Fallout: Is veracruz's laguna verde nuclear plant a victim of extremist fears or a time bomb too close to home? (Spotlight).

Nuclear fuel was once thought to be the solution to the world's energy and environmental problems. Unlike traditional fuels such as oil and gas, there is no danger of nuclear materials running out. And if the process is correctly contained, there are no greenhouse gas emissions to worry about.

But the key point is precisely the phrase "correctly contained." We all remember the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine in the late '80s that lead to the evacuation of 135,000 people within a 20-mile radius, tens of thousands of related cancer deaths, as well as an increase in the number of birth defects in the area. Winds blew the fallout of radioactive material all across Europe, reaching as far as northern England. Nuclear specialists said the disaster was a direct result of mismanagement and poor safety procedures.

The incident at Chernobyl focused attention on other nuclear power generators around the world, fostering a distrust and demonization of all such plants.

Mexico's only nuclear power plant, Laguna Verde, is no exception. As Graciela Romero at Laguna Verde's information center in Veracruz points out, "there is an evil myth surrounding nuclear energy--in the public eye it has become a kind of Godzilla monster!"

FUELING FEARS

Prompted by concerns raised by groups such as the Veracruz Mothers Against Nuclear Power (who hold a weekly vigil on the steps of the Veracruz state administration building), Greenpeace and the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) agreed last year "to put everyone's mind at rest," by commissioning an independent company to inspect the plant.

The results of the inspection, conducted by the renowned German certification group TUV Anlagentechnik, were passed to Congress in February, and the 500-page document will be published after being thoroughly examined by the director of the congressional work group designated to study it.

But the group's director, Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) Deputy Rosario Tapia, has thus far refused to make the report available, arguing that the issue remains "too sensitive for us to be making too many comments before experts have looked over the results and we've had a chance to visit the plant to see for ourselves."

Tapia was able to divulge, however, that while the plant didn't reach international levels of excellence, "Laguna Verde is operating at acceptable levels and is in no way a threat."

The final report offers some 130 recommendations for changes at the plant, all of which are being acted upon at this time, says Tapia.

A few of the necessary changes include the computerization of the plant's system, the updating of emergency simulators, increased protection against radiation and the location of a permanent secondary radioactive waste deposit. The current deposit has been "temporary" since the plant's construction (completed in 1990), and grows by 34 tons of highly radioactive waste each year.

But during an interview with BUSINESS MEXICO, Tapia managed to raise more questions than answers, and displayed only a rudimentary knowledge of the subject of the work commission she heads.

For example, she says that one of the main problems faced at the plant is "the replacement of staff who, having been at the plant since its construction, were at the point of retiring. The plant is at least 25 years old."

That's odd, because Laguna Verde only began generating electricity in 1990, and its two reactors are 11 and six years old respectively. Greenpeace Mexico, one of the most active opponents of Laguna Verde and nuclear power generation worldwide, wasn't surprised at Tapia's lack of knowledge of the plant.

"This is the part of the problem we face with Laguna Verde," says Cecilia Navarro, Greenpeace Mexico's press spokesperson, adding that, "the lack of information makes you think that there is either a conspiracy to hide something more sinister, or just ignorance on the part of those who should be running it. I believe it is a bit of both."

Granted, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have enjoyed making virtually unchallenged criticism of the plant and how it is run. They have gathered and distributed vast amounts of documentation by various experts and eyewitness accounts that suggest the plant is far from complying with international standards.

Meanwhile, CFE officials have not openly discussed the matter in the press, and refused to comment to BUSINESS MEXICO for this article.

THE ENERGY LOOP-HOLE

But the most worrying aspect of the CFE's silence is Laguna Verde's importance in generating vital supplies for the country's flagging electricity reserves, which dropped to as low as 2% last year. The plant currently generates between 5-7% of the country's total installed capacity, and its consistent level of electricity generation via a single fuel source makes it one of Mexico's few constant power supply sources.

"With low natural gas reserves at the moment, the supply from nuclear power plants is vital and is difficult to substitute," former president for the Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE), Hector Olea, said last year.

Indeed, some environmentalists argue that even if the plant were a serious risk, authorities would prefer to keep it running rather than face country-wide blackouts.

OUTSIDE CONCERNS: LEGITIMATE OR EXAGGERATED?

As the situation stands--without full knowledge of the independent TUV report--there are more questions than answers as to the state of the plant.

A November 1999 inspection by WANO and a variety of internationally recognized nuclear experts concluded that the plant had its faults, but was in working order and posed no immediate danger. It did, however, hint that concerns do exist regarding how the plant is run.

"The culture of security is not recognized at the plant," the WANO report stated, adding that there were gaps in how well personnel at the plant understood how the plant works, and how much they communicated with and were listened to by high-level management.

The audit was also studied by renowned nuclear energy expert John Large of Large and Associates, a group of British nuclear engineers that study reports of nuclear power-station security. After being given the WANO report by Greenpeace, Large was less optimistic as to the security of the plant, and concluded that Laguna Verde ran the risk of "institutional failure"--a risk that could jeopardize the security of the plant under certain circumstances.

CFE's Director of Finances Javier Casas Guzman, in an interview before the TUV inspection, expressed an opinion that seems to sum up the CFE's response to any form of criticism, including that of respected nuclear engineers like Large.

"I don't believe anything these charlatans say about Laguna Verde," said Casas, adding, "Laguna Verde is safe and the fear of an accident is completely unfounded."

Meanwhile, other documents that have brought the plant's safety into question include a letter from the head of the CFE's Independent Group of Security Engineers, which was sent to the plant's director in July 2000 warning that the plant's license was at risk due to faulty emergency procedures that had not been addressed since first noted in 1997.

The minutes of the Chamber of Deputies' April 30, 2001 session, which led to the creation of the com mission headed by Tapia, lists a history of leaks, failures to adhere to safety proceedures, reports of burning radioactive waste and even a warning during the building of the plant by the director of construction that there existed "no quality control in the plant's construction."

Another complaint by Greenpeace is that the location of Laguna Verde puts it at the mercy of the annual hurricanes that pass through the region. But the CFE believes that the risk of hurricanes doing any damage is minimal, despite the fact that in 1995 Hurricane Roxanne lifted the roof off the storage warehouse, leaving thousands of barrels of toxic nuclear waste exposed.

Greenpeace is currently claiming that the choice of TUV as an independent inspector was biased, as TUV has a record of being pro-nuclear energy. But this will always be the stance of the organization that, if it had its way, would close all nuclear plants. Only the most cynical critic would be prepared to believe that a company would risk its international reputation by overlooking any serious problems in a plant that lies just a few hundred kilometers from one of the most populated cities on the planet.

One thing is certain: If the government wishes to ensure Laguna Verde's future acceptance, they must refute claims that the plant is a hazard and counter the "evil myth" of nuclear energy--not only by taking action, but also by making those actions known.

Paul Day is a Mexico City-based freelance writer.

Generation of electricity by source in June 2000


Hydraulic                           14.5%
Nuclear                              4.71%
Carbon                              10.04%
Geothermic                           3.02%
Hydrocarbons                        67.8%
(fuel oil, natural gas and diesel)

Source: CFE

Note: Table made from pie chart