco voter. "There are only two things I care about on the Nuclear Safeguards Initiative and the Torn Haydenfor Senate campaign. " 

Certainly, the nation will be watching for the results of California's primary on June 8. But the outcome of proposition 15, the Nuclear Safeguards Initiative, and Hayden’s bid for the Democratic Senatorial nomination may well have long-term consequences that will be far more significant. 

Proposition 15 has attracted national and even worldwide attention because it

Castleman

Marks the first time any electorate has had a chance top voice its opinion on the nuclear power controversy.

Hayden’s  campaign is bound to have a major impact on the future of progressive Democratic politics in the United States. Hayden believes that “the radicalism of the ‘60’s is the common sense of the ‘70’s,” and California’s one million Democrats will pass judgment on that political perspective when they choose between Hayden and incumbent Sen. John Tunney.

Contributing Editor Michael Castleman has spent six weeks investigating Proposition 15 and the Hayden for senate campaign.