liquid metal fast breeder reactor program (proposed final environmental statement)(volume v -...

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

WASH-1535

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

LlQU D METAL

Volume I

FAST BREEQER REACTOR PROGRAM

VOLUME V

Volume II

Volume Ill

Volume IV

VOLUME V

Volume VI

Volume VI1

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5

Section 6

Section 7

Section 8

Section 9

Section 10

Section 11

APPENDIX

Appendix

Appendix

Summary

Background

LMFBR Program

Environmental Impact of the LMFBR Fuel Cycle

Economic, Social and Other Impacts

Alternative Technology Options

Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

Short Term Benefits and Long Term Losses

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Cost-Benefit Analysis

COMMENT LETTERS 1-25 AND RESPONSES

Comment Letters 26-38 and Responses

Comment Letters 39-66 and Responses

Ths document is b~ KLY LEASABLE

.-’ lthoriz ng Offkid U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

DECEMBER 1974 lie: 67 /?-L 1 zoo7

NOTICE ’Il~is report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Energy Research and Development Administration, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $6.76

Stock Number 6210-00930

VOLUME V

APPENDIX

COMMENT LETTERS 1-25 AND RESPONSES

CONTENTS

V . APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME V ............................................. V . 1-1

COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES

1 . Bessie Simon .................................................... v.1-1 AEC Response t o Bessie Simon .................................... v.1-5

2 . Velmar W . Davis. U . S . Dept . o f Ag r i cu l tu re ..................... V.2-1 AEC Response t o Velmar W . Davis ................................. V.2-2

3 . W i l f r e d Beaver .................................................. V.3-1 AEC Response t o Wi l f red Beaver .................................. V.3-4

4 . R . I . Price. U.S. Coast Guard ................................... V.4-1 V.4-2

5 . K . W . Boer ...................................................... V.5-1 V.5-11

V.6-42

AEC Response t o R . I . Pr i ce ..................................... AEC Response t o K . W . Boer ...................................... AEC Response t o J . G . Speth ..................................... 6 . J . G . Speth. Natural Resources Defense Council .................. V.6-1

7 . Richard Dai fuku ............................ , ..................... V . 7-1

8 . Gaylord and I l e n e Younghein ..................................... V.8-1

9 . Richard Wilson. Harvard U n i v e r s i t y .............................. V.9-1

10 . Roy Dycus. S h i r l e y ' s Enterpr ises ................................ V.10-1

11 . R . J . Chamberlin. ARC0 I n t e r n a t i o n a l ............................ V. l l - 1 V.11-4

12 . V.12-1 V.12-22

V.13-1 V.13-2

V.14-2

V . 15-1 V . 15-9

AEC Response t o Richard Dai fuku

AEC Response t o Gaylord and I l e n e Younghein ..................... AEC Response t o Richard Wilson

AEC Response t o Roy Dycus

AEC Response t o R . J . Chamberlin

L . D . DeNike. Zero Populat ion Growth AEC Response t o L . D . DeNike ....................................

13 . H . L . Barrows, U.S. Dept . of A g r i c u l t u r e ........................ AEC Response t o H . L . Barrows ...................................

14 . James J . Barker ................................................. V.14-1 AEC Response t o James J . Barker .................................

1 5 . Hami 1 t o n Treadway ............................................... AEC Response t o Hami 1 ton Treadway ...............................

16 . John T . Edsal l . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y .............................. V.16-1 AEC Response t o John T . Edsal l .................................. V.16-13

................................. V.7-26

V.8-142

V.9-3 .................................. ....................................... V.10-4

................................ ............................

i

CONTENTS (Continued)

I

17 . W . C . Guyker. Al legheny Power Service Corp ..................... AEC Response t o W . C . Guyker ...................................

18 . Leonard F . C . Reichle. Ebasco Services. I n c .................... AEC Response t o Leonard F . C . Reichle ..........................

I

19 . Michael T . Carter. e t a1 ....................................... AEC Response t o Michael T . Carter e t a1

20 . Dean E . Abrahamson ............................................. AEC Response t o Dean E . Abrahamson .............................

21 . John C . Sheppard. Washington State U n i v e r s i t y .................. AEC Response t o John C . Sheppard ...............................

22 . Diane Tegtmeier. Mid-America C o a l i t i o n f o r Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s . AEC Response t o Diane Tegtmeier ................................

23 . Neva Dawkins ................................................... AEC Response t o Neva Dawkins

24 . Jon Legakes .................................................... AEC Response t o Jon Legakes

25 . Chauncey Kepford ............................................... AEC Response t o Chauncey Kepford ...............................

........................

................................... ....................................

ii

....

V.17-1 V.17-3

V.18-1 V.18-17

v.19-1 v.19-9

v.2 0.1 V.20-57

v.21-1 V.21-4

v.22-1 V.22-16

V.23-1 V.2 3.2

V.24-1 V.24-5

V.25-1 V.25-33

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME V

Volumes V through VI1 contain copies of a l l comments received on the Draft Environ- mental Statement and the A E C ' s replies thereto. These comments, contained i n sixty six l e t t e r s , were received from Federal, State and local agencies, environmental and public interest groups, members of the academic and industrial communities, and individual citizens. each l e t t e r and other pertinent information i s provided in Table V-1.

An index t o these le t te rs indicating the number assiqned t o

These comment l e t t e r s were systematically and comprehensively analyzed in the prep- a ra t ion of the Final Environmental Statement t o identify and cateqorize the points raised. l isted in Table V-2 along with the assigned number of the l e t t e r ( s ) in which each topic appears. issues, which reappeared throuqhout most of the le t te rs . The procedure followed in addressing the issues in the Final Statement has been t o s ta te the problem, express the AEC view, c i t e responsible opposing and/or supporting views, and arrive a t a conclusion w i t h the bases for t h a t conclusion supported by the best available information. When views other t h a n those of the A E C are c i ted, the name of the commenter or organization espousing those views i s identified, and the l e t t e r and page number i n which those viewpoints are discussed are indicated in the Final Statement by footnote, e.g., Environmental Policy Center, Coment Letter 42. p. 1 . The objective of this procedure was t o provide a n efficient means of handling the various viewpoints presented, and t o be responsive t o the issues raised.

This analysis served t o identify ten major topics of concern, which are

Further examination of each topic identified about a dozen major

In broad terms, the major opposing theses p u t f o r t h by commenters on the Draft Statement, and which are addressed i n the enclosed responses and i n the body o f the Final Statement, are t h a t :

The LMFBR will introduce unacceptable risks t o public health and safety (or , alternatively, t h a t risks need t o be better identified and quantified before supportable decisions can be reached on whether or not t o proceed w i t h demonstration and subsequent commercial ization of the LMFBR). There are more acceptable (e.g., lower r isk) alternatives available f o r the generation o f electr ic i ty or which could be made available, when needed, through adequately supported research and development proqrams. Projected growth i n e lectr ic generating capacity and e lectr ic energy use i s overstated and will n o t materialize. tion measures could and should be taken, which would make development of the LMFBR option unnecessary.

Also, practical energy conserva-

v.1-1

( 4 ) Prospective quantities of relatively h i g h wade uranium resources i n the U.S. could be sufficient t o support the increased use of economically competitive nonbreeder power plants, which could delay or eliminate the need for the LMFBR option.

The comment l e t t e r s i n which these issues have been raised represent only part of the multiple opportunities and invitations t h a t have been provided by the Atomic Energy Commission t o the public t o make suggestions, to comment or otherwise be involved i n the preparation of the Draft and Final Statements. One of the ear l ies t such invitations was published i n the Federal Register on October 4 , 1973, in which the Commission solicited suggestions from a l l interested persons who desired to submit suggestions for consideration in the preparation of the Draft Statement. Twenty five le t te rs were received in response to this notice. identified i n footnotes th roughou t the Statement as "Predraft Letters" and assiqned l e t t e r numbers as shown on Table V-3. These le t te rs are available for examination a t the AEC Public Document Room, 1717 H S t . , N.W.. Washington D.C.

These have been

In accordance w i t h CEO guidelines, a Draft Statement was issued on March 14, 1974. The public and government agencies were requested to submit comments within 45 days. (As noted ear l ier , Volumes V t h rough VI1 of the F ina l Statement contain a l l the so- called "Comment Letters'' t h a t were received on the Draf t Statement.) Toward the end of this comment period, the Commission held a legislative-type public hearing on April 25-26 a t AEC Headquarters. Appropriate references t o issues raised i n these hearings have been made in the Final Statement. direct replies were sent only t o those persons submitting comment le t te rs on the Draft Statement, the procedure employed t o ensure incorporation i n the Final Statement of views expressed i n these comment le t te rs was also applied t o the Pre- Draft l e t t e r s and to the testimony and record of the public hearinq. T h a t i s , a l l these sources of input were u t i 1 ized t o identify responsible opposing (or supporting) views t h a t are addressed and referenced in the Final Statement.

I t i s t o be noted t h a t while

An extra element was added t o the approach taken i n response t o the l e t t e r received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . In recognition of the c r i t i ca l comments by EPA and the significant nature of the issues they raised, the AEC subsequently met with EPA in an attempt t o assure a better understanding of the matters and issues involved and t o resolve the differences. The record o f the public meeting held on August 13, 1974 may be examined a t the AEC Public Document Room.

v.1-2

I n summary, the various actions taken by the A E C t o so l i c i t and address public participation i n the preparation and revision of the LMFBR Program Environmental Statement have resulted i n four major categories of i n p u t . These are:

1. Predraft Letters 2. Public Hearing of April 25-26, 1974 3. Comment Letters on Draft Statement 4. Public Meeting w i t h EPA

The record of items 1 , 2 and 4 are maintained a t the AEC Pub1 ic Document Room; the comment le t te rs on the Draft Statement (item 3) are reproduced herein. o f obtaining and addressing these multiple public inputs was t o assure t h a t a l l issues pertaining t o environmental and other potential impacts o f the LMFBR were identified and t h a t the Final Statement i s in ful l compliance with the l e t t e r and s p i r i t of NEPA and CEO guidelines.

The purpose

V . 1-3

Conunent L e t t e r 140.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

39.

Table V-1

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Conunen t e r

Bessie Simon Velniar W. Davis W i 1 f red Beaver R. I. P r i c e K. W . Boer J. G. Speth

Richard Dai fuku Gaylord & I l e n e Young he i n Richard W i 1 son Roy Dycus R. 3. Chamberlin

L. D. DeAike H. L. Barrows

James J. Barker tiami 1 t o n Treadway John T. Edsal l W. C. Guyker Leonard F. C. Reichle Michael T. Carter, e t a1 Dean E. Abrahamson

John C. Sheppard Diane Tegtnieier, e t a1

Neva Dawkins John Legakes Chauncey Kepford Barry J. Sniernoff Donald P. Geesarrian L loyd K. iilarbet W. Donham Crawford Russel l H. B a l l R. 1. P r i c e Robert W. Freedman Samuel H. Nelson

Norval E. Carey Hami 1 ton Treadway Wi l l i am J. C a h i l l Theodore B. Taylor

J. G. Speth

Edward A. Pryzina

Organizat ion

Ido A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d U.S. Dept. o f A g r i c u l t u r e No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d U.S. Dept. o f Transpor tat ion Uni v e r s i ty o f Del aware Natural Resources Defense Counci 1, Inc. No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d

No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d Harvard U n i v e r s i t y S h i r l e y ' s Enterpr ises A t l a n t i c R i c h f i e l d Co. I t i t e r n a t i ona 1 Zero Populat ion Growth U.S. Dept. o f Agr i cu l tu re , A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Service No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d Harvard U n i v e r s i t y A1 legheny Power se rv i ce Corp. Ebasco Services, Inc. No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d Natural Resources Defense Counci l , Inc. Washington State U n i v e r s i t y Mid-America C o a l i t i o n f o r Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d Hudson I n s t i t u t e U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota C o a l i t i o n f o r Safe Power Edison E l e c t r i c I n s t i t u t e 140 A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d U.S. Dept. o f Transpor tat ion No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d I n s t i t u t e f o r Environniental Studies General Atomic Conipany No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d Consolidated Edison Company I n t e r n a t i o n a l Research & Technology Corporat ion Natura l Resources Defense Counci l , Inc. Minnesota P o l l u t i o n Control Agency

V.1-4

Date

3/17/74 3/25/74 3/30/74 4/15/74 4/8/74

4/16/74 4/11/74

4/15/74 4/16/74 Undated

4/17/74 4/17/74

4/ 22/ 74 4/22/74 4/15/74 4/21/74 4/22/74 4/22/74 4/22/74

4/ 2 4/ 74 4/23/74

4/24/74 4/24/74 4/24/ 74 4/26/74 4/26/ 74 4/26/74 4/2 4/ 74 4/26/74 4/24/74 4/23/74 4/2 5/74

4/26/74 4/29/74 4/2 5/ 74 4/29/ 74

4/2 9/ 74

4/2 9/ 74

Undated

-

Table V-1 (cont.)

Comment Letter No.

40.

41.

42.

43. 44. 45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50 51.

52. 53.

54.

55.

56.

57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66.

Comnen ter

Unsigned

Gerald M. Schaflander

Wilson Clark and Mark Messing Thomas G. Ayers James A. Oppold George L. Edgar

John W . Anderson, Jr .

Richard A. tlenderlight

Char1 es Custard

Robert A1 1 en Karasek

John Claydon Malcolm F. Baldwin

Sidney R. Galler She1 don I-leyers

R. Balent

Gene I. Rociilin arid John P. tfoldren Ronald W . Pederson

John L. Menke C. R. Lewis Charles Brawman Dr. John Huber Carol Denson Royston C. Hughes T. A. P h i l l i p s P. M. Murphy Robert A . Karasek

Charles Custard

Organization

Environmental Action of Colorado Consumers Solar Electric Power Corporati on

Environmental Policy Center Breeder Reactor Corporation Tennessee Val ley Authority Morgan, Lewis and Bockius , Counselors a t Law East Tennessee Development District State of Tennessee, Office of Urban and Federal Affairs U.S. Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare Massachusetts Insti tute of Techno1 ogy No Affiliation Listed Envi roninental Inipact Assessment Project U.S. Dept. o f Commerce U.S. Environmental Protect i on Agency Atomic International Division, Roc kwe 1 1 In terna t i onal University of California, Berkeley State of New York, Dept. of Environmental Conservation No Affiliation Listed No Affiliation Listed f4o Affiliation Listed No Affiliation Listed No Affiliation Listed U.S. Dept. of the Interior U.S. Federal Power Commission General Electric Company Massachusetts Inst i tute of Technology U.S. Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare

Date I_

4/26/74

4/29/74

4/26/74 4/25/74 4/29/74

4/29/74

4/ 29/74

4/26/74

4/2 9/ 74

4/ 28/7 4 Undated

5/1/74 4/ 3 O/ 74

5/5/74

4/26/74

4/30/74

5/3/74 5/6/74 5/10/74 5/7/74 5/13/74 5/6/74 5/20/74 5/16/74 5/15/74

5/ 24/ 7 4

6/4/74

V.1-5

Table V-2

INDEX FOR PRINCIPAL TOPICS APPEARING I N COMMENT LETTERS

Topic

1. Safeguards

2. Safety

Comment L e t t e r No.

8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 34, 37, 38, 40, 45, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62

7, 8, 11, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 62 *

3. Uranium Resources 11, 14, 18, 19, 26, 38, 55

4. Plutonium T o x i c i t y 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 23, 27, 32, 38, 40, 45, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 61, 66

5. A l t e r n a t i v e Technology Options 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61

6. Waste Management 3, 7, 8, 16,.22, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 42, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62, 66

7. Transpor tat ion Accidents 16, 22, 25, 32, 38, 42, 44, 47, 51, 53, 55, 64

8.

9.

10

Cos t-Benef i t Analysi s

Energy S t ra teg ies

Miscel 1 aneous

9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, ,58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65

8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 60, 64

a) General Environmental E f f e c t s 7, 13, 14, 19, 21, 25, 34, 38, 40, 42, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 62, 64

b ) Resources and Land Use

c ) Sociopol i t i c a l Impacts

2, 7, 19, 21, 22, 38, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 52, 54, 56, 62, 65

19, 22, 38, 40, 48, 49, 56, 62, 65

V.1-6

Pred ra f t Letter No.

1.

2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24. 25.

