AIRCRAFT DISASTER AVERTED

The availability of nuclear plants, as we have pointed out before, is of the same order as that of fossil-burning plants with comparable capacity. But in itself, that comparison is misleading, for the availability of nuclear plants would be far higher than that of fossil-burning plants if the latter were subject to the same super-strict safety standards.

Last January, for example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered 23 power reactors shut down for inspection of the pipes of the primary and backup cooling systems after an "incident" at Commonwealth Edison's Dresden Unit 2 in Illinois. Needless to say, Ralph Nader had a field day. The "incident" was the discovery, by visual inspection, of a hairline crack in a pipe of the back-up cooling system.

What would have happened if the crack had not been discovered? Nothing; it was a hairline crack that did not leak any water. What if it had leaked water? Nothing; the automatic monitors would have detected the moisture. What if they hadn't? Nothing; the pipe belonged to the back-up emergency cooling system that just stands by in case the primary system (safeguarded even better) should fail. How much radioactivity would have been released? None; the water in the cooling system is as radioactive as the water you drink with your lunch.

Yet the NRC ordered all 23 reactors of the same type throughout the country shut down for inspection of the primary and back-up cooling systems, and rightly so; but that, of course, drastically reduced the availability factor of nuclear plants. It is also counted as an "incident."

The NRC now reports that no such cracks were found in 21 of the 22 other plants. The 22nd has not yet been inspected (we are waiting for the result in breathless apprehension), for it was granted a delay to avoid a potential power shortage in its area.

The Wall Street Journal, once again, was among the panickers and wrote about "mysterious cracks appearing in the cooling system of reactors at 23 [!] plants." They did publish a letter by Prof. S.F. Singer of the U. of Virginia pointing out their slanted reporting. (They did not, however, deem us worthy of a reply when we sent them last month's issue criticizing Schorr's article and asked them for comment.)

The NRC's announcement on the inspection results concluded "The Commission has a special task force of experts studying the pipe crack situation. No radiation was released to the environment in any of the reported incidents relating to the inspection order."

The question "Why on earth should there have been any radiation release?" is, of course, never asked when it comes to nuclear plants. But suppose the airlines had equally strict safety regulations. Then the announcement might have read like this:

"After visual inspection had revealed that some paint had peeled off one of the emergency exits of a Boeing 747 in Houston,Texas, all 747s in the country were ordered grounded. The inspections revealed no peeling of the paint in any other 747.

"The Commission has a special task force of experts studying the paint peeling situation. There was no mass incineration of flight passengers in any of the reported incidents."