Capital Fallout

Kudos for the Kemeny report

"A fair and balanced appraisal," said Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, the senior Republican on the Senate subcommittee on nuclear regulation. Said Colorado Democrat Gary Hart, the subcommittee chairman: "It substitutes close scrutiny and hard criticism for the gloss and platitudes of past studies."

These raves were for the overall conclusions of a scathing report on the accident at Three Mile Island that was issued last week by a presidential commission headed by Dartmouth College President John Kemeny. The panel called the accident "inevitable" and said it was caused chiefly by inadequate training of the plant's operators and poor supervision by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The report criticized the industry and its regulators for being too concerned "with the safety of equipment, resulting in the down-playing of the importance of the human element."

To lessen the danger of future accidents, the commission recommended that plant operators be held to stricter training standards and that future plants be built far away from major population centers.* The commission also urged that the NRC be replaced by a nuclear czar appointed by the President. This recommendation set off a sharp debate. NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford contended that a single administrator would do nothing to improve the Government's regulation of nukes. Said he: "This is not a meat-inspection program." Replied Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt, a Kemeny commission member: "The NRC is a headless agency that lacks the direction and vitality needed to police the nuclear power industry on a day-to-day basis."

There was also considerable controversy over the commission's 6-to-6 deadlock on whether to propose a temporary ban on the construction of any new nuclear power plants. Complained Democratic Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts: "After offering a truly blistering attack on the U.S. nuclear industry, the Kemeny commission simply failed to have the courage of its convictions."

But the commission's findings were cause enough for some Congressmen to change their minds about a ban. Said Arizona Democrat Morris Udall: "I now lean to the conclusion that there should be a moratorium until the industry and regulators get their houses in order.'' A moratorium of sorts already exists. There have been no new orders for nuclear plants in 1979; utilities are reluctant to invest in them because of costly delays in obtaining licenses. Thus, as Hart points out, "the future of the industry is going to be determined as much on Wall Street as in Washington."

Leaders of the antinuclear movement agree. Last week some 2,000 demonstrators crowded the narrow streets of New York City's financial district, urging that investors stop putting money into nuclear power companies. Singing the antinuclear anthem, You Are My Sunshine, the protesters surrounded the New York Stock Exchange and tried to keep brokers from entering. Police arrested 1,045 demonstrators, and business at the exchange went on as usual. Nonetheless, the antinuclear forces claimed a partial victory. "We've sent a message to the country," insisted Edward Cyr, 23, of Boston, as he tossed leaves, symbolizing nuclear waste, from inside a 10-ft. paper model of a nuclear plant cooling tower.

* This last proposal is similar to one made recently by scientists in the U.S.S.R. to their own government. Last week Soviet energy specialists disclosed that eventually all of the U.S.S.R.'s oil-fueled plants, which generate about 30% of the country's electricity, will be replaced with nukes or coal-fired plants. The Soviet Union now has about 25 nuclear plants, second only to the U.S., which has 72. By 1981 the Soviets expect to have eight additional large ones in operation .

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.