Table V-3

PREDRAFT COiW-1ENT LETTERS

Conunen t e r

J. G. Speth

J . Landis

R. C. Axtinan T. B. Cochran and J . G. Speth E. A. Farber L. 0. DeNike

A. R . Tamplin

J. H. Anderson, Jr. 0. F. X. F i n n A. R. Tarnplin

J. Legakes E. A. Farber P. Tebow R. I . Goldsmith J. G. Speth

T. E. Cochran

G. Lewis W . H. I.iillerd aiid A. J . Futsch J . G . Speth

T. B. Cochran

T. B. Cochran

J . G. Speth

A. R. Tamplin

T. A. Milne J. H . Anderson, Jr.

Organization

Natural Resources Defense Counci 1 ( N R D C ) Gulf General Atomic Company ( G G A ) Princeton University Natural Resources Defense Counci 1 ( N R D C ) University of Florida Zero Population Growth

Natural Resources Defense Counci 1 (r4RDC) Sea Solar Power, Inc. Geothermal Energy Inst i tute Natural Resources Defense Counci 1 (NRDC No Affiliation Listed University of Florida No Affiliation Listed Syracuse University Natural Resources Defense Counci 1 (i4RDC Xatural Resources Defense Council ( i iRDC No Affiliation Listed Center for Science i n the Public Interest Natural Resources Defense Council (i4RDC) Natural Resources Defense Counci 1 (NRDC) Natural Resources Defense Counci 1 (NRDC) Natural Resources Defense Counci 1 (NRDC) Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) No Affiliation Listed Sea Solar Power, Inc.

( Z P G )

Date

8/14/73

9/24/73

9/25/73 10/3/73

10/16/73 10/31/73

11/1/73

11 /G/73 11/10/73 11/13/73

11/17/73 11 /19/73 11/?O/73 11/20/73 11/20/73

11/20/73

11/21/73 11/21/73

12/4/73

12/5/73

12/5/73

12/21/73

12/26/73

1 /2[i/74 3/23/74

-

V. 1-7

v . l - 1

v . l - 2

v . 1-4

L f -

V.l-5

UNITED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY COMM ISSION WASHINGTON. O.C. 2 0 5 4 5

me 3 1 1974

M s . Bessie Simon Route 1 O j a i , C a l i f o r n i a 93023

Dear Ms. Simon:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of March 1 7 , 1974 t o D r . Ray commenting on the* Atomic Energy Cornis i son ' s Draf t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program, The Statement has been r ev i sed where appropr i a t e i n response t o the many comments rece ived , and a copy of t he F ina l Statement is enclosed f o r your information. This l e t t e r provides f u r t h e r response t o some of t h e s p e c i f i c p o i n t s you r a i s e d .

I n prepar ing t h e Draf t Statement, t he AEC considered t h e ex tens ive sugges t ions of t he Natura l Resources Defense Counc'il and o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s . Moreover, in prepar ing the F ina l Statement we took i n t o account t h e i r l a t e r sugges t ions , testimony and comments., While t h e LMFBR Program is q u a l i t a t i v e l y similar t o the l i g h t water r e a c t o r (LWR) program, we have considered s a f e t y and a l l o t h e r i s s u e s sepa ra t e ly , bo th i n l i g h t of the exper ience wi th the LIJR Program and independent ly f o r t he LMFBR Program. Throughout t h e long h i s t o r y of AEC r e sea rch and development on nuc lea r r e a c t o r programs t h e r e has been the utmost e f f o r t t o i n s u r e the s a f e t y of the pub l i c and of t h e employees involved.

Some of your comments r e f e r t o growth of popula t ion and growth i n the demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y . We have s e l e c t e d both h igh and l o w estimates of f u t u r e growth without advocat ing e i t h e r as such. For example, r e fe rence 14 l i s t e d on page 10.3-3 of t h e F i n a l Statement uses an 'assumption t h a t t h e Nation might reach a s t a b i l i z e d , no-growth popula t ion by the year 2050. This assumption is a form of conservat ism as used on page 10.2-10 of the F i n a l Statement i n p r o j e c t i n g f u t u r e work fo rce . On the o t h e r hand, t h e e lectr ic load p r o j e c t i o n s used f o r t he yea r 2020 may be h igher than some people would advocate , bu t our use of t he h ighe r f i g u r e is a form of conservat ism which t r a n s l a t e s i n t o a f a i r l y high estimate as t o the number of e l ec t r i c p l a n t s needed a t t h a t time and consequent ly a probable overstatement of t h e environmental impact p o t e n t i a l .

I n reading your l5:ter as a whole i t is observed t h a t your ch ief concern is s a f e t y . The AEC s h a r e s t h a t concern both because of the human h e a l t h and s a f e t y a s p e c t s and a l s o because p l a n t s must be designed f o r r e l i a b l e

V .1-6

Ms. Bessie Simon 2

and economical ope ra t ion over t h e i r e n t i r e s e r v i c e l i f e . Nuclear power p l a n t s must be made s a f e f o r t h e ope ra t ing people a t t he p l a n t s i t e and they must be s a f e a t each f u e l handl ing and process ing s t e p . a t t empt ing a t o t a l s a f e t y approach. A t each s t e p a l t e r n a t i v e s are rejec- t ed t h a t do no t meet our safety-in-depth philosophy. Nuclear powerplants are designed on a f a i l - s a f e b a s i s wi th ex tens ive p rov i s ions f o r cont in- genc ie s and combinations of cont ingencies . Assurances t o the pub l i c a r e based on concepts of s a f e t y unprecedented i n modern indus t ry . Nonetheless, some r i s k w i l l remain. This r i s k i s very small and we a r e determined t o make i t even smaller. D

We are

We hope t h i s le t ter is responsive t o your concerns. Your in te res t i n the LMFBR Program is apprec ia t ed .

S incere ly ,

u s s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Sa fe ty Programs

Enclosure: F i n a l Environmental Statement ,

LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)

v .2-1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20250

March 25, 1974

Mr. James L. Liverman A s s i s t a n t General Manager

* €or Biomedical and Environmental Research and Sa fe ty Programs

U. S . Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear M r . Liverman:

Examination of t h e environmental s ta tement on t h e Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor Program revea l s two f a c t o r s t h a t p o t e n t i a l l y impact t h i s Nat ion ' s capac i ty f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l product ion. These f a c t o r s are water and land requirements f o r ope ra t ion of t h e LMFBR. According t o t h e impact s ta tement , a 1,000 MWe p l a n t can be expected t o need 500 acres of p l a n t s i t i n g and 2,000 a c r e s f o r cool ing l akes . With a w e t cool ing tower t h e water requirement is expected t o be approximately 1,400,000 gpd f o r a model 1,000 MWe p l a n t .

It has been es t imated t h a t by t h e year 2000 as much as 400,000 Mwe of LMFBR capac i ty could be i n s t a l l e d i n the U. S . Th i s t r a n s l a t e s i n t o a p o s s i b l e land requirement of 1 m i l l i o n a c r e s and a p o t e n t i a l water requirement of 560 m i l l i o n gpd. In r e l a t i o n t o a g r i c u l t u r e ' s use of land and water, t h e s e f i g u r e s are comparatively small. I n 1969, 333 m i l l i o n a c r e s of land w a s used f o r c rops and approximately 73,000 m i l l i o n gpd of water w a s used f o r i r r i g a t i o n . Land and water f o r 400,000 MWe of LMFBR capac i ty , t h e r e f o r e , amounts t o 3 percent and 8 percent r e spec t ive ly of cu r ren t land i n crops and water used f o r i r r i g a t i o n . However, t h e impact on a g r i c u l t u r e could be s i g n i f i c a n t depending on t h e l o c a t i o n of s p e c i f i c LMFBR.

A t t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e , any conclusion about t h e impact of a LMFBR program upon a g r i c u l t u r e would be r a t h e r premature. The a c t u a l impact w i l l have t o be eva lua ted on a s i t e s p e c i f i c b a s i s . S u f f i c e t o say t h a t a t t h e l o c a l l e v e l t h e l o c a t i o n of a p l a n t can have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact upon a g r i c u l t u r e i f land and water are withdrawn from a g r i c u l t u r a l product ion. This compet i t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p should be considered and proper ly accounted f o r when eva lua t ing a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n t sites.

S ince re ly ,

v.2-2

UNITED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

Mr. Vehar W. Davis Deputy Di rec to r Environmental S tud ie s United S t a t e s Department of Agr icu l ture Economic Research Se rv ice Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear M r . Davis:

Thank you f o r your l e t te r of a r c h 25, 1974 commenting on t h e A t o m i c Energy Commission's Draf t Env i rowen ta l Statement on t h e Liquid ?fetal F a s t Breeder Xeactor (LKFBR) Program. The Statement has been r ev i sed where a p p r o p r i a t e i n respoi3se to the many comments received. A copy of t h e Final Statement is enclosed f o r your information.

In your comments it w a s noted t h a t water and land requirements f o r f u t u r e LMFBRs could p o t e n t i a l l y have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact and poss ib ly c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e water and land requirements f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l production. The es t imated land requirement of one m i l l i o n acres would be a n upper l i m i t f o r t h e 400,000 >RJe of UlFBR capac i ty p ro jec t ed t o be i n s t a l l e d i n the U.S. by t h e year 2000, s i n c e t h i s estimate is based on each 1,000 We LMFBR having a 500 a c r e s i te and a 2,000 acre cool ing pond. Realisti- c a l l y , most 500 acre s i tes would probably con ta in two o r more 1,000 :Me LMFBRs and many LNFBXs would use cool ing towers r a t h e r than cool ing ponds. Even i f t h i s upper l i n i t of one m i l l i o n acres were used, i t would r ep resen t on ly 0.3 percen t of t h e land p resen t ly used f o r crops in s t ead of t h e 3 pe rcen t noted i n your comments.

With a w e t cool ing tower, t h e water requirement f o r a 1,000 m e LMFBR would be 14,000,000 gpd ins t ead of 1,400,000 gpd. 400,000 ;We of CIFBR capac i ty i n the year 2000 were t o use w e t cool ing towers, a t o t a l of 2,800 m i l l i o n gpd of water would be required. This would r ep resen t about four percent of t he water p resen t ly used f o r i r r i g a t i o n and about two percent of t he water p ro jec t ed t o be requi red f o r i r r i g a t i o n i n the year 2000.

I f 50 percent of t he

v.2-3

M r . Velmar W. Davis 2

The a c t u a l impact of land and water use w i l l be evalua ted on a s i te s p e c i f i c bas i s . .\t t h e l o c a l l e v e l t he l o c a t i c n of A p lan t can have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact upon a g r i c u l t u r e i f land and water are withdrawn from a g r i c u l t u r a l product ion, and such withdrawal would be considered and proper ly accounted For when eva lua t ing a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n t sites.

We t r u s t t he above information is s u f f i c i e n t l y responsive t o the p o i n t s you r a i s e i . i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR Program.

Thank you f o r your comments and f o r your

S ince re ly ,

Research and Sa fe ty Programs

Enclosure: F i n a l Environmental Statement , LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)

v . 3 - l

fi .H . p e n n i n g t o n lb ses s rnep t s and C o o r d i n a t i o n O f f i c e r D i v i j i o n of B i o m e d i c t l and Env i ronmen ta l R e s e a r c h u .s . titornic Energy Commiss i o n t / a s h i n g t o n , D .C 20545

Dear sir:

M h t Q 4 3 4 19 1 q

This s t a t e m e n t $ is a reply t o your l e t t e r of barah Ik, 1974,

in which you a sked f o r comments on t h e L i q u i d Meta l Fost B r e e d e r

R e a c t o r Progrcm Draft Env i ronmen ta l S t a t e m e n t . Thank you f o r the

l i b r a r y of books d e a l i n g w i t h t h e IXF3R rent t o me b u t , ts r a d

t h r o u g h them a l l would t a k e m beyone the t h e lh i t s you s e t .

A c t i n g 23 chai rman of t h e mnroe County (iVi3c.) Environanents l

P r o t e c t i o n League, I am s e n d i n g you the objections I have am3 am

s t a t i n g t h e a l t e r n a t i v e power s o u r c e s prhich should be e a l a r p t l on.

I found t h a t t he IddFBR hogram was forraed t o & e v e l o p a bread

t e c h n o l o g i c a l and e n g i n e e r g b c s e so t h a t a v i a b l e commercial

b r e e d e r r e L C t o r o p t i o n is a t t a i n e d i n t h e 1980s. We s t a t e t h a t

t h e r e sre e n v i r o n m e n t a l d a n g e r s i n h e r e n t in the L U W R me1 cycle

which i n c l u d e s f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n and r e p r o c e s s i n g , w a s t e mansgemnt

and t h e problems of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n (Your s t a t e m e n t s ) .

t?

You say t h s t t h e r e w i l l be l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e f r o m t h e e f f e c t s

of l i g h t water nuclear power plants using a similar uranium-plut-

onium f u e l c y c l e , b u t you have not OQnVi i~Ced mnp people yet.

We s u p p o r t , i n s t e a d a l t e r n a t i v e e n e r a $ wroes such as solar ene rgy and foss i l f i e l s . rh s u p p o r t hflroelectric dam a&& pmr

E e n e r a t o r s which can s u p p l y e l e c t r i c i t y . These are the '"rais'

o l t e r n o t i v e s n a t u r e has given u3 t o u s e . i e support the e x g l o i t % t -

i od of our c o a l r e s e r z e s as 3 second l i n e of defense ami3 suggest

f u e l l i n e s t o c a r r y c o a l s l u r r y across v m t d i s t a n c e s . The use o f

c o a l f f s l u r r y w or s l u a h c o a l and w a t e r is & f a c t and the governsent;

cou ld hurry procram o f t h i s n a t u r e a l o n g i n s t e a d of gaabline; on

n u c l e a r r e c y c l i n g programs. This s t a t e m a n t c a n be i n t e r p r e a t e d a8

a s n e z z t i v e UFBE.. .we s u p p o r t a l t e r n z t i v e e n e r g y s o u r c e s .

V. 3-2

page 2

We a r e convinced t h a t a l l f o s s i l f u e l s , s u c h as c o a l , c r u d e

o i l , n a t u r a l gas and l i p i d p e t r o l e u m s h o u l d be e x p l o i t e d .

C o a l s u p p l i e s a p p e a r t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e n t i f u l ( y o u r own

words, n o t mine. I a m convinced t h a t o u r c o a l s u p p l i e s a r e even

more p l e n t i f u l t h a n h a s been s a i d ) t o p r o v i d e f o r o u r e l e c t r i c a l

g e n e r a t i o n needs w e l l beyond t h e n e x t c e n t u r y , so t h a t t h e c h o i c e

between n u c l e a r and fossil power g e n e r a t i o n w i l l b e m d e on econ-

omic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t a k i n g a l l c o s t s , i n c l u d i n g p o l l u f , i o n c o n t r o l ,

i n t o a c c o u n t . The l e t t e r I am s u b m i t t i n g h a s t h e e f f e c t of p o i n t -

ing a n a c c u s i n g f i n g e r a t t h i s a d r n i n i s t r c t i o n and t h o s e b e f o r e i t

who f a i l e d t o cu rb the drain on o u r r e s o u r c e s and s t o c k p i l e e n e r g y

s o u r c e s , w h i l e r e s e a r c h i n g e n e r g y e l t e r n d t i v e s s u c h as s o l a r , wind-

power, e t c . If t h i s had b e e n done, t h e p r e s e n t c o n c e r n o v e r t h e

b u r y i n g of n u c l e z r f i s s i o n w a s t e s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o t h e b r e e d e r

r e a c t o r s i t e s f o r r e c y c l i n g a n d t h e b u i l t - i n d m g e r s i n h e r e n t ,

would n o t n m b e f o r c i n g me t o o b j e c t i n t h i s msnner .

It is s e r i o u s enough t h a t we now hove t h e LJR f u e l c y c l e

w i t h o u t a n y r e c y c l i n g of p l u t o n i u m f u e l . You have s t a t e d t h a t

t h i s t e r r i f y i n g p l u t o n i u m r e c y c l e T w i l l become a s h g n i f i c c n t f a c t o r

i n a l l Lt/R poxer p l c n t o p e r a t i o n b e f o r e 1980. It vi11 be l i m i t e d

by t h e even g r e t t e r d a n g e r of t h e WFBR i n t o t h e power economy

becbuse p l u t o n i u m is much more v a l a u b l e as a b r e e d e r f u e l t h a n

as a LVR f u e l . This w i l l mean t h a t p l u t o n i u m w a s t e a o u l d be s t o c k -

p i l e d f o r t h i s p u r p o s e . If b r e e d e r u se is n o t i n i t i c t e d (<is we a r e

h o p e f u l o f ) u t i l i t i e s would c?ecide t o u s e t h e p lu toniuni i n e x i s t -

i n g L!As and r e d u c e t h e i n v e n t o r y and s t o r a g e c h a r g e s i n c u r r e d

f rom s t p r i n g t h e p l u t o n i u m f o r l o n g p e r i o d s of t i m e . From I980

on, t h e d e c i s i o n t o r e c y c l e p l u t o n i u m w i l l he made on the economic

c o n s i d e r a t i o n of b a l h n c i n g i l j v e n t o r y snd s t o r a g e c o a t s d g z i n s t t h e

i n s r e a s e d v a l u e of w ipg t h e p l u t o n i u m i n f u t u r e b r e e d e r s . L igh t

n

v.3-3

Page 3 p l u t o n i u m r e c y c l e fuel, t h e f u e l c y c l e from t h e c a s c s d e s t e p

onward is q u a l i t a t i v e l y s i m i l a r t o t h e f e l ; r e d LiFBR f u e l c y c l e .

m o t h e r p o i n t of c o n c e r n is of r e a c t o r gdseous w s t e s . The

r a d i o a c t i v e gas removal s y s t e m s i n s t a l l e d i n t h e c o m e r c i a l

m R are t o be d e s i g n e d . t o remove v i r t u a l l y sll f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s

f rom t h e p r i m a r y s y s t e m c o v e r g a s . . t h e s e a r e POUR words 1 From t h e

few s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o a layman, t h e r e z r e e v e r p r e s e n t d a n g e r s

of h o l d i n g s e c u r i t y s y s t e m s f o r gaseous wastes. Your book of A p r i l

1972 -ui!?BR De inons t r a t ion '11s been h e l p f u l i n f u r t h e r p o i n t -

i n g o u t d a n g e r s p r e s e n t n o t o n l y from g a s e o u s , b u t f rom L i q u i d and

S o l i d Jastes. T h e i r s t o r z g e , t r n n s p o r t d t i o n and r e c y c l i n g present ,

p roblems as the LpllFBR p rogrm goes i n t o e f f e c t .

