Nuclear Power Plant Licensing

T. J. Dignan Jr.’s article (Editorial Page, Dec. 30), stating lawyers have crippled nuclear power, was actually a hypocritical attack on the democratic process of nuclear power plant licensing.

The real thrust of his “concern” about lawyers profiting from litigating the licensing of nuclear power plants was the political purpose of squelching public comment and information of critical licensing decisions. It is ingenuous to suggest lawyers profit from the nuclear power plant licensing process when the author presumably makes his living from such litigation.

Congress created a democratic process to license nuclear power plants. Congress intended for the process to be open to public comment and for all safety concerns to be addressed. In fact, if the nuclear power industry concentrated its vast resources at resolving legitimate safety concerns and less at public relations it would not be in a position of public mistrust. Instead the plants are not only physically fortified to ward off terrorists, but their managements adopt a Maginot Line mentality that mistake the careful probing of safety analysis for a frontal assault and the public debate of safety standards for Fifth Column activity.

The licensing of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is a case study of the nuclear industry’s mismanagement. Forget for a moment of the infamous reversed blueprints of Unit 1, the placement of a nuclear power plant near an active fault zone, the faulty seismic analysis and construction, and concentrate only on management’s hearings to public comment and to remove the procedural guarantees of federal law. The utility’s public relations purpose has always been to create the image of a safe plant, rather than deal with the reality of a plant stricken with shoddy management and construction practices.

Democracy knows better. Dangerous technologies can result in accidents. The democratic process is designed so that the public is alerted of the risk involved so that they make make the decision. The procedural guarantees of federal law are designed, with the forensic help of lawyers, to clarify what the risks are and what is being done to reduce them.

It is an indispensable process that can only work when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nuclear power industry, the federal court system and the practicing Bar play their roles.

The case of Diablo Canyon illustrates that nuclear power is at fundamental odds with the democratic process when the regulatory agency doesn’t regulate and the courts refuse to review their findings--not that lawyers have crippled an industry. KIM G. BRUNO Ventura