‘No Antarctic nuclear spill’

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33611, 13 August 1974, Page 2

‘No Antarctic nuclear spill’

There had never been any evidence or even suggestion, of a nuclear spill in the Antarctic; nor had scientists em* ployed by the New Zealand Government been concerned about such an occurrence, said Mr R. B. Thomson, superintendent of the Antarctic Division of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Commenting on reports that scientists associated with the Environmental Defence Society were investigating a accidental release of harmful amounts of radioactive material from the American nuclear power plant on Observation Hill, overlooking McMurdo Station, Mr Thomson said he had heard no such suggestion. "The New Zealand Government has been kept fully informed by the United States Government on all matters relating to the nuclear power plant, particularly the precautions being taken, the monitoring of radiation levels, and the plans to shut down the plant.” he said. Most of the Environmental Defence Society's comments were based on a report in

the January issue of the American “Antarctic Journal” on the removal of the power plant. The report summarised a 31-page document. Mr Thomson said some of the newspaper reports were even shorter versions of this journal’s summary, and omitted vital paragraphs,

which told a much fuller story. The decision to close the plant this year was made after officers of the United States Office of Management and Budget had recommended that the plant be replaced as soon as possible by an up-to-date turbine or diesel-electric generator. Their report said the plant was no longer economic. “Before the implementation of the close-down plan, a routine inspection in September, 1972, indicated that a failure of the insulation canning weld had allowed shield water to wet the insulation around the primary coolant piping. It was then postulated that the water could be in contact with the reactor pressure vessel," Mr Thomson said. A later inspection using dye penetration revealed no indication of cracking. There was no leakage of primary water, and the United States Navy could have decided to reactivate the power plant. However, the Navy considered this to be not prudent, for safety reasons. Four other options were open: to make a detailed inspection and repairs, which would cost $Hm, and take two to three years: to redesign and replace the pressure vessel and portions of

primary piping at a cost of s2m over three years; to install a new plant at a cost of s3sm over six years; or to dismantle the plant and restore the site to its original condition at a cost of slm over three years. The Navy adopted the latter course, Mr Thomson said. In keeping with this decision, said Mr Thomson, an independent firm under contract to the United States Government would make a radiological survey of the site to ensure that all contaminated soil and backfill was removed, and the site cleared of all debris. Not all the parts had been shipped back to the United States, Mr Thomson said. It would take at least three seasons, perhaps longer, to complete all the work and to ensure that the site was completely restored to its pre-1960 condition.