I a m s e n d i n g you t h i s f i r s t l e t t e r s o t h L t it :vi11 come unde r

your h p o s e d d e a d l i n e b u t I p romise t o add t o it i f t h e r e is s t i l l

any t i m e l e f t t o do so. You have n o t shown me t h a t t h e Progran i s

s a f e , .vi11 n o t p r e s e n t problems 2nd a c t u a l l y i s needed.

ivIy s u g g e s t i o n s f o r e n e r g y a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e n o t o n l y my own

but my members and most e v e r y o n e I have spoken b e f o r e . You hcve

s u p p l i e d me w i t h v d l u a b l e t e x t lvhich w i l l o n l y be used t o cement

t h e a rguments of e n v i r o n m e n t z l i s t s eve rywhere s n 8 v e hope t h a t

YOU w i l l d e l i b e r a t e b e f o r e going f l i r t h e r i n t h i s r e c y c l i n g o f

a t o m i c wastes. ile have been b u r i e d unde r a n a v a l e n c h e of e n e r g y

" C r i S i S " p ropaganda v h i c h v e f i n d h a r d t o b e l i e v e . There has beeeen

l i t t l e chznge i n our l i f e s t y l e s o v e r 2 p e r i o d of t h e l a s t two

years 2nd y e t p r i c e s hzve r i s e n , ?{e have been " b l i n d e d " by p ro -

f e a s i o n & l p e o p l e lvho had been s u p p l i s d t o c o n v i n c e t h e p u b l i c o f

e n e r g y s h o r t a g e s . Save t h e t a x p s y e r s money and h a l t t h e p r e s e n t

"scc;re" t a c t i c s of t h o s e who .wish t o b e n e f i t f rom them.

P l c n k you f o r t a k i n e t h e t i m e t o r e n d my s t a t e m e n t . I . d -3 Ab-

IW. ' . l i l f r e d Beaver 418 E. w . i n S t . s p a r t a , vii.

$-q b !I -G

Mr . W i l f r e d Beaver 418 E. Main S t . S p a r t a , Wisc. 54656

Dear Xr. Beaver:

v. 3-4

UNITED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

DEC 3 1 1974

n

Thank you f o r your let ter of March 30, 1974 commenting o n t h e Atomic Energy Commission 's D r a f t Envi ronmenta l S t a t e n e n t on t h e L i q u i d lfetal F a s t B r e e d e r Reac to r (LXFBR) Program. The S t a t e m e n t h a s been r e v i s e d where a p p r o p r i a t e i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e many colcments r e c e i v e d , and a copy of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t is e n c l o s e d f o r your i n f o r m a t i o n . P l e a s e see t h e e n c l o s u r e t o t h i s let ter f o r s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e s t o your comments.

W e u n d e r s t a n d t h e c o n c e r n you have e x p r e s s e d o v e r s e v e r a l i s s u e s and a p p r e c i a t e your t a k i n g t h e t i m e t o make your v iews known t o us . We hope t h a t t h i s r e s p o n s e and t h e e n c l o s e d F i n a l S t a t e m e n t w i l l answer any r e m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n s you may have and a l l e v i a t e a t least sone o f your c o n c e r n s . It is o u r c o n c l u s i o n a f t e r c a r e f u l s t u d y of a l l t h e i s s u e s , as e x p r e s s e d i n t h e S t a t e m e n t , t h a t t h e L V B R is a n e s s e n t i a l e l emen t of t h i s c o u n t r y ' s ene rgy program, and t h a t LXFBR's can b e b u i l t and o p e r a t e d w i t h o u t undue r i s k t o t h e p u b l i c o r t o t h e envi ronment . Thank you f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t h e s e i m p o r t a n t matters.

S i n c e r e l y , h

W - G J es L. Liverman A i s t a n t G e n e r a l Yanager (9 f o r B iomed ica l and Env i ronmen ta l

Resea rch and S a f e t y Programs

E n c l o s u r e s : 1. AEC S t a f f Response t o S p e c i f i c

2. F i n a l Env i ronmen ta l S t a t e m e n t , Comments


v .3-5

Enclosure 1

AEC S t a f f Response t o Spec i f i c Coments by Y r . Wilfred Beaver

#I. Comment:

".. .there are environmental dangers i nhe ren t i n t h e LNFBR f u e l cyc le which inc ludes f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n and reprocess ing , waste management and t h e problems of t ranspor ta t ion ."

AEC Response:

The AEC recognizes t h a t t h i s concern i s shared by many o t h e r people and organiza t ions . However, i t is our b e l i e f a f t e r c a r e f u l cons ide ra t ion and s tudy of a l l r e l evan t i s sues , culminat ing i n t h e p repa ra t ion of t h i s Environmental Statement , t h a t such concerns are not completely j u s t i f i e d by t h e f a c t s . Although t h e r e are a r e a s i n which f u r t h e r r e sea rch and development e f f o r t is requi red , w e a r e convinced t h a t t hese e f f o r t s w i l l be success fu l and t h a t LPFBRs can be b u i l t and opera ted without undue r i s k t o t h e environment. A f u l l d i scuss ion of t h e b a s i s f o r t h i s b e l i e f and t h e r e sea rch and development e f f o r t s planned o r underway t o v e r i f y t h i s conclus ion i s included i n Sec t ions 4 and 7 of t h e enclosed Sta tenent .

#2. Comment:

"We suppor t , i n s t ead a l t e r n a t i v e energy sources suc,h as s o l a r energy and f o s s i l fueJ.s. We support hydroe lec t r i c dams and power gene ra to r s which can supply e l e c t r i c i t y . g iven u s t o use."

These a r e t h e "safe" a l t e r n a t i v e s n a t u r e has

AEC Response:

Your suppor t of a l t e r n a t i v e energy sources such as s o l a r energy and f o s s i l f u e l s is understandable , and the AEC agrees t h a t a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t t o develop a l l v i a b l e energy sources is warranted i f t h e Nation is t o main ta in i ts economic growth. Seo t ion 6 of t h e Statement , i t is our b e l i e f t h a t development of t he LITBR is a n e s s e n t i a l element of the program f o r meeting the Nat ion ' s energy needs. We do not f e e l t h a t i t is prudent t o r e l y s o l e l y upon a l t e r n a t i v e s such as s o i a r energy which r equ i r e ex tens ive r e sea rch and development t o b r i n g t o the 'point of l a r g e s c a l e c o m e r c i a l u t i l i z a t i o n , r ega rd le s s of t h e g r e a t p o t e n t i a l i t appears t o hold i n p r inc ip l e . S imi l a r ly , those techniques whic!. are a l r eady developed and i n I:se, such as f o s s i l f u e l s and h y d r o e l e c t r i c power, have recognized l i m i t a t i o n s . For example, Sec t ion 66.3.4 s t a t e s ,

t iever theless , as you w i l l see from examination of

"Even though an abso lu te inc rease is expected, t h e p ropor t ion of t o t a l e lec t r ic capac i ty e t t r i b u t a b l e t o convent ional h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s w i l l d e c l i n e from the present 15% t o about 7% i n 1990."

V .3-6

2

With regard t o f o s s i l f u e l s , o i l and gas are i n s h o r t supply and must e f f e c t i v e l y be r u l e d o u t as f u e l s f o r f u t u r e c e n t r a l s t a t i o n e l e c t r i c power generat ion. they cannot be r e l i e d upon as the s o l e source of e l e c t r i c i t y generat ion, s i n c e i n t h a t event t h e s e l a r g e resources would be exhausted i n less than a cen tu ry even t f no o t h e r requirements €or c o d ( i n j u s t r i a l , commercial, r e s i d e n t i a l ) are considered (See Sect ion 11.4.1.1.2). F i n a l l y , w i th r e s p e c t t o "safe" a l t e r n a t i v e s you are r e f e r r e d t o Sec t ion 11.3.2.2 which d i s c u s s e s human h e a l t h and s a f e t y a spec t s of e lectr ical energy generat ion. In p a r t i c u l a r , no te Table 11.3-1 and Figure 11.3-1 i n which c o a l is dep ic t ed as causing by f a r the l a r g e s t number of f a t a l i t i e s , non-fatal I n j u r i e s and occupat ional man-days l o s t of a l l s i x systems considered ( coa l , o i l , gas , LWR, LMFBR, and BTGR) and t h e LMFBR t h e l e a s t .

Although the Nation's c o a l resources a r e very l a r g e

83. Coment:

"We support t he e x p l o i t a t i o n of ou r coa l r e s e r v e s as a second l i n e of de fense and suggest f u e l l i n e s t o ca r ry c o a l s l u r r y across vast d i s t ances . The use of c o a l " s lu r ry" o r s l u s h coa l and water is a f a c t and t h e government could h u r r y programs of t h i s n a t u r e along in s t ead of gambling on nuc lea r r ecyc l ing programs . I'

AEC Response:

The AEC a l s o suppor t s t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n of our c o a l reserves and, a s I n d i c a t e d above, recognizes they w i l l be needed along wi th o t h e r energy sources t o meet t h e Nation's energy requirements. i n t h e t a b u l a t i o n of p ro jec t ions of domestic c o a l consumption i n Sec t ion 6A.1.2.5 of t h e enclosed F i n a l Statement, which r e f l e c t s t h e sha rp ly inc reased r a t e s of c o a l u t i l i z a t i o n a n t i c i p a t e d during t h e next s e v e r a l decades. However, c o n s t r a i n t s on a v a i l a b i l i t y of needed equipment, manpower, water, and ca i t a1 may render a t ta inment of t h e higher p r o j e c t i o n s

p ipe - l in ing is discussed i n Sect ion 6A.2.1.3.2.2. A s noted t h e r e i n , a r e c e n t ar t ic le (E. J. Wasp and T. L. Thompson, The O i l and Gas J o u r n a l , pp. 44-50 December 24, 1973) i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l a r g e number of long- d i s t a n c e , high-volume coal-s lurry p i p e l i n e s from Western c o a l f i e l d s t o Eiidwestern load c e n t e r s are being planned, i nc lud ing a 1000-mile, 38-in.-diameter l i n e t h a t w i l l t r a n s p o r t 25 m i l l i o n tons of c o a l pe r year. I'

The i r use is r e f l e c t e d

- e.g., 1.5-1.9 x 10 B t o n s l y r by 1985 - q u i t e d i f f i c u l t . Coal s l u r r y

#4. Comment:

"Coal s u p p l i e s appear t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e n t i f u l .... t o provide f o r our e l e c t r i c a l gene ra t ion needs well beyond t h e next century, so t h a t t h e cho ice between nuclear and f o s s i l power gene ra t ion w i l l be made on economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s taking a l l c o s t s , including p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l , i n t o account.' '

v.3-7

AEC Response:

Though our in-place coa l r e se rves are adequate f o r t he s t a t e d purpose, t he u t i l i z a t i o n of these r e se rves i n an economically compet i t ive , s a f e , and environmental ly acceptab le manner t o provide gene ra t ing capac i ty over t he next four decades has haen considered u n r e a l i s t i c by every s tudy group of which we are aware. Foundation, e.g., has s t a t e d : "Our a n a l y s i s on a l t e r n a t i v e energy scenarios . . . shows t h a t as long as t h i s n a t i o n cont inues on a t r a c k of r a p i d growth i n energy, nuclear f i s s i o n energy G i l l be needed t o meet denand. Only under a long term c o m i t n e n t t o s u b s t a n t i a l energy conserva t ion could cur ta i lment of nuclear power growth be taken se r ious ly" (Explor ing Energy Choices, A Prel iminary Report of t he Ford Foundat ion 's Energy Po l i cy P r o j e c t , p. 28, 1974). I n t h e long term, of course, w e cannot r e l y on f o s s i l f u e l s s i n c e i t is un ive r sa l ly agreed t h a t they w i l l be e s s e n t i a l l y deple ted wi th in a few c e n t u r i e s a t most.

our new electr ical

The Ford

85. Comnent:

"It is s e r i o u s enough t h a t w e now have the LWR f u e l cyc le without any r e c y c l i n g of plutonium f u e l . You have s t a t e d t h a t t h i s t e r r i f y i n g plutonium recyc le w i l l become a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n a l l LWR power p l a n t o p e r a t i o n be fo re 1980. It w i l l be l imi t ed by t h e even g r e a t e r danger of t h e LMFBR i n t o the power economy because plutonium is much more va luable a8 a b reede r f u e l than as a LWR fue l . "

AEC Response:

The AEC recognizes the p o t e n t i a l l y hazardous p r o p e r t i e s of plutonium whether used as a f u e l i n LWRs o r LMFBRs. plutonium a b LMFBR f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n and f u e l reprocess ing p l a n t s is d i scussed i n the F i n a l Statement i n Sec t ions 4.3 and 4.4, r e spec t ive ly . In a d d i t i o n , engineer ing f e a t u r e s ( f i l t e r s , e t c . ) f o r reducing the release of plutonium from these f a c i l i t i e s are a l s o descr ibed. S imi la r in format ion is given i n Sec t ions 4.2 and 4.5 f o r LhIFBK power p l a n t s and f o r t ranspora t ion . is presented i n Sec t ion 4.7 and Appendix 1 I . G of t he F ina l Environmental Statement and i n AEC responses t o the comments of t he Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, Environmental Impact Assessment P r o j e c t , and Natura l Resources Defense Council on t h i s subjec t . I t is be l ieved t h a t plutonium can be s a f e l y used and contained through appropr i a t e engineer ing measures, such as those discussed i n t h e re ferenced Sec t ions of t h e F i n a l Statement and t h e appendices r e f e r r i n g the re to ,

Experience t o d a t e i n handl ing

Deta i led information concerning plutonium t o x i c i t y

#6. Comment:

Another po in t of concern is of reactor gaseous wastes. The r ad ioac t ive It

gas removal system i n s t a l l e d i n the commercial LVBR is t o be designed t o

V . 3-8 n

4

remove v i r t u a l l y a l l f i s s i o n products from t h e primary system cover gas. . . rhe re are ever present dangers of holding s e c u r i t y systems f o r gaseous wastes . " AEC Response:

The problems of c o l l e c t i n g and s t o r i n g gaseous wastes are a l s o anenable t o engineer ing s o l u t i o n s . These matters are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 4 , as are those of a l l o t h e r r a d i a a c t i v e wastes produced i n t h e opera t ion of LMFBRs and the LXFBR f u e l cycle . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e des ign of the L!IF'BR pa re r p l a n t r a d i o a c t i v e waste processing systems is d iscussed i n Sec t ion 4 . 2 . F i s s i o n products would be removed from t h e primary system cover gas by use of HEPA f i l t e r s , charcoa l f i l t e r s and cryogenic d i s t i l l a t i o n columns. c o n t r o l over gaseous wastes have been reduced t o acceptab le l e v e l s .

It i s our opin ion t h a t t h e "dangers" o r r i s k s of maintaining

V.4-1

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MAILING ADDRESS:

400 SEVENTH STREET SW WASHINGTON. D C. 20590

U.S. COAST GUARD (G-WS/73)

PHONE: (202) 426-2262

1 5 APR 1974

M r . James L. Livennan A s s i s t a n t General Manager f o r

Bianedical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

A t a n i c Energy C m i s s i o n Washington, D. C. 20545


This is i n response t o your l e t t e r of 14 March 1974 addressed t o M r . Mart in Convisser concerning the Draft Environmental Statement, WASH-1535- Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor Program.

The Department of Transpor ta t ion has reviewed t h e m a t e r i a l submit ted. have no comments t o o f f e r nor do we have any ob jec t ion t o t h e program.

The oppor tuni ty t o review t h i s d ra f t s ta tement is apprec ia ted .

