University of Virginia Library

VEPCO's North Anna Nuclear Power Plant:
Planning For Tomorrow's Generation?

By ROSS HETRICK

Forty miles northeast from
here is the sleepy little town of
Mineral. It is not much
different from other towns in
those parts–a post office and a
few gas stations–except for the
fact that it is next to the North
Anna Nuclear Power Plant.

This plant has sparked a
current controversy concerning
the advisability of nuclear
power and the environmental
effects it may have.

The conflict over the North
Anna plant is an offshoot of

the larger national effort to
gain a moratorium on nuclear
power, headed by Sen. Mike
Gravel (D.–Alas.) and
consumer advocate Ralph
Nader.

This particular conflict
concerns the Virginia Electric
and Power Company (VEPCO),
builder of the plant; the
Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC); and the North Anna
Environmental Coalition
(NAEC), a group of local
environmentalists who have
banded together to fight
construction of the plant.

Thermal Pollution

At stake is the granting of
construction permits to
VEPCO to build reactors
number 3 and 4 of the
four-reactor plant. Two of the
reactors have been authorized
and are under construction.

The basic issue is thermal
pollution–the disruption of
aquatic life by the addition of
vast amounts of heated water
used for cooling the plant.

VEPCO, in their testimony
in last week's hearings on the
request for construction
permits, maintained that these
reactors would add 3.7 degrees
Fahrenheit to the lake in the
summer, and would raise the
lake's temperature above the
90 degree limit set by the
Virginian water quality
standards.

This claim conflicts with
the AEC finding that the
reactors would raise the
temperature by 7.4 degrees in
the summer and 18.5 in the
winter. "This would clearly
violate the Virginia water
quality standards, which
stipulate a three-degree rise in
those areas of impoundments
where important organisms are
most likely to be affected," the
AEC report said.

Even without the additional

heat, Lake Anna has its
problems. One of the rivers
feeding into this gigantic
artificial lake created by
VEPCO in Louisa County is
the ragged, sickly looking
Contrary River. It looks so bad
because of a high
concentration of heavy
minerals like iron, zinc and
copper which have been
washed down from abandoned
mines.

VEPCO Position

Originally this had not
affected the North Anna River
because of the constant mixing
of water. But when the river
was dammed to create North
Anna Lake, the materials have
accumulated and threaten to
make the lake almost as dead
as its tributary the Contrary.

These environmental
problems, however, do not
disturb VEPCO too greatly.
They feel that since they
created the lake, the state
should overlook some of the
detriments. "First, were it not
for VEPCO's decision to build
a nuclear power station at the
North Anna site, Lake Anna
would not even exist. In these
circumstances, it is
unreasonable to compare the
pre-operational reservoir with
the post-operational reservoir as

-VEPCO Lawyer though the former were a
natural lake," said Stanley
Ragone, Senior Vice President
of VEPCO at the hearings last
week at the Louisa County
courthouse.

Another peculiar aspect of
this case is VEPCO's position
on development around the
lake. While singing the virtues
of water recreation and how it
will increase the population of
the area, VEPCO also contends
that one of the safety features of
the plant is the sparsely
populated area around the
plant. These positions are on
the surface incompatible, and
VEPCO has yet to step forward
and announce their true
intentions.

Risky Nuclear Power

Beyond the problem of
water temperature is the
question of the general merits
of nuclear power. Many
laymen, as well as experts, have
reservations about the use of
nuclear fission to produce
energy. They feel that too
many problems have yet to be
solved with this supposedly
clean power.

To publicize the draw-backs
of nuclear power, a group of
local environmentalists have
banded together to form the
North Anna Environmental
Coalition (NAEC). At the
Louisa hearing they hammered
away at the fact that even
though the nuclear reactors are
said to be foolproof, there
remains the possibility of an
accident which would result in
the radioactive contamination
of large areas, which might
even include cities.

An example of such an
"almost" catastrophe was the
plight of the Enrico Fermi
plant on the shores of Lake
Erie. In October of 1966 it
suffered a serious accident in
which the core of the reactor
began to melt. NAEC members
pointed out that at the time of
the accident there was fear that
Detroit would be
contaminated. Fortunately this
was avoided, but the crisis,
along with other such
accidents, are used to point out
the fallibility of nuclear power.

On the other hand, nuclear
power proponents maintain
that nuclear power plants have
the best safety records of any
industrial set-up.

Still the disposal of
radioactive wastes is yet
another problem. June Allen, a
member of NAEC, pointed out
at the recent hearings the
possibility of people situated
on the route over which trucks
will be transporting waste
material, of being exposed to
an increase in radiation beyond
safety levels. She brought up
the point that scientists are not
yet certain what is a safe level
of radiation, and that any
increase in radiation is a
possible hazard.

In fact, there is little
research going on concerning
the danger of radiation,
according to a report by Hal
Willard in the May 10 issue of
the Washington Post.
Accordingly, many scientists
believe that we should hold off
on the nuclear power plants
until more is known.

With the possible problems
associated with nuclear power
so prevalent, why does VEPCO
feel that it needs them? The
answer is simple
supply-demand. James E.
Conner, Director of Planning
and Analysis of AEC, stated at
the Southern Instate Nuclear
Board at Williamsburg on
March 25, that the power
demand will soon increase by
20 per cent. The rate for
Virginia is expected to be even
greater with the rapid
development of industry.

Mr. Ragone said at the
hearing that "55 per cent of
the increase in VEPCO's
system capacity in the period
1973-1978 will be supplied by
the four North Anna units."

Opponents of the plant
attack this position with the
charge that much of VEPCO's
"demand" was artificially
created by advertisement
campaigns to encourage more
consumption. They point to
full-page newspaper ads
by VEPCO that encourage
people to use more electricity
during the winter since
machinery needed for the
heavy summer load stands idle
during the winter.

Encouraging Cutbacks

Bill Warren, president of
NAEC, suggested at the
hearings that demand could be
reduced by encouraging the
public to use less electricity.
He also suggested that other
forms of power, such as
geothermic, using the heat of
earth and solar energy, could
be utilized to meet the growing
demand.

Later at the hearing, VEPCO
scoffed at this idea of
alternative sources of power,
calling it impractical. They also
stated that there had not been
enough research done to
economically use these
methods.

What is VEPCO's true
interest in the environment?
Do they listen to
environmentalists? In much of
their publicity they pledge that
they have looked into the
environmental problem
carefully. "Careful
environmental planning goes
into the nuclear power stations
VEPCO is constructing. The
considerations range from the
finer points of aesthetics down
to simple fences," said one of
their many promotional
brochures.

However, listening to some
VEPCO representatives, one
can get the impression
that they consider the
environment less seriously than
environmentalists might prefer.

Possibility of Unemployment

George C. Freeman, Jr., an
attorney for VEPCO, said the
meeting of the Southern
Interstate Nuclear Board, that
"Air, water and land have no

importance apart from their
use for human beings," and he
also added that "allocations of
resources to zero pollution will
take away allocations from
some other human need." He
said that if environmentalists
were given free rein, they
would "limit energy growth by
unemployment."

There seems to be a conflict
of goals in VEPCO's public
relation statements and the
statements of its lawyers. How
will VEPCO reconcile this
difference? Will they seek to
"serve man," or will they have
"special consideration for the
environment"?

NEAC president Warren
feels that there is not much
possibility of stopping the
construction of reactors 3 and
4. He hopes, nevertheless, that
his group will generate enough
interest to force the AEC and
VEPCO to look into the
problems of nuclear power in a
realistic way–sometime in the
near future.