We

V.4-2 n

See response to letter 31 f o r combined reply to letters 4 and 31.

n

.5-1

I N S T I T U T E O F E N E R O Y CONVERSION K. W. BOER, D I R E C T O R P H O N E : 3Oa738-848!

U N I V E R S I T Y O F D E L A W A R E N E W A R K . D E L A W A R E

1 9 7 1 1

A p r i l 8 , 1974

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t General Manager f o r B i o m e d i c a l and E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s e a r c h and S a f e t y Programs US Atomic Energy Commission W a s h i n g t o n , D C 20545

Dear S i r s :

I h a v e b e e n c o n t a c t e d by Mr. A r t h u r R . Tampl in f rom t h e N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s D e f e n s e C o u n c i l , I n c . , q u o t i n g a s t a t e m e n t i n t h e Dra f t E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t o f t h e L M F B R P rogram, Page A .5 -34 : "The o u t - l o o k a p p e a r s t o b e t h a t s o l a r e n e r g y h a s l i t t l e p o t e n t i a l as a n e c o n - omical m a j o r s o u r c e o f e l e c t r i c i t y f o r s e v e r a l d e c a d e s . "

A s a member o f t h e NSF/NASA s o l a r e n e r g y p a n e l and o f s e v e r a l NSF s o l a r e n e r g y w o r k s h o p s , I f e e l t h a t t h e above s t a t e m e n t c a n b e m i s i n t e r - p r e t e d and n e e d s some c l a r i f i c a t i o n :

To t h e b e s t o f my knowledge i t i s t h e f e e l i n g o f t h e ove rwhe lming m a j o r i t y , i f n o t t h e c o n s e n s u s o f t h e s o l a r e n e r g y s p e c i a l i s t s i n t h e f i e l d o f s o l a r e n e r g y c o n v e r s i o n i n t o e l e c t r i c i t y , t h a t t e c h n o - e c o n o m i c f e a s i b i l i t y o f a t l e a s t o n e mode o f s u c h c o n v e r s i o n i s h i g h l y p r o b a b l e . P r o g r e s s o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h NSF and NASA s p o n s o r e d r e s e a r c h and d e v e l o p - ment d u r i n g t h e l a s t two y e a r s i s v e r y e n c o u r a g i n g . S e v e r a l i n d u s t r i a l organizations are already involved and sponsor initial commercialization. Power u t i l i t i e s show i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t , i n c l u d i n g a c t i v e r e s e a r c h s p o n s o r s h i p .

A l t h o u g h i t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t i t m a y - t a k e a s l o n g as t e n y e a r s b e - f o r e i n s t a l l a t i o n s c a n b e b u i l t wh ich c a n compe te i n c o s t w i t h conven- t i o n a l i n s t a l l a t i o n s , t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e p h o t o v o l t a i c s p e c i a l i s t s a r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r l a r g e s c a l e p r o d u c t i o n o f s o l a r c e l l s c o u l d i n d e e d p r o v i d e a v a l i d a d d i t i o n a l s o u r c e o f e l e c t r i c e n e r g y for l a r g e s c a l e t e r r e s t r i a l u s e . I t was w i t h g r e a t r e s t r a i n t t h a t t h i s g r o u p o f s p e c i a l i s t s e s t i m a t e d a modes t m a r k e t p e n e t r a t i o n w i t h a s l o p e s i m i l a r t o o t h e r f i e l d s i n modern t e c h n o l o g y . T h u s , i n d e e d , i t w i l l t a k e s e v e r a l d e c a d e s f rom t o d a y b e f o r e s o l a r c o n v e r s i o n i n t o e l e c t r i c i t y w i l l become a m a j o r f a c t o r i n o u r n a t a n a l e n e r g y b u d g e t .

However, t h i s i s n o t d i f f e r e n t f rom o t h e r fo rms o f e n e r g y c o n v e r s i o n , a s e . g . n u c l e a r e n e r g y has t a k e n a l m o s t t h r e e d e c a d e s t o o p e r a t e i n excess o f 2 % o f t h e US e l e c t r i c e n e r g y b u d g e t .

On t h e o t h e r hand i t c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t h a t s o l a r e n e r g y c o n v e r s i o n i n t o e l e c t r i c i t y , a f t e r p r o v e n e c o n o m i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e , may grow a t a much f a s t e r r a t e , s i n c e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n g i v e s p r e f e r e n c e t o s o l a r e n e r g y .

V.5-2 n

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t G e n e r a l Manager A p r i l 8 , 1974 Page Two

Us ing a f i g u r e o f 1 0 % o f o u r c u r r e n t l y i n s t a l l e d e l e c t r i c power c a p a c i t y ( 50 M i l l i o n kW) a s c r i t e r i o n f o r a m a r k e t i m p a c t , t h i s i s e q u a l t o 1 B i l l i o n s q u a r e m e t e r s o f s o l a r c e l l s w i t h a c o n s e r v a t i v e t o t a l s y s t e m e f f i c i e n c y o f o n l y 5 % . I f d e p l o y e d on r o o f s o f o n l y c u r r e n t l y e x i s t i n g s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s , t h i s would amount t o l e s s t h a n 2 0 % o f s u c h h o u s e s . The c u r r e n t r o o f i n g i n d u s t r y p r o d u c e s a n n u - a l l y a l m o s t t h i s q u a n t i t y i n r o o f i n g m a t e r i a l . A more s o p h i s t i c a t e d p r o d u c t , e . g . p h o t o g r a p h i c f i l m i s a l s o p r o d u c e d a n n u a l l y i n s i m i l a r q u a n t i t i e s .

With s u f f i c i e n t p r e s s u r e a p p l i e d t h r o u g h t h e e x t e n s i v e n e e d f o r e l e c t r i c e n e r g y , i t i s q u i t e p r o b a b l e t h a t o n l y a few y e a r s a f t e r t h e f i r s t p l a n t f o r mass p r o d u c t i o n o f s o l a r c e l l s i s e s t a b l i s h e d - - ( O n t h e CdS/Cu2S t h i n s i l m s o l a r c e l l f i e l d a l e v e l o f 1 t o 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 m / y e a r p r o d u c t i o n r a t e i s e s t i m a t e d t o r u n s u c h a p l a n t p r o f i t a b l y ) - - m a n y o t h e r p l a n t s w i l l come on l i n e . I t i s w e l l c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t s u c h p l a n t s c a n b e b u i l t w i t h i n f o u r y e a r s f rom d e s i g n t o f u l l o p e r a t i o n . Given s u f f i c i e n t p r e s s u r e t o p r o d u c e , i t may o n l y t a k e e i g h t more y e a r s f rom t h e f i r s t s u c c e s s f u l mass p r o d u c t i o n , o r l e s s t h a n 2 0 y e a r s f rom t o d a y , t o h a v e 1 B i l l i o n m 2 o f s o l a r c ' e l l s p r o d u c e d , e q u i v a l e n t t o more t h a n 50 M i l l i o n kW i n s t a l l e d .

3

I t i s w i t h d e e p c o n c e r n t o p o i n t o u t t h a t s u c h p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s w i t h h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y o n l y i f s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s a r e p l a n n e d f o r t h e n e c e s s a r y r e s e a r c h and d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h i s f i e l d . R e s e a r c h c e n t e r s w i t h o v e r c r i t i c a l s i z e must b e e s t a b l i s h e d s w i f t l y and s u f f i c i e n t a t - t e n t i o n must b e g i v e n t o a f i e l d which i s j u d g e d d e s i r a b l e and by i t s e x p e r t s v e r y p r o b a b l y t e c h n o - e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e .

But t o t h e b e s t o f my knowledge , I am c o n v i n c e d t h a t g i v e n t h i s s u p p o r t , s o l a r c o n v e r s i o n i n t o e l e c t r i c i t y c a n c o n t r i b u t e by t h e end o f t h e 1 9 8 0 ' s more e l e c t r i c e n e r g y t o o u r e n e r g y b u d g e t t h a n n u c l e a r power t o d a y . I s i n c e r e l y f e e l t h a t s o l a r e n e r g y c o n v e r s i o n t o e l e c t r i - c i t y i s a v a l i d c o n t e n d e r t o h e l p a l l e v i a t e t h e e n e r g y s h o r t a g e w i t h i n t h e ' 8 0 ' s .

S i n c e r e l y y o u r s ,

K . W. Btler

KWB/rh

E n c l o s u r e ( r e p r i n t o f J u l y 1973 ChemTech a r t i c l e , "The S o l a r House and I t s P o r t e n t " )

v. 5-3 . - . - , .. . _ . . . . - . .

L

f

L The Innovator’s Magazine JUL

The solar house and its portent 394

K. W. B6er

1973

v. 5-4

sdar house and its portent

No more could any single fuel have met all our past energy needs than will any single form of solar energy conversion meet all future demands. The Solar Home now seems able to shave peak load by controlling the climate generating its electricity.

K. W. Boer

Although solar energy is used in many ways some are often not normally associated with the sun. There is of course photosynthesis. But consider also hydroelectric power, wind, ocean currents, vertical temperature gradients in water and air. solar heating and solar conversion using photovoltaic cells. Let us examine the efficiency of each of these means for using the sun’s rays and then focus on the state of the art on the last and newest-photovoltaic cells.

Solar radiation in mid-U.S. provides an input of 5 kWh/m* day as a yearly average. If converted into mechanical energy, sun shining on the US. could lift in one day the entire crust of our nation, 1,OOO m thick, about 1 meter into the air, and with it all our cities, lakes, and forests. Solar energy impinging a t high noon on an area of 35 km X 35 km equals the total peak capacity of all existing power plants combined. Obviously there is enough solar energy to satisfy our energy demands. Even if we continue to increase our demand to the ultimate saturation level estimated a t 45 kW per capita (22 times the current level), and even if the U.S. population increases to 500 million people, only 0.3% of the solar energy impinging the U.S. would be needed to fill the resulting gigantic demand.

Because of solar irradiations fluctuating nature at the earth’s surface, only these modes that have an easy means of energy storage can satisfy the consumer. Photosynthesis is the classical example: fossil fuels yield the benefit of millions of storage years while about 70 billion tons of carbon is fixed by assi- milation in forests ( I ) . Phytoplankton fix 40 billion

tons, and other vegetation 10 billion tons per year. These processes use about 10% of the COz of the atmosphere, which corresponds to about 130 g carbon fixed per m2 year. With an average solar irradiation of about 10 million Btu/mz year this carbon fixation rate corresponds to an average of 0.5% solar conversion efficiency.

Hydroelectric power also exhibits a low solar energy conversion efficiency. A typical hydroelectric plant’s water reservoir (Philadelphia Electric Co.’s 512,000 kW Conowingo Plant) has an area of 13.4 square miles (2). It produces yearly about 3 billion kWh, although the solar radiation on this area is 68 billion kWh/year. Furthermore, the water teeding the reservoir is collected from an area estimated to occupy 27,000 square miles (2); hence the solar conversion et- ficiency of such a hydroelectric plant is less than .002%.

394 CHEMTECH JULY 1973 9

v.5-5

Winds, though powerful when concentrated in hurricanes, usually represent only a minute fraction of the solar energy transmitted to earth. Neverthe- less, windmills may have a place in supplementing other energy sources where winds are reasonably constant (mountains or certain islands). Again windmills are most useful when energy storage facilities are feasible.

Many newer concepts are currently being discussed to convert solar irradiation into useful energy a t considerahly higher conversion efficiencies; these include solar heating and direct energy conversion. Two ot‘ these hold approaches involve a large area ot‘ several square miles covered with solar collectors.

The concept promoted by Arden Meinel (:{) involves conversion of solar energy into high-grade heat and steam to produce conventional shaft w o r k . For therrnodyriarnic reasons these installations must

be “large”: thousands of kW’s. They also require focusing, hence they need locations with a sufficient amount of clear days, since focusing relinquishes benefits from diffuse radiation from hazy or cloudy skies. This idea has the advantage of using conventional rotary equipment for electric energy conversion and could easily interconnect with the current grid.

Another concept of Peter Glaser ( 4 ) is even more advanced. Glaser suggests putting in a parking orbit a giant satellite with several square miles of solar cells. I t would convert solar energy into electric energy 24 hours per day and beam this energy to earth via microwaves.

It will probably take years of a concerted effort to show techno-economical feasibility of these concepts and it cannot be expected that they.will impact on the national energy budget before the early 80’s.

Solar houses The use of solar energy in a spacially distributed

fashion may offer a possibility to achieve an impact on the national energy budget a t an earlier date. Since both solar energy and energy consumers are spacially distributed, investigation of a direct interface match is ohvious. Photovoltaic solar conversion contains no thermodynamic bias toward the large single conversion installation. hence capital costs for its distrihution, prohlems, and losses can he avoided. Since already existing ”deployment structures,” i.e., roofs, can he used as solar collectors. the solar house is a logical resultant.

CHEMTECH JULY 1973 395

V .5-6

Power Demand, N.J. Ave. Demmd with Summer Dav Supplem. Solar

12M 6am 12N 6pm 12M Time 01 Day

Figure 1. Power demand and possible solar electric conversion in New Jersey for an average s u m m e r day.; 300.000 one-family homes

seals abcite-coated resilient butyl rubber I

roof joists U Figure 2. Cross section through a solar electric/thermal flat plate collector as proposed for t h e solar house

For these economic advantages one has to forego two major advantages of other systems, Glaser’s plant factor near 100% and utilization of an already established steam/electricity interface of the Meinel approach. A system involving solar houses means opening a new market involving numerous inter- faces: architectural, environmental, legal, sociologi- cal and political, to mention just a few. Even if techno-economical feasibility can be shown, what will be the market-acceptance of a solar house?

We have begun to investigate these questions and have developed in a first iteration a solar energy conversion system that may have early market acceptance.

Market acceptance probably requires fullfilling a t least five conditions:

( a ) Low first cost: Less than 10% of the cost of the house before solar modilication

(b) Solar energy converted into compatible energy should cost no more than conventional energy

(c) The solar energy system should have reliability similar to conventional systems.

396 CHEMTECH JULY 1973

( d ) The solar energy system should perform a t . least as well as accepted conventional systems with regard to comfort control, etc.

(e) There should be visible incentives for a t least one member of the builder/consumer chain without major disincentives for any other member

These conditions can only be fulfilled if solar energy is used as supplemental rather than .substitutional energy. Operation of the system in conjunction with electric power utilities ofters distinct advantages for both partners, especially in southern parts of the country, as periods of high insolation are.closely cor- related to periods of high power demand. It is therefore conceivable that solar energy would be used for peak demand relief, while conventional power would be supplied from utilities during night hours and times of inclement weather. Given sufficient incentives, power utilities might subsidize a solar conversion system. Such incentives may include reduced capital need via peak shaving and power they could call on demand from a distributed source of low vulnerability and zero fuel consumption. Subsidies could include relief on first cost.

For simplicity these concepts may be explained using direct solar conversion via solar cells. The single family house can exemplify the main principles involved, and it is also sufficiently small and inexpensive to allow for early experimental verification of various alternatives.

Figure 1 shows for an average summer day a typical power demand curve of New Jersey. If solar cells of 7% conversion efficiency are deployed on 20% of the single family houses in New Jersey, electric energy could be harvested on a sunny day yielding the peak demand reduction shown. However, with only 30% electric storage (e.g., in lead acid batteries a t each house), one could arrive a t almost perfect peak shaving. The system could be held a t optimal levels by radio-controlled successive disconnection of solar houses from the utility grid. Other means of communication from the power utility to the consumer units are currently under investigation for remote meter reading. They too could be employed for switching.

It is proposed that some minimum charge would be maintained in each battery, which could only be used when called for by the power utility in case of a power emergency. The capacity of this emergency reservoir would be large enough to supply a sequence of emergencies interspaced with days of inclement weather with a probability sufficient for utility operation (one possible failure in 10 years, or 99.97% reliability). Maintenance of a relatively large minimum charge in the battery decreases the depth of the charge/discharge cycle and increases the life expectancy of batteries.

In principle, these two concepts-peak shaving and power on demand-can also be applied to thermal energy conversion. Storing thermal energy and disconnecting electrically powered auxiliary equipment (heater and air conditioner) during hours of peak power demand are quite feasible and will now be explained in more detail.

Proposed solar house system A combined solar electric and thermal collector for

rooftop deployment is proposed. Figure 2 shows a

/' \ v. 5-7

cross-section through one version of such a collector. For economic reasons CdS/Cu*S thin-film solar cells are suggested for electricity generation. Heat is picked up from the back surface of these cells. Air is used as heat transport fluid, and is ducted for maintaining homogeneity. Two transparent panes a t the front and foam insulation at the edges and back of the solar collector minimize thermal losses.

The solar cell arrays are connected to an electric power processing unit that contains a means for electric storage and dc to ac inversion. Figure 3 is a schematic of the system.

The heated air is ducted into a heat processing unit with means for thermal energy storage, heat processing for comfort conditioning, and heat exchange to the living space of the house. For the proposed house a heat pump in conjunction with a base heat reservoir will be employed. The purpose of the base heat reservoir is to decrease the temperature difference that the heat pump has to maintain to

. achieve comfort conditioning, and hence will increase the efficiency of the heat pump. The base heat reservoir will operate near room temperature, in the 70" t o 75°F range.

During a sunny winter day heat will be supplied in the morning to the base heat reservoir and amplified. through the heat pump to charge a secondary heat reservoir (near 120°F). This reservoir is interfaced through a heat exchanger with the living space. As noon approaches and the temperature of the solar collector increases sufficiently to heat the secondary reservoir, a direct connection to this reservoir is established and the heat pump is switched off. In late afternoon hours, lower grade heat is again fed into the base reservoir; however, the heat pump is left off to reduce the power load on the external grid. The house is heated via stored heat into early night hours as long as high power demand on the external grid is present. Thereafter the heat pump is switched on to amplify heat from the charged base reservoir and to fill the secondary heat reservoir for use during the next day.

~ Work of the heat pump is necessary primarily after inclement weather. After a sunny day sufficient heat remains in the secondary reservoir to carry the house through a t least one cloudy day. During an extended period of heavy clouds the base reservoir will be charged by additional heat from an auxiliary electric heater.

During a clear summer night the base reservoir will be cooled through air from the collector by radiation cooling. The heat pump will operate mainly during night hours and coolness will be stored in the secondary heat reservoir, typically near 50°F. The capacity of the heat reservoir shall be sufficient to avoid the necessity to operate the heat pump during hours of peak power demand. When operation of the heat pump is necessary during day hours, it will pump heat to the base reservoir, charged a t 75°F during night hours (nocturnal cooling), rather than to the hotter outside, hence improving its performance.

The house will be connected to the external grid during night and early morning hours. Harvested electric energy from solar cells will be stored in a lead acid batterv'of less than a full day's storage ca-

, I !

Ian range light heater

fixed installation dcjac equipment

I

- aux heate(

heat exchanoe

I I

75°F heat 12KF bat:: tery

base pump ''OF secondary heat ieseivoir

power ullllty

L

Figure 3. Electric and thermal system for t h e solar house

pacity. During hours of peak power demand the house will be disconnected from the utility grid and harvested and stored electric energy will be used until a minimum charge (about 40%) or the end of peak power demand (about 9 pm) is reached, a t which time the house is reconnected to the utility grid.

. The harvested electric energy will be used as dc for certain major appliances (e.g., kitchen stove, heating coil of clothes dryer, auxiliary house heater, univer- sal motor fans, and permanent light fixtures) and through individual inverters as ac for the heat pump and the refrigerator.

Karl W. Boer, Director of the Institute of Energy Conversion and Professor ,of Physics and Engineering at the Uni- i '

versity of Delaware received his Dipl. i Phys. and Ph.D. degree from Humboldt } University in Berlin, where he was 1 finally professor with prof. chair. director of the I\: Physics Department and : director of the Laboratory of Dielectric Breakdown at the German Academy of j

the University of Delaware. His main ! field of research. solid state phybics especially related tu CdS, is documented in 165 puhlicatio is a memher of the OST Solar Knercy Assessment P. thc American Institute of Physics. senior memher of II. of the International Solar Energy Society, and listed in LV/fo'+ Who i n thr World.


v. 5-8

r

4.

Figure 4. Solar house model

Future improvements are expected .for the electric battery (11) to increase the economically justifiable storage capacity and for a general dc to ac inverter, to improve the houses interconnect to the utility grid.

Present status A solar house containing the above mentioned fea-

tures is under construction a t The University of Del- aware. I t contains about 1500 ftz of floor area: living/ dining room, two bedrooms, 1Yz baths and kitchen on the main floor and a possibility of adding two more bedrooms a t second floor level. The garage will be used as an exhibition area. Its 45" roof will contain 24 panels, 4 X 8 f t each (Figure 1). Six additional flat plate thermal collectors will be placed in the south wall of the house for heat boosting during winter. Figure 4 shows a model of the solar house.

Initially only part of the roof will be equipped with CdS/CuZS solar cells and make-up electric energy from a power supply, slaved to the solar cell output, will be used to charge an 18 kWh lead acid battery (typically 18 car batteries). As improved CdS/CuZS solar cells become available, additional roof panels will be equipped. Such cells are in development a t our Institute under a grant from NSF/RANN.

The solar cell The CdS/CuZS solar cell is a thin film sandwich of

a metal substrate onto which n-type Cds is evaporat- ed a t a typical 20 wm thickness. A thin p-type layer of CuzS is prepared via ion-exchange reaction, on top of the CdS, and a light transparent grid electrode is cemented to this sandwich and sealed with a uv-resistant Mylar sheet (Figure 5a). Such a cell shows, in full sunlight, a current voltage characteristic such as that given in Figure 5h. At the maximum power point a good cell delivers 19 mA/cm2 a t 0.37 volt with 7% conversion efficiency ( 5 , 6 ) . However, only a small fraction of currently produced cells have such high conversion efficiency. Also most of the cells still degrade markedly when exposed to a

!

1 metal negative electrode - 1 * ,

,

i.

Figure Sa. Cross section through a typical CdS/Cu2S solar cell

humid atmosphere a t elevated temperatures. Recent progress made a t our Institute is promising for developing a IO+ year CdS/CuZS solar panel for roof deployment and with high production yield. The first panels are currently under life and performance test on the roof of the Institute (Figure 6). Typical traces of the electric output (panel voltage a t 40 W load) of such panel is shown for different days of the year in Figure 7.

Heat storage systems For heat storage purposes salt eutectics tha t make

use of heat of fusion will be utilized. The base reservoir will contain a eutectic salt melting near 75"F, the secondary reservoir will have two eutectics in alter- nating containers, one melting near 50" and the other near 120°F. These units are being developed by Dr. M. Telkes of the Institute.

Economic analysis Seven major factors enter into the cost of this sys-

tem. First cost of the solar system, cost of money (interest), lifetime of the components, maintenance, taxes and insurance, and the annual average of harvested energy.

The first cost of the solar system can only be estimated after we know its "seize," which can be determined from a systems analysis for seize optimization. Such analysis is complex because it includes daily averages of insolation for different seasons, performance as influenced by thermal and electrical energy harvesting, systems definition, price of the different components of the system, storage capacity optimization, load analysis and a number of factors related to different interface incentives, which are usually difficult to quantize. Optimization needs to be performed with respect to the overall earning capacity of the system, hence it involves the other factors of the economic analysis mentioned above and therefore requires iteration.

A few estimates for specific solar thermal systems are available and are used as a basis for the first ite-

398 CHEMTECH JULY 1973

v .5-9

. - I 1

v woh) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

20 - Figure 5b. Current voltage characteristic of a typical CdS/CuZS solar cell with 4.3% conversion efficiency

ration of the proposed solar house system. Most,developed is the Lof/Tybout estimate (7), which indicates that for a climate comparable to Dela- ware's, system seize should provide about 50% of the needed energy from the solar harvesting. This estimate has been extended for a thermal/electric harvesting system by V. M. Puri (8). who essentially substantiated the 50% figure. Both investigations also indicate that the minimum for annual cost of energy using such combined solar/conventional system is rather low, and, for reasons of market acceptance the use of a slightly higher ratio may be justifiable.

We have assumed an 80% solar/20% conventional system for the following discussion. It is based on the current state of the art for all components; however, it assumes that mass production technology can be developed with high production yield. We have also assumed that a'life of 15 years can be achieved for all components except the battery, for which a five- year life is used. For a typical single family dwelling a solar elec-

tric/thermal collector area of 800 f t 2 is assumed. The cost of CdS/CuzS solar cells with mass-pro-

duction techniques applied has been estimated by Aaron and Isakoff (9) and by Olson (10) at about $l/ft2. For protection and telltale $0.15/ft2 is assumed. The cost to produce collector panels including installation is estimated (8) at $1.35/ftz. Credit for unnecessary plywood and roof shingles and their installation is estimated at $0.70/ft2. Additional thermal equipment is estimated at $0.45/ftz yield- ings total cost of the solar collector of $2.25/ft2, or $1800 for the 800 ft2 roof.

To this cost one needs to add the cost of the thermal storage estimated at $900 and the cost of the electric power processing unit. Using 50% dc with control switching and individual inverters for refrig- eration systems plus 3 sets of 9 kWh lead acid batteries at $28/kWh to be acquired in year 1, 6, and 11, one estimates a leveled process equipment cost for electric power of $850. Against this cost we apply

Figure 6. Flat plate collector panels for thermal (left background) for electrical (foreground) and for electric/ thermal (right background) solar energy harvesting. The small panel (righl foreground) produces 12.6 volt at almost l amp. The other two panel assemblies produce 1lOvolt at 700 mA

. - 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8 p m . . Noon a.m.

Figure 7. Electric energy output of the electric/thermal solar panel of Figure 6 on ( a ) a clear summer day. ( b ) a cloudy summer day, and ( c ) a partially cloudy winter day at the end of January. The overshoot in (c) between clouds is due to additional light reflected from clouds


V.5-10

a credit for the cost of an oil heater and tank plus installation minus the cost of an electric heater to maintain base storage a t 70°F during inclement winter weather. This cost differential is estimated at $520 credit.

The total cost of the solar electric/thermal system exceeds a conventional system by approximately $3000.

With 6.5% interest, 2.5% levelized amortization, 3% maintenance and insurance one obtains $3601 year as cost of energy (12% of first cost).

In Delaware such a system would produce approximately 80 million Btu’s of useful thermal energy. With a 6% overall electric conversion efficiency and an average of 5 hours sunshine per day, one would obtain 24 kWh of electric energy. This would be equivalent to $1.5Q/million Btu’s and 2.7e/kWh, figures that compare favorably with the current average price of energy in Delaware.

Were power utilities t o service this system, one would have to apply at least a 16% rate to convert first cost into annual cost, or $480/year. This could translate into $2Jmillion Btu’s and 3.7e/kWh. I t is conceivable that the consumer price of energy will be at this level in the late 1970’s and that such a system is economically acceptable.

It should be noted that the estimates have been made for 1972 dollars with no allowance for infla- tionary adjustment. Numerous assumptions have been included with little effort for systems optimization. The given results therefore can only be taken as preliminary. If these findings can be substantiated, a system of the kind proposed here could have an impact on the national energy budget before the end of

4

. - this decade, since essentially all components are state of the art and probably need no technology ’

breakthrough to become acceptable. The solar house currently in construction in Delaware will help to establish the degree of possible acceptance. A major research effort, however, is needed to substantiate the findings and to translate the components of the system into mass prodyction items with acceptable production yield, cost, and life expectancy.

Acknowledgment. It is a pleasure to acknowledge countless hours of helpful discussions with Drs. M. Telkes. P. Massicot, and M. K. Selcuk. Major features of the proposed thermal system were suggested by Dr. Telkes. The work is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the University of Delaware Research Foundation, Delmarva Power and Light, and the U.S: Office of Naval Research.

Author’s address: University of Delaware, Institute of Energy Conversion, Newark, Delaware 19711.

References (1) Smith, W. D.. Oil. New York Times, October 8, 1972. (2) ”Engineering and Research Department.” Report of the Philadelphia

(3) Meinel. A. B. and Meinel, M. P.. Phys. Today. 25.44 (1972). (4) Glaser. P. E.. Chem. Technol., October 1971.606. (5) Bogus K., and Mattes. S.. Ninth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf.,

(6 ) Palz. W., Besson. J. , Nguyen Duy. T., and Vedel, J.. Ninth IEEE Pho-

(7) Ldf. G. 0. G.. andTybout. R. A.. Natur . Resour. J. . 10.263(1970). (8) Puri. V . M.. Master thesis, University of Delaware, 1973. (9) Aaron, H. 0.. and Isakoff, S. E., Thlrd Conf. on Large Scale Solar

Energy Conversion, University of Delaware, October 1971. See also K. W. Boer Ninth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf.. 1972, p 351.

(10) Olson, J.. NSF-RANN Annual Report. Direct Solar Energy Conver- sion for Large Scale Terrestrial Use, No. GI-34872, Dee. 31, 1972.

(11) Murphy, J. J.. Chem. Technol.. August 1971.487.

Electric Co.. 1971. p 35.

1972. p 106.

tovoltaic Specialists Conf.. 1972. p 91.

Copyright 1 9 7 3 by the American Chemical Sociely and reprlllled b y pt?rtn#ss#oii nl the c o p y r ~ q l ~ owner

V.5-11

UhiiTED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY Cob1 F4 ISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

E C 3 1 1974

M r . K. W. B'der Di rec to r , I n s t i t u t e of Energy Conversion Univers i ty o f , Delaware Newark, Delaware 19 7 1 1

Dear M r . Bger:

Thank you f o r your le t ter of Apr i l 8, 1974 commenting on t h e s ta tement on page A.5-34 of t he Atomic Energy Commission's Draf t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program,

"The out look appears t o be t h a t s o l a r energy has l i t t l e p o t e n t i a l as an economic major source of e l e c t r i c i t y f o r s e v e r a l decades."

The A3C has reviewed your l e t t e r and be l i eves t h a t i t does not b a s i c a l l y c o n f l i c t wi th the p o s i t i o n taken i n the Draf t Statement as t o t h e t i m e when s o l a r energy can p o t e n t i a l l y become an economical major source of e l e c t r i c i t y . p ro j ec t ions , covering t h e growth ra te of s o l a r energy u t i l i z a t i o n as a source of e i e c t r i c i t y and t h e con t r ibu t ion i t can make t o the Nat ion 's e l e c t r i c a l supply i n t h e 1980's . You are apparent ly pro- j e c t i n g these o p t i m i s t i c estimates on the b a s i s of i nd iv idua l home i n s t a l l a t i o n s inc luding conversion of e x i s t i n g homes. We do no t believe t h a t conversion to solar p o w e r i s practical f o r e x i s t i n g homes because of t h e a s soc ia t ed high c a p i t a l c o s t s and the preexis tence of i n s t a l l e d hea t ing and l i g h t i n g equipment. It is most l i k e l y t h a t solar equipment w i l l be l a r g e l y confined t o new housing and w i l l . b e introduced q u i t e gradual ly , p rogress ing from those areas where i t i s most c l e a r l y supe r io r t o o t h e r areas as they become competi t ive and as t he s o c i a l (housing codes, s i t e r e s t r i c t i o n s , sun r i g h t s , e t c . ) a c c e p t a b i l i t y grows.

However, even i f one accepts your estimates and concedes t h a t 50 m i l l i o n k i lowa t t s could be i n s t a l l e d i n "less than 20 years from today," t h i s would amunt t o less than 5% of t h e pro jec ted c e n t r a l s t a t i o n capac i ty for t h a t tins period. AlthoFgh t h a t c e r t a i n l y would no t be an in s ig - n i f i c a n t amount, i t could not be considered a G j o r source of e lectr ical ene r g y .

We do have some re se rva t ions on s e v e r a l of your o t h e r

M r . K. W. Bger 2

P lease r e f e r t o Sec t ion 6A.5.5 of t he enclosed F ina l Statement f o r a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o i of ? resent and pro jec ted app l i ca t ions of s o l a r energy as seen by a number of groups inc luding NSF/NASA, Subpanel I X , and t h e MITRE Corporation.

I n addi t ion , w e would l i k e t o no te t h a t CdSfCu S s o l a r cells may no t be a v i ab le source upon which t o bu i ld a l a r g e scale photovol ta ic e lectr ical genera t ing indus t ry . t h e supply oflyadmium t o support a l a r g e scale indus t ry is n o t e s t ab l i shed , , - and p a r t l y because t h e environmental impl ica t ions a r e not favorable . they are pro jec ted t o u l t ima te ly have the lowest cos t ($50/kw) of a l l known p r a c t i c a l s o l a r cells materials. S i l i con s o l a r cel ls , which appear t o be t h e prac i ca l material €or photoelect-r ic app l i ca t ion , c o s t up t o $200,00O/m capi ta$ /cos t of $2,000,000/KWe. For terrestrial app l i ca t ions , estimates - have been made t h a t c a p i t a l cos ts , inc luding c o l l e c t o r s , energy s torage , and power condi t ioning equipment might be about $5,00O/KWe average i n t h e year 2000 and t h a t t h i s cos t might f a l l t o $2,50O/KWe average by t h e year 2020. The study ind ica t ed t h a t s o l a r c o s t s would exceed conventional power c o s t s by a f a c t o r of fou r i n t h e year 2000 and a f a c t o r of 1.7 i n t h e year 2020.

We t r u s t t h e above d iscuss ion p laces our r e spec t ive pos i t i ons on the p o t e n t i a l of s o l a r energy i n the proper perspec t ive . your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR program and your informed comments.

2

This is so p a r t l y because t h e adequacy of

CdS/Cu S s o l a r cells a r e of i n t e r e s t mainly because 2

5 f o r space appl ica t ions , t r a n s l a t i n g t o a t o t a l

Thank you f o r

S incere ly ,

/5phud& J es L. Liverman

W s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

Enclosure : Final Environmental Statement, LMF'BR Program (WASH-1535)

- 11 - 21 See Sec t ion 6A.5.7.2 i n the F ina l Statement MITRE Corporation Report, MTR-6513, "Systems Analysis of So la r Energy Programs," December, 1973

0

I

I

Pab Alto Ofit 664 HAMILTON AVENUE PAL0 ALTO. CALIF. 94301

41s 327-1080

V.6-1

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. l710 N STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 202 783-5710

16 A p r i l 1 9 7 4 New YorL Ofict

1J WEST 441h STREET NEW YORK. N.Y. 10036

212 869-0150

W. H. Pennington D i v i s i o n o f Biomedical and

Environmental Research U. S . A t o m i c Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

D e a r M r . Pennington:

Enclosed are t h r e e c o p i e s of comments w e have p repa red r e g a r d i n g t h e d r a f t envi ronmenta l impact s t a t e m e n t f o r t h e Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program and are s u b m i t t i n g t o you f o r your c o n s i d e r a t i o n pu r suan t t o t h e n o t i c e a t 39 Fed. Reg. 9692 (1974) . These comments concern V o l u m e 11, P a r t 2 , S e c t i o n 4.G.5 (pages 4.G-89 t o 4.G-105) and p r i m a r i l y d i s c u s s lung par - t i c l e d o s e e f f e c t s and r e l a t e d i s s u e s .

W e would a p p r e c i a t e a f u l l r e sponse t o t h e s e comments i n t h e f i n a l impact s t a t e m e n t .

S i n c e r e l y ,

J. G. Spe th

JGS/ket

V.6-2 n

Na?.im! Rem: rces Definse Council, Inc. 1710 N S'TP.EET. N.'%'.

WASHIXGTO:~, D.C. 20036 202 783-5710

Polo A h 0f i : r , 6 6 4 HhKlLTON AVFNUE PAL0 A1 TO, CALI; OA3l)I

415 327-1080

NRDC Comnents on WASH 1535

D r a f t Env i ronmen ta l S t a t e m e n t

Liquid Metal 'Fast Z r c e d e r Reactor Program

Re : Volume 11, P a r t 2 ; Ssct . ion 4 . G . 5 ,

P a r t i c l e Lurq Dose E f f e c t ?

P a g e s 4.G-89 t o 4.G-105

-

A r t h u r R. T a n p l i n

Thomas B. Cochran

On 13 Nov. 1973,an l

I n t r o d u c t i o n

26 Dec. 1973 , w e s u b m i t t e d fo r c o n s i d e r a t i o n

i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of this E r b f t E n v i r c n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t on t h e

LMFBK P r o g r a , o u r conments r e l a t ive t o t h e c a r c i n o g e n i c h a z a r d

of p l u t o n i u n . S u b s e q u e n t l y , c n F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1974, w e suSr;,S.tte<

' a p e t i t i o n t o t h e AEC and CPA a s k i n g f o r r a d i a t i o n p r o t e c t i o n

. l'/ Ta!or.lin, Arthur R . , "Corcnents S u b n i t t e d t o t h e A t o m i c E2ergy - c. Lo:nrIii.ssSI;.c:~, 3 , J i s c u s s i o n of t h e C a r c i n o q a n i o Hzzards of P l u t o n i u n , " Na tu ra l !~csc~urces Defense Counc i l , 1 3 Nov. 1373.

n

- 2 -

s t anda rds t h a t xould be 115,000 f o l d more r e s t r i c t i v e than t h e

p r e s e n t s t anda rds when i n s o l u b l e a lpha-emi t t ing h o t p a r t i c l e s were

involved. '

D r a f t EIS, w e submi t ted a 50-page r e p o r t d e t a i l i n g t h e s c i e n t i f i c

basis f o r t h e reques ted mod i f i ca t ion of t h e s t anda rd .

I n suppor t of t h i s p e t i t i o n and f o r cons ide ra t ion i n t h e

4

Upon r e c e i p t of copies of t h e Dra f t Environmental Impact

S ta tement w e w e r e appa l ldd a t t h e t r ea tmen t of t h i s problem i n

Sec t ion 4.G.5, P a r t i c l e Lung Dose E f f ? c t s , Volume 11, P a r t 2 , pages

4.G-89 t o 4.G-105. These pages are sha l low, s e l f - s e r v i n g and n o t

suppor t ive of t h e conclusion reached on page 4.G-103 t h a t t h e averagd .

lung dose i s appropr i a t e f o r e s t i m a t i n g t h e h e a l t h consequences

from h o t par t ic les . For example, one of t h e re 'ferences (No. 23)

is o n l y an abstract . Apparent ly , t h e AEC w a s only i n t e r e s t e d i n a

s t a t emen t made i n t h e abstract , n o t i n whether t h e experiment was

v a l i d or adequate , o r t h e Commission would have endeavored t o f i n d

a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e complete p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e experiments . However,

as w e s h a l l show l a t e r , t h e experiments a s desc r ibed i n the abstract

are i r r e l e v a n t t o the h o t p a r t i c l e r i s k .

5 I n our r e p o r t and i n our communization of 26 D e c . 1973,

w e c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h e paper of Lushbaugh , e t a l . ,6 wherein

3/ NRDC, " P e t i t i c n t o Amend Radia t ion P r o t e c t i o n Standards As They Apply To Hot P a r t i c l e s ," Before t h e EPA and ?.EC, Natu ra l Resources Defense Counci l , 1 4 Feb. 1974.

4/ Tamplin, Arthur R. and Thomas B. Cochrsn, ____- Radia t ion Standardq for Hot P a r t i c l e s , - Natu ra l Resources Defense Counci l , 1 4 E'eb. 1 3 7 4 .

- - 5 / Ibid, ~ p . 27-28 , an2 Tamplin, Arthur R . , Le t te r t o Liverman, Et. c i t .

- 6/ Lushbaugh, C.C. , e t a l . , A r c h . of' Dexmatol.ogy, Vol. 8 6 , O c l - . 1 9 6 2 ,

-

pp. 461-464.

V. 6-4

- 3 -

a s i n g l e p a r t i c l e o f plutonium produced a precancerous l e s i o n i n

t h e palm of a mechanic.

it demonstrated t h e hazard of a s i n g l e p a r t i c l e .

t h e s e l f - s e r v i n g n a t u r e of t h e s e pages of t h e D r a f t Statement., no

The Lushbaugh a r t ic le i s s i g n i f i c a n t because

As an example of

mention is made of t h e Lushbaugh a r t i c l e , b u t r e fe rence i s made t o

an a r t i c l e by Richmond, e t a l . , ( r e f e r e n c e no. 9) seemingly t o suppor t

t h e conclusion reached on page 4.G-103. W e s ay seemingly because

this a r t i c l e . a c t u a l l y suppor t s o u r arguments: f o r example, Richmond,

et al., s t a t e that similar lesions are produced in the lung by

h o t par t ic les : .

"Such a l e s i o n w i t h co l lagenous degenera t ion and subsequent l i q u e f a c t i o n , due to t h e l a r g e , l o c a l dose o f r a d i a t i o n a t a h igh dose r a t e , has been r epor t ed by Lushbaugii e t a l . , (9) whose d e s c r i p t i o n of a plutonium . l e s i o n found i n t h e dermis i s very s i m i l a r t o t h a t observed for plutonium i n t h e lung."' .

: *

The Hot P a r t i c l e Hazard

Cons ider ing t h e c r i t i c a l n a t u r e of the h o t p a r t i c l e problem,

and t h e AEC's budget of $100 m i l l i o n f o r b iomedica l r e s e a r c h , it i s

indeed a sad commentary t h a t the g e n e r a l p u b l i c h a s t o c o r r e c t the

errors of omission and commission on pages 4.G-89 t o 4.G-105.

However, t o respond a p p r o p r i a t e l y , it w i l l f i r s t be necessary f o r

u s t o p r e s e n t our a n a l y s i s of t h e "Part ic le Lung Dose Effec t . "*

W e s h a l l then d i s c u s s v a r i e d o b j e c t i o n s on a page by page b a s i s

t o pages 4.G-89 t o 4.G-105 and demonstrate t h a t t h e s e pages have

l i t t l e r e l evance t o t h e h o t p a r t i c l e problem and c e r t a i n l y do n o t 8

. . . . .

7/ Richmond, C . R . , e t a l . , Health P h y s i c s , Vol. 1 8 , 1370 , p . 406.

V.6 -5

- 4 -

suppor t t h e conclus ion on page 4.G-103 t h a t , " t h e preponderance

of t h e evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e use of an average lung dose i s

a p p r o p r i a t e i n e s t i m a t i n g h e a l t h consequences and may w e l l be

conse rva t ive .

* * * * * + *

I V . C a l c u l a t i n g t h e Dose Due t o I n s o l u b l e Aipha-Emitters s

The purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n is t o examine the .assumpt ions

i n the r a d i a t i o n s t a n d a r d s above t h a t are i n a p p r o p r i a t e when

a p p l i e d t o i n s o l a b l e a lpna-emi t t ing p a r t i c u l a t e s such as

aerosols of'PuO2.

review of basic d e f i n i t i o n s o f r a d i a t i o n dose and t h e f a c t a r s

The assumptions a r e in t rodaced through a

used t o c a l c u l a t e t h e dose. .

. . A, The Dose Equiva len t

When an X-ray or t h e r a d i a t i o n emi t ted by a r ad ionuc l ide .

passes t h r o u g h . t i s s u e it t r a n s f e r s energy t o t h e cel ls i n . -_ .-- - .F

- 8/ A t t h i s p o i n t w e s h a l l reproduce a p o r t i o n of our r e p o r t , Tamplin and Cochran, 0~ c i t . , pp. 11-34. The n e x t f o o t n o t e , t h e r e f o r e , becomes number 17, which corresponds t o t h e number i n our r e p o r t . earl ier i n t h e r e p o r t . These are l i s t ed below:

Some foo tno te s w i l l r e f e r t o O_E, tit. which occurred

ICRP P u b l i c a t i o n 9 , Recommendations of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commission on Radio loqica l P r o t e c t i o n (Adopted September 1 7 , 1966) , Pergamon Press, N e w York, 1365, p. 14.

NCRP Report No. 39 , Basic Radia t ion P r o t e c t i o n C r i t e r i a , NCRP P u b l i c a t i o n s , Washington, D . C . , J an . 15 , 1 Y 7 1 , p. 1 0 6 .

V.6-6

t h e s e t i s s u e s .

the molecule o f t h e cells: f o r example, such a chemical

change could be a mutation i n a gene.

is a c t u a l l y a measure of t h e energy t r a n s f e r r e d t o o r

absorbed by t h e t i s s u e .

This energy produces chemical changes i n

The r a d i a t i o n dose

The b a s i c . un i t of dose i s t h e

rad (one r a d r e p r e s e n t s t h e abso rp t ion o f 1 0 0 e r g s of

energy pe r gram o f m a t e r i a l ) .

I n a d d i t i o n t o X-rays, r ad ionuc l ides e m i t ganuna r a y s

(high energy X-rays) , b e t a par t ic les ( e l e c t r o n s ) , and' a lpha

particles (helium n u c l e i ) . I n r a d i o b i o l o g i c a l experiments ,

it w a s determined t h a t , whi le t h e s e v a r i o u s - t y p e s of r a d i a t i o n

produced t h e same b i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s , such as cancer, t h e

magnitude of t h e e f f e c t w a s n o t t he same per rad.

example, it w a s found t h a t 100 r ad of a lpha r a d i a t i o n would

produce roughly 1 0 t i m e s as many cancers as 1 0 0 r a d of

X-rays.

way i n which Pu-239 d e p o s i t s i n t h e bone, i t s a lpha p a r t i c l e s

were 5 t i m e s more e f f e c t i v e i n producing bone cancer than t h e

a lpha p a r t i c l e s from radium 17 . i n t h e magnitude of t h e observed e f f e c t s a t t h e same absorbed

dose i n r a d , t h e maximum permiss ib le dose l i m i t s are given

For I

Moreover, it was found t h a t because of t h e s p e c i a l

To account f o r t h e s e d iEferences

in r e m r a t h e r than rad.

The MPLD i s given i n r e m i n Tables I and 11. The

17/ I C R P Pub l i ca t ion 11, " A Review of t h e Rad iosens i t i v i ty of t h e T i s s u e s i n Done," Perqemon Pres s , N e w Y c r k , N . Y., 1967, p. 21. -

V.6-7

18 r e m i s t h e u n i t of D o s e Equ iva len t (DE)

by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e absorbed dose i n r a d by modifying f a c t o r s

to correct fo r t h e s e observed d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e magnitude

. The DE i s obtn ined

of t h e e f f e c t . As a consequence, t h e magnitude of t h e

effect w i l l be t h e same f o r a g iven DE r e g a r d l e s s of t h e

n a t u r e of t h e r a d i a t i o n or t h e manner of r a d i a t i o n .

B. Modifying F a c t o r s

A t the p r e s e n t t i m e , t w o modifying factors a r e employed.

One is the a u a l i t y F a c t o r '(QF) which accounts f o r d i f f e r e n c e s

i n producing b i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s among v a r i o u s forms of

r a d i a t i o n . The o t h e r is t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n , F a c t o r ( D F )

which accoun t s fo r t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e b i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s

when a r a d i o n u c l i d e i s nonuniformly d i s t r i b u t e d i n an . . prgan.

For example, t h e DE f o r X-ray t o bone t i s s u e i s determined ..

by Usiilg QF=1 and DF=l,while t h a t f o r Pu-239 i n t h e bone i s

determined by u s i n g a QF=10 (to account f o r t h e g r e a t e r

e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a l p h a p a r t i c l e i r r a d i a t i o n ) and a DF=5

(to account for t h e p e c u l i a r d i s z r i b u t i o n of Pu i n t h e bone)

A DE=50 r e m from X-rays or Pu-239 would t h u s induce t h e same

1 9 .

number of c a n c e r s i n bone b u t t h e absorSed .dose from thz 'X-rays

would be 50 r a d wh i l e t h a t from Pu-239 would be on ly 1 rad .

. 18/ NCRP Report N o . 39 , 0 ~ . e. , p. 81.

19/ I C R P P u b l i c a t i o n 11, 02. - c i t . , p . 21.

- -

V. 6-8 I - 7 -

In obtaining the derived values in Tables I and 11,

MPLB and MPC, for Pu-239, a QF=lO was employed.

implies, as mentioned above, that the particles of Pu-239,

which emit alpha particle radiation, are 10 times more effective

in inducing cancer than X-rays.

tissue by insoluble plutonium particles is highly nonuniform,

no DF value has been'assigned to these particles and hence, a

DF=1 was employed in determining the derived values in Tables I

This QF

Although the irradiation of

I

I

and 11.

of the observed effects in an organ following uniform and

nonuniform radiation of the tissue with the same radionuclide;

for example:

Ideally, the DF should be determined by the ratio

I

Number of cancers (nonuniform irradiation) .- DF = . . NQmber of cancers (uniform irradiation)

Since direct experimental data are not available, it is

necessary fo derive the DF for insoluble Pu-239 particles from

collateral data. In a subsequent section, we shall present

the biological evidence that strongly suggests that a DF=1

grossly underestimates the DE for insoluble particulates of

PU-239 and, consequently, that the derived standards, MPLB 20 *

and MPC, for this radionuclide, are greatly in Error.

1.n fact, it will be shown that the biological data strongly

suggests that for such particles one should use a DF=115,000.

20/ in insoluble particulate form.

This applies as well to other alpha-emitting actinides -

...

V.6-9

- 8 -

B e f o r e t u r n i n g t o t . e b i o l o g i c a l L a t a i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o

d i s c u s s f i r s t t h e r a d i a t i o n f i e l d around a p a r t i c l e o f Pu02

and t h e r e b y d e f i n e t h e fundamenta l q u e s t i o n s t h a t need t o b e

answered by t h e c o l l a t e r a l d a t a from r a d i o b i o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s .

The u n i q u e form o f t i s s u e i r r a d i a t i o n d i s p l a y e d by

i n s o l u b l e p a r t i c l e s o f Pu-239 o c c u r s b e c a u s e , when Pu-239

d e c a y s , it emits an a l p h a p a r t i c l e w i t h an e n e r g y o f 5 . 1 MeV.

T h i s pa r t i c l e has a r ange (p roduces b i o l o g i c a l damage) o f o n l y

some 40-45 ti ( 0 . 0 0 4 c m ) i n human t i s s u e : I n o t h e r words ,

a Pu-239 p a r t i c l e i n t i s s u e w i l l o n l y i r r a d i a t e a volume of

t i s s u e e n c l o s e d i n a s p h e r e of 4 5 u rad ius- . As one moves i n -

ward from t h e s u r f a c e o f t h i s s p h e r e , t h e r a d i a t i o n i n t e n s i t y

increases g e o m e t r i c a l l y . About h a l f of the a l p h a p a r t i c l e

e n e r g y i s d i s s i p a t e d a t 20 u ( t h a t i s , 'wi th a volume tha t

is 1/8 the t o t a l volume) . T h i s means t h a t t h e a v e r a g e d o s e

d e l i v e r e d i n t h e f i r s t 20 u i s 8 times t h a t d e l i v e r e d i n t h e

r e m a i n i n g 20 u . The f i r s t column of Tab le I11 d e s c r i b e s

the r a d i a t i o n f i e l d around such a , , p a r t i c l e i n s o f t t i s s u e ;

e.g., t h e s k i n . S i n c e t h e l u n g i s a spongy t i s s u e w i t h a l a r g e

a i r volume, t h e r ange of a l p h a p a r t i c l e s i s . l o n g e r i n the.

l u n g and c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e m a s s o f i r r a d i a t e d t i s s u e i s l a r g e r .

P r o f e s s o r Donald Geesanan made a d e t a 2 l e d a n a l y s i s of p lu ton ium

V.6-10

- 9 - \1

particle i r rad ia t ion of deep r e s p i r a t o r y t i s s u s 2 1 .

last t w o columns in Table XI1 describe t h e r a d i a t i o n f i e l d

arounc! such a p a r t i c l e in the, l ung u s i n g Geesaman's lung

mudel**.

The

The dose ra te to t h e e n t i r e organ i s given i n

column 2 of T a b l e 111 for comparison. From Table I11 it i s

s i g n i f i c a n t t o n o t e t h a t w i t h an assumed DF=l, the lung

dose from the sartle part ic le v a r i e s by more than 8 orders of

magnitude depending on w h e t h e r one averages the dose over

the e n t i r e lung or c a l c u l a t e s i t on the basis of the t i s s u e

exposed,.

TABLE I11

. Radia t ion Dose Rate Du@ to a Pu-239 Par t i c l e

(1 u i n d i ame te r , 0.28 e

S o f t Lung T i s sue E n t i r e T i s s u e 25 C l o s e s t 2 6

20 Alveoli Irr adi ated2 Organ I r r a d i a t e d

1 9 ug 27 Mass of Tissue 6 . 4 ug 1000 g c 6 5 ug

Dose R a t e ( r e d y r 1 730,000 0.0003 4008 11,000

21/ Geesaman, Donald P . , An Analysis of t h e Cnrcincqcnic R i s k from an I n s o l u b l e Alpha-Emitting Atlrcsol Deposited i n I)ceu Respiratory Tissue, UCRL-50387 and UCRL-50387 Addendum,

- Lawrence Livermore Labora tory , Livermore, C a l i f . , 1 9 6 8 .

c ---

V.6-11

*' - 10 - It would t a k e 53,000 p a r t i c l e s of t h e s i z e i l l u s t r a t e d

i n T a b l e I11 t o r e a c h t h e MBLB of 0.016 uCi which r e s u l t s

i n 15 rem/yr t o t h e e n t i r e (1000 g) lung . However, as

T a b l e I11 i n d i c a t e s , these particles would i r r a d i a t e o n l y

3 .4 g of t h i s 1000 g to t h e l u n g , b u t at a dose rate Qf

4000 rem/yr28.

r e s u l t i n an i n t e n s e b u t h i g h l y l o c a l i z e d i r r a d i a t i o n . A

Thus, as Table 111 i n d i c a t e s , these p a r t i c l e s

fundamental q u e s t i o n i s , t h e n : i s this i n t e n s e b u t localixed

i r r a d i a t i o n more or less c a r c i n o g e n i c t h a n uniform

i r r a d i a t i o n ? A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i s t h e DF for this p a r t i c u l a r form

. ..

of i r r a d i a t i o n e q u a l t o , g r e a t e r t han , at less t h a n one? I n

the remainder of t h i s s e c t i o n , we review the guidance , or

more a p p r o p r i a t e l y l a c k of guidance , f o r d e a l i n g w i t h thio

hot p a r t i c l e problem. 0

- 22/ Geesaman, Donald P., UCRL-50387, pp. 8 , If.

23/ Langham, Wright H., The Problem of Larga A r e a Plutonium Contaminat ion , U . S. Dept. of H.,=E. W., P u b l i c Health S e r v i c e s , Seminar Paper N o . 002, Dec. 6 , 1 9 6 8 , p. 7.

24/ Long, A.B. , 'Plutonium I n h a l a t i o n : The Burden of N e g l i g i b l e Consequence," Nuclear News, June 1971, p. 71. 25 / Geesaman, Donald P . , UCRL-50387, pp. 13, 15. Based on Geesaman's model for a l u n g a t one-half maximum i n f l a t i o n . Geesaman estimates a t o t a l of 68 a l v e o l i a t r i s k , each 8x10-6 c m 3 i n volume, and deep r e s p i r a t o r y zone t i s s u e d e n s i t y

. -

of 0.12 g/cm3.

26/ See f o o t n o t e 23.

- 27/

- ?

Based on a lunq mass of a standard man =

20/ This iissuines t h a t t h e r a d i a t i o n field of par t ic les do n o t overlap.

1000 g.

the 53,000

V.6-12

- 11 -

C. The H o t P a r t i c l e Problem

It is i m p o r t a n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e ICRP h a s g i v e n

no gu idance w i t h r e s p e c t t o nonuni form i r r a d i a t i o n of t h e l u n g

by i n s o l u b l e a l p h a - e m i t t e r s such as i n s o l u b l e p lu tonium

pa r t i c l e s . I n i t s P u b l i c a t i o n 9 , t h e ICRP s ta tes :

. . . I n t h e meanfime t h e r e i s no c lear e v i d e n c e t o 'show w h e t h e r , w i t h a g i v e n mean abso rbed d o s e , t h e b i o l o g i c a l r i s k a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a non-homogeneous d i s t r i b u t i o n i s greater o r iess t h a n t h e r i s k r e s u l t i n g from a more d i f f u s e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h a t dose i n t h e lung .29

In e f f e c t , t h e ICRP i s s a y i n g t h a t t h e r e - i s no gu idance as

t o t h e r i s k f o r non-homogeneous e x p o s u r e i n t h e l u n g , hence

the MPC, and t h e MPLB are m e a n i n g l e s s f o r i n s o l u b l e p lu ton ium

par t ic les .

The NCRP o f f e r s t h e f o l l o w i n g and s i m i l a r s t a t e m e n t

w i t h respect t o t h e s e p a r t i c l e s :

'(210) The NCRP h a s a r b i t r a r i l y used 1 0 p e r c e n t o f the volume o f t h e o r g a n as t h e s i g n i f i c a n t vo1u:ne f o r i r r a d i a t i o n o f t h e gonads. There are some cases i n which c h o i c e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t volume o r area is v i r t u a l l y mean ing le s s . For example , i f a s i n g l e pa r t i c l e o f r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l f i x e d i n e i t h e r l u n g or lymph node may b e c a r c i n o q e n i c , t h e a v e r a g i n g of d o s e e i t h e r o v e r t h e l u n g o r even a v e r one c c b i c cent imeter may have l i t t l e t o do w i t h t h i s case .30

T h i s h o t p a r t i c l e problem i s 'also w e l l r e c o g n i z e d i n

the b i o l o g i c a l community. The f o l l o w i n g i s e x t r a c t e d from a

29/ ICRP P u b l i c a t i o n 9 , 02. c i t . , p. 4 . - -- 30/ NCRP Repor t N o . 3 9 , OJ. c i t . , pp. 79-80. - --

-

V.6-13

- 12 -

paper b y P r o f e s s o r Donald P. Geesanan:

So t h e r e i s a h o t p a r t i c l e problem w i t h p l u t o n - ium i n t h e l u n g , and t h e h o t p a r t i c l e p rob lem i s n o t u n d e r s t o o d , and t h e r e i s no g u i d a n c e as t o t h e r i s k . I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e r e i s any c o n t r o v e r s y a b o u t t h a t . L e t m e q u o t e t o you f r o n D r . K . 2 . Morgan ' s t e s t i m o n y i n J a n u a r y o f this y e a r b e f o r e t h e J o i n t Committee on A t o m i c E n e r g y , U . S . Congres s . [ a ] D r . K . Z . Morgan is o n e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ' t w o members to t h e main Commit tee of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commission on Radio- l o g i c a l p r o t e c t i o n ; h e h a s b e e n a member o f t h e com- m i t t e e l o n g e r t h a n anyone; and h e i s d i rec tor of Health P h y s i c s D i v i s i o n a t Oak Ridge N a t i o n a l Labora- tory. I q u o t e : "There are many t h i n g s a b o u t r a d i a t i o n e x p o s u r e we d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d , and t h e r e w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be u n c e r t a i n t i e s u n t i l h e a l t h p h y s i c s c a n p r o v i d e a c o h e r e n t t h e o r y o f r a d i a t i o n damage. T h i s i s why some o f t h e b a s i c r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s of t h e USAEC are so i m p o r t a n t . D. P. Geesanan and Tampl in have p o i n t e d

out r e c e n t l y t h e problems o f p lu tonium-239 p a r t i c l e s and t h e u n c e r t a i n t y o f t h e r i s k t o a man who c a r r i e s s u c h a p a r t i c l e o f h i g h s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y i n h i s l u n g s . " A t t h e same h e a r i n g , i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e c o n n i k t e e ' s

- - - inqu i ry a b o u t p r i o r i t i e s i n basic r r s e a r c h on t h e b i o - l o g i c a l e f f e c t s o f r a d i a t i o n , D r . M. E i s e n b u d , t h e n Director of t h e N e w York C i t y E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t c o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i n p a r t r e p l i e d , "For some r easo r . o r o t h e r t h e p a r t i c l e problem h a s n o t come lipon u s i n q u i t e a l i t z l e w h i l e , b u t i t p r o b a b l y w i l l one of t h e s e d a y s . W e a r e ' n o t much f u r t h e r a l o n g on t h e basic q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r a g i v e n amount of e n e r g y de l ivered t o a p r o g r e s s i v e l y smaller and smaller v o l u n e o f t i s s u e is bet te r or w o r s e €or t h e r e c i p i e n t . This is a n o t h e r way of a s k i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of how you c a l c u l a t e t h e d o s e when you i n h a l e a s i n g l e p a r t i c l e . " [bl H e w a s . correct: t h e p rob lem h a s come u p a g a i n .

[a] Morgan, K . 2. , " R a d i a t i o n S t a n d a r d s f o r Reactor S i t i n g , " i n E n v i r o n m n t a l E f f e c t s o f P r o d u c i n q Elec t r ica l Power Phase 2 . Committee on A t o m i c Ene rgy , 9 1 s t C o n g r e s s , 1970. Wash ing ton , D. C a t U . s. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e .

of P r o d u c i n q E l e c t r i c a l Pcwer , Phase 2 . Test iniony p r c s c n t h d a t H e a r i n g s b e f o r e t h e J o i n t C o m m i t t e e 011 A t o m i c Ene rgy , 9 1 s t Congres s , 1970. Washington , D . C.*, U. S. Governrncnt P r i n t i n g O f f i c e .

Tes t imony p r e s e n t e d a t H e a r i n g s b e f o r e t h e J o i n t

[b] E i s e n b u d , M. P a n e l D i s c u s s i o n . I n : Env i ronmen ta l E f f e c t s

V.6-14

2 13 -

n

I n t h e c o n t e x t of h i s comment it i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o refer t o t h e N a t i o n a l Academy of S c i e n c e s , N a t i o n a l Resea rch C o u n c i l r e p o r t o f 1 9 6 1 on t h e E f f e c t s o f I n h a l e d R a d i o a c t i v e Par t ic les . [ c ] The f i r s t s e n t e n c e reads, "The p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d due t o a i r - b o r n e r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c u l a t e s i s p r o b a b l y t h e l e a s t u n d e r s t o o d o f t h e h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t o i i c weapons tes ts , p r o d u c t i o n o f r a d i o e l e m e n t s , and t h e e x p a n d i n g u s e of n u c l e a r e n e r g y f o r power p r o d u c t i o n . " A decade l a t e r t h a t s t a t e m e n t i s s t i l l v a l i d . F i n a l l y l e t m e q u o t e D r s . S a n d e r s , Thompson, and B a i r f rom a paper g i v e n b y them l a s t O c t o b e r . [d] D r . Bair and h i s c o l l e a g u e s have done t h e most r e l e v a n t p l u t o n i u m o x i d e i n h a l a t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s . "Nonuniform i r r a d i a t i o n of t h e l u n g f rom d e p o s i t e d r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c u l a t e s is c l e a r l y more c a r c i n o g e n i c t h a n u n i f o r m e x p o s u r e (on a t o t a l - l u n g dose b a s i s ) , and a l p h a - i r r a d i a t i o n is more c a r c i n o g e n i c t h a n b e t a - i r r a d i a t i o n . The doses r e q u i r e d € o r a substantial tumor i n c i d e n c e , are v e r y h i g h , however, i f measured i n p r o x i m i t y t o t h e p a r t i c l e ; a n d , a g a i n , t h e r e are n o da t a t o e s t a b l i s h t h e low- inc idence end of a d o s e - e f f e c t c u r v e . And t h e r e is no g e n e r a l t h e o r y , o r d a t a on which t o base a t h e o r y , which would

t h e c u r v e i n t o t h e l o w i n c i d e n c e r e g i o n . ' ' I a g r e e and I s u g g e s t t h a t i n s u c h a c i r c u m s t a n c e . i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o view the s t a n d a r d s w i t h extreme c a u t i o n . 3 1

- _ p e r m i t e x t r a p o l a t i o n o f t h e h i g h i n c i d e n c e p o r t i o n o f

IC] U. S. NAS-NRC Subcommit tee , E f f e c t s o f I n h a l e d R a d i c a c t i v e P a r t i c l e s . R e p o r t o f t h e Subcommit tee on I n h a l a t i o n H a z a r d s . Committee on P a t h o l o g i c E f f e c t s o f A t o m i c R a d i a t i o n . N a t i o n a l Academy of S c i e n c e s - N a t i o n a l Resea rch C o u n c i l , Washington , D. C. 1961. P u b l i c a t i o n

L 8 4 8 . NAS-NRC/PUB-848, 1 9 6 1 .

[d] S a n d e r s , C.L. , R.C. Thompson, and W . J . B a i r , "Lung . Cance r : Dose Response S t u d i e s w i t h R a d i o n u c l i d e s . "

I n : I n h a l a t i o n C a r c i n o g e n e s i s . P r o c e e d i n g s o f a B i o l o g y D i v i s i o n , Oak Ridge N a t i o n a l L a b o r a t o r y , c o n f e r e n c e h e l d i n G a t l i n b u r g , T e n n e s s e e , October 8-11, 1969. M.G. Hanna, Jr . , P. N e t t e s h e i m , and J .R. G i l b e r t , eds . , U. S. A t o m i c Energy Commission Symposium Series 1 8 , 1 9 7 0 . pp. 285-303. (CONF-691001).

* . *. 31/ Geesaman, Donald P. , "P lu ton ium and P u b l i c H e a l t h , " Lawrence Liverrn3,r-e L a b o r a t c r y , C a l i f . , GT-121-70, A p r i l 1 9 , 1370 , r e p r o d u c e d i n UndcrAround Uses of N u c l e a r E n e r y , P a r t 2 , H e a r i n g s b e f o r e t h e Subcommit tee on A i r and Water P o i l u t i o n of t h e I

Committee on P u b l i c i d o ~ k r ; , LJ. S . S o n a t e , 9 1 s t C o n g r e s s , 2nd ~ c s s i o n , August 5 , 1970 , pp . 1530-1532.

----

V.6-15

, - 1 4 --

To t h e s e comments, r e f e r e n c e d by Geesaman, c a n be added

t h e comments of D r . A. B. Long:

. . t h e r e i s an u r g e n t need t o d i s p e l 1 t h e s e n s e o f s e c u r i t y and c e r t a i n t y t h a t t h e p r e s e n t l i m i t s f o r t h e maximum p e r m i s s i b l e l u n g burden and the maximum p e r m i s s i b l e a i r c o n c e n t r a t i o n b r i n g . . . t h e p u b l i c s h o u l d b e informed of t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s t h a t e x i s t in t h e s e l i m i t s . " 32

V , Biolosical Data R e l a t e d t o Cancer Risk from I n s o l u b l e

P lu tonium P a r t i c l e s

W e have shown t h a t i n s o l u b l e a l p h a - e n i t t i n g p a r t i c l e s

r e s u l t i n i n t e n s e b u t l o c a l i z e d r a d i a t i o n . They c a n i r r a d i a t e

at v e r y h i g h d o s e s w i t h o u t b e i n g organism- or o r g a n f a t a l .

W e s a i d t h a t t h e avai lable b i o l o g i c a l d a t a s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s

tha t a CF=1 g r o s s l y u n d e r e s t i n a t e s the DE f o r i n s o l u b l e

p a r t i c u l a t e s of Pu-239, and c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e d e r i v e d s t a n d a r d s

MPLB and MPC, f o r t h i s r a d i o n u c l i d e are g r e a t l y in error.

W e now t u r n t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t s i n v o l v i n g c a n c e r i n d u c t i o n

by i n t e n s e l oca l e x p o s u r e , s i n c e t h e s e are e s p e c i a l l y

r e l e v a n t i n j u d g i n g whether o r not' i n s o l u b l e a l p h a - e m i t t i n g

par t ic les c o n s t i t u t e a un ique r i s k . Geesaman c o l l e c t e d

and ana lyzed t h e p e r t i n e n t e x p e r i m e n t s , and what f o l l o w s

V.6-16

,, - 1 5 ' -

33 is e s s e n t i a l l y a review of h i s a n a l y s i s , which h a s become

. . known as the, "Geesaman h y p o t h e s i s . I'

A The Geesaman Hypo thes i s

D r . Roy E. A l b e r t and co-workers performed a number o f

e x p e r i m e n t s on t h e i n d u c t i o n of c a n c e r i n ra t s k i n 34-36

A l b e r t ' s s t u d y o f r a d i a t i o n - i n d u c e d carc inoma i n r a t s k i n

g i v e s some q u a n t i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of a h igh-dose car-

c i n o g e n i c s i t u a t i o n .

to e l e c t r o n r a d i a t i o n w i t h v a r i o u s d e p t h s of maximum p e n e t r a -

t i o n .

A s k i n area of 24 c m 2 was exposed (I

The d o s e r e s p o n s e c u r v e s are rep roduced i n F i g u r e 1.

I n a l l cases the r e s p o n s e a t s u f f i c i e n t l y , h i g h d o s e s (1000-

3000 r e m ) was large, -c1-5 tumors per r a t b y 80 weeks post

e x p o s u r e . I t w a s n o t e d by A l k e r t t h a t when t h e dose y z s

n o r m a l i z e d t o a s k i n d e p t h of 0.27 m i l i m e t e r s , t h e t h r e e

r e s p o n s e c u r v e s became c o n t i n u o u s (See F i g u r e 2 ) . S i n c e t h i s

33/ Geesaman, D.P., UCRL-50387 Addendum, *. c i t .

34 / A l b e r t , R . E . , F . J . Burns , and R.D. Heimbach, "The e f fec t o f p e n e t r a t i o n d e p t h of e l e c t r o n r a d i a t i o n on s k i n tumor f o r m a t i o n i n t h e r a t , " R a d i a t i o n R e s . 30 , 1 9 6 7 , pp. 515-52 . - 35/ A l b e r t , R.E., F . J . Burns , and R.D. Heimbach, "Skin damage and tumor f o r m a t i o n from g r i d and s i e v e p a t t e r n s of e l e c t r o n and b e t a r a d i a t i o n i n t h e r a t , " R a d i a t i o n R e s . 30, 1967, pp. 525-5:

- 36/ A l b e r t , R . E . , F . J . Burns , and R . D . IIeimbach, ."The a s s o c i a t i o n between c h r o n i c r a d i a t i o n damage of t h e h a i r f o l l i c l e s and tumor f o r m a t i o n i n t h e r a t , " R a d i a t i o n Res. 30 , 1967, pp. 590-599.

- - c

-

-

- n

V.6-17

- 16 - *

dep th i s nea r t h e b a s e of t h e h a i r f o l l i c l e which comprises

the d e e p e s t r e s e r v o i r of e p i t h e l i a l c e l l s of t h e germinal

l a y e r , it w a s s u g g e s t i v e t h a t t h i s might be a c r i t i c a l

r e g i o n i n t h e observed ca rc inogenes i s . The sugges t ion gain 3

s i g n i f i c a n c e from t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t m o s t of t h e tumors

are s i m i l a r t o h a i r f o l l i c l e s ; and t h a t i n t h e non-ulcerogenic

dose range t h e number of tumors pe r r a t was i n n e a r l y c o n s t a n t

ra t io (1/2000-1/4000) w i t h t h e n u d e r of a t roph ied h a i r

fol l ic les . Thus t h e ca rc inogenes i s i n t h i s experiment

w a s reGarkably c o r r e l a t e d wi th t h e dose t o and s p e c i f i c

damage o f a p a r t i c u l a r s k i n s t r u c t u r e .

made w i t h s t r i p e and s i e v e p a t t e r n s of roughly 1 m~ sca le ,

geometrical e f f e c t s w e r e observed:

i n d u c t i o n i n the s i e v e geometry was suppressed a t Zoses of

..

When exposures were

most no tab ly the cancer

1700 r ad b u t n o t a t doses of 2300 r ad . The r e d u c t i o n , however,

w a s aga in c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r educ t ion i n damaqe a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d

by a t r o p h i e d h a i r f o l l i c l e s .

To summarize t h i s lmportant*-experiment, a high inc idence

.of cance r w a s observed a f t e r i n t e n s e l o c a l doses of r a d i a t i o n ,

and t h e ca rc inogenes i s was p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e damage or

d i s o r d e r i n g of a c r i t i c a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l u n i t of t h e t isst le,

t h e h a i r f o l l i c l e s .

V.6-18

- 17 -

B 0.75mm e 1 . 4 0 m m 0 1.65 mm (suppl . doto)

Surfoce dose - krod

Fig. 1. Tumor incidence with respect to surface dose at 60 weeks ior three penetration dep ths of electrcns.

8 ,

7 -

6 -

-

2 - . - -

0 I I 1 I 1 I 1 -

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dose at 0.27 mm - krod

Fig..2. Tumor incidence wi th respect to the dose at a depth of 0.27 n m in the sk in at 80 mccks ior t h r e e penetration depths of e lectrons.

Source of F i g u r e s : A l b e r t , R. E . , e t a l . , R a d i a t i o n Res. 3 0 ,

&. G., pp. 515-524, F i g u r e s 5 and 7 ; r ep roduced i n

- --

Geesaman, UCRL-50387 Addendum, Cp. c i t . , p . 2 . -

f \ V.6-19

- 18 - O t h e r s h a v e observed c a r c i n o m a s and sarcomas i n r a t s

and m i c e a f t e r i n t e n s e e x p o s u r e of the s k i n t o i o n i z i n g r a d i a -

t i ~ n ? ~ - ~ ~ . C a n c e r i n d u c t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y a f r e q u e n t e v e n t

i n t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s . Even a t elevated d o s e s , s u c h as

1 2 , 0 0 0 rad of 1 MeV e l e c t r o n s , Boag and Glucksmann induced

-5 sarcomas/lOo cm2. in r a t s . 37

A f e w r e s u l t s fo r r a b b i t s , s h e e p , and s w i n e were

o b t a i n e d a t Hanford 38-41. D e s p i t e t h e s m a l l n u d e r of a n i m a l s 9

- 37/ W i t h e r s , H . R . , "The d o s e - s u r v i v a l r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r i r r a d i a t i o n of e p i t h e l i a l c e l l s o f mouse s k i n , " B r i t . J. Radiol . e, 1 9 6 7 , pp . 187-194.

38/ H u l s e , E . V . , "Tumours of t h e s k i n of mice and o t h e r d e l a y e d e f f e c t s o f e x t e r n a l b e t a i r r a d i a t i o n o f mice u s i n g 9 0 S r and 32P, '1 B r i t . J . Cance r - 1 6 , 1 9 6 2 , pp . 72-86.

39/ Boag, J.W. and A. Glucksmann, " P r o d u c t i o n of c a n c e r s i n r a t s by t h e l o c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f B e t a - r a y s and o f c h e m i c a l c a r c i n o g e n s ," P r o g r e s s i n R a d i o b i o l o g y , J. S. M i t c h e l l , B.E. Kolnes, and C.L. S m i t h , e d s . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e F o u r t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Radiobiology held i n Carnbric?ge, 14-17 Augus t 1955. E d i n b u r g h , O l i v e r and Boyd, 1956 , pp. 476-479.

-

40/ George, L.A. and L.K. R u s t a d , "Gross e f f e c t s of b e t a r a y s

R e s e a r c h Annual R e p o r t f o r 1 9 5 6 , HW-47500, 1957 , pp. 135- i41 .

- 4 1 / George , . L .A . 11, R.L. P e r s h i n g , S . Marks , and L.K. B u s t a d , "Cutaneous f i b r o s a r c o m a i n a r a b b i t f o l l o w i n g b e t a i r r a d i a t i o n , " Hanford A t o m i c P r o d u c t s O p e r a t i o n , B i o l o g y R e s e a r c h Annual Report f o r 1 9 5 9 , €IN-65500, 1 9 6 0 , pp. 68-69.

t h e s k i n , " Hanford A t o m i c P r o d u c t s O p e r a t i o n , B i o l o g y

42/ Ragan , H . A . , W.J. C l a r k e a3d L.K. B u s t a d , " L a t e e f f e c t s o f s k i n i r r a d i a t i p n , I 1 B a t t e l l e - N o r t h w e s t L a b o r a t o r y Annual Report for 1965 i n t h e B i o l o g i c a l S c i e n c e s , BNWL-280, 1 3 5 6 , p p . 1 2 - -

4 3 / K a r a g i a n e s , M.T., E.B. Iloward and J . L . P a l o t a y , U a t t e l l e - N o r t h w e s t L a b o r a t o r y Annual R e p o r t f o r 1967 t o t h e USACC D i v i s i o : ? of B i o l o g y and M e d i c i n e , V o l . I , B i o l o g i c a l Sc iences , BN~:L-71.1, 1968 , pp. 1.10-1.11

V. 6-2r)

- 1 9 - i n v o l v e d , s u r f a c e d o s e s o f 1 6 , 0 0 0 rad from a P32 p l a q u e

i n d u c e d a n a v e r a g e of 1 c a n c e r / a n i m a l which i s i n d i c a t i v e .

t h a t ' l a r g e r m a m m a l s are s i m i l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o s k i n c a n c e r

a f t e r i n t e n s e r a d i a t i o n i n s u l t . Aga in , t h e s e g r o s s obser-

v a t i o n s d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t enhanced tumor i n c i d e n c e does o c c u r

a f te r v e r y h i g h d o s e s .

In t ense l o c a l i z e d rad ia t ior . o f t h e s u b c u t a n e o u s and

i n t r a p e r i t o n e a l t i s s u e of c n i m a l s by Pu-239 h a s a l s o been

shown t o c a u s e a h i g h frequen.cy of c a n c i r i n d u ~ t i o n ~ ~ - ~ ~ .

Now what are t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s t r y i n g t o t e l l u s ?

C e r t a i n l y a r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t a l

r e s u l t s i s : when a c r i t i c a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l u n i t of a t i s s u e

(e.g. , a h a i r f o l l i c l e ) i s i r r z d i a t e d a t a s u f f i c i e n t l y ? i g h

d o s a g e , t h e c h a n c e o f it becoming c a n c e r o u s i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y

10-3 t o l o e 4 . T h i s n a s become known as t h e "Geesaman

h y p o t h e s i s . It

B R e l a t e d Human E x p e r i e n c e

S i n c e t h e above e x p e r i m e n t s . r e l a t e t o c a n c e r i n d u c t i o n

in a n i m a l s , it i s p e r t i n e n t t o a s k w h e t h e r man .is more o r less

4 4 / S a n d e r s , C . L . and T . A . Jackson , " I n d u c t i o n of Mesothe l iom, ls and Sarcomas From ' H o t S F o t s ' of Pu02 A c t i v i t y , " H e a l t h P ! ~ y s i c s , V o l . 2 2 , N o . 6 , J u n e 1 3 7 2 , pp. 755-759.

- --

45/ Lisco , Herman , e t a1 , " C a r c i n o g e n i c P r o F c r t i e s O F R a d i o a c t i v e F i s s i o n P r o d u c t s m d of P l u t o n i u m , 'I Radioloqy , V o l . 4 9 , N o . 3 , S e p t . 1 9 4 7 , pp. 361-363.

- -- --

V . 6-21

- 20 -

s e n s i t i v e to such i n t e n s e l c c a l i z e d r a d i a t i o n . C. C.

Lushbaugh r e p o r t e d on a l e s i o n t h a t developed a s the r e s u l t

of r e s i d u a l Pu-239 from a p u n c t u r e w o i ~ n d ~ ~ . The p a r t i c l e

c o n t a i n e d 0 . 0 8 ug (0.005 uCi) of Pu-239. Commenting on

t he h i s t o l o g i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e l e s i o n , t h e a u t h o r s

s ta te , "The a u t o r a d i o g r a p h s showed precise conf inement o f

a l p h a - t r a c k s t o t h e area of maximum damage and t h e i r

p e n e t r a t i o n i n t o t h e basa l arees o f t he e p i d e r m i s , whexe . . . . e p i t h e l i a l changes t y p i c a l of i o n i z i n g r a d i a t i m e x p o s u r e wcrc

p r e s e n t .

t h e r e f o r e , seemed obv ious . Al though the ' l e s i o n w a s minute , t he changes i n it were s e v e r e . T h e i r s i m i l a r i t y t o known

p r e c a n c e r o u s epidermal c y t o l o g i c c h a n y e s , of course, r&sed '

The c a u s e and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s ,

the q u e s t i o n of t h e u l t i m a t e f a t e of s u c h a l e s i o n s h o u l d i t

be allowed t o e x i s t w i t h o u t s u r g i c a l i n t e r v e n t i o n . . .I1 I n

t h i s case , less t h a n 0 . 1 ug of Pu-239 produced p r e c a n c e r o u s

changes i n human t i s s u e . The d o s e t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g t i s s u e

w a s v e r y i n t e n s e .

smaller q u a n t i t y o f ' Pu-239 would have produced s i m i l a r changes .

The re is ever? r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t a

T h i s p r e c a n c e r o u s l e s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t a s i n g l e Pu-233

par t ic le i r r a d i a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t ( c r i t i c a l ) volume of t i s s u e

and is c a p a b l e o f i n d u c i n g ca1:ccr. The Lushbaugh s t u d y was .

*

- 46/ Lushbaugh, C.C. and J. Langham, 01. L c i t . , pp. 4 6 1 - 4 6 4 .

V. 6-22

- 21 - p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 6 2 . A t t h a t t i m e t h e t o t a l number o f p u n c t u r e

wounds i n man w a s less t h a n 1 ,00047. The t r e a t m e n t o f ‘such

wounds was e x c i s i o n so t h a t t h e t o t a l number of wounds d i s -

p l a y i n g r e s i d u a l c o n t a m i n a t i o n by p lu ton ium p a r t i c l e s was

c e r t a i n l y less t h a n 1 , 0 0 0 . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s wound d a t a would

s u g g e s t t h a t i n s o l u b l e p lu ton ium p a r t i c l e s c o u l d o f f e r a r i s k

of c a n c e r i n d u c t i o n i n man t h a t i s even g r e a t e r t h a n 1/1000

per par t i c l e . I n o t h e r words , when a c r i t i c a l u n i t of t i s s u e

i s i r r a d i a t e d , man may b e more s u s c e p t i b l e t o c a n c e r t h a n t h e

A l b e r t d a t a as a n a l y z e d b y Geesaman would s u g g e s t .

A second case o f p lu ton ium p a r t i c l e i nduced c a n c e r i s

t h a t of M r . Edward Gleason. H e w a s n o t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

the n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y b u t was a f r e i g h t h a n d l e r who un loaded ,

r o t a t e d and r e l o a d e d a crate t h a t w a s con tamina ted by t h e

l e a k i n g ca rboy of Pu-239 s o l u t i o n which it c o n t a i n e d . H e

s u b s e q u e n t l y deve loped an i n f i l t r a t i n q s o f t t i s s u e sarcoma

on the l e f t palin which e v e n t u a l l y r e s u l t e d i n h i s d e a t h .

Although this case i s n o t as cledi: c u t as t h e case o f t h e

p lu ton ium w o r k e r , t h e r e i s an overwhelming med ica l p r o b a b i l i t y

tha t h i s c a n c e r was induced by p lu tonium. M r . G l e a s o n ’ s

u n f o r t u n a t e c o n t a c t w i t h Pu-239 l e a d t o a l a w s u i t ,

47/ Vanderbeck , Z.W., “P lu tonium i n Punc tu re !bunds; ’ IIW-GG172, G n f o r d L a b o r a t o r i e s Opera t ion , J u l y 2 5 , 19GO.

V . 6-23

- 2 2 -

Edward Gleason , e t a1 v . NUMEC. T h i s s u i t w a s e v e n t u a l l y \

se t t led o u t - o f - c o u r t . A d i s c u s s i o n of t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s

case by one of t h e a u t h o r s i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e Appendix B

of t h i s r e p o r t .

These t w o cases, drawn from t h e r e l a t i v e l y small number

of i n d i v i d u a l s s o c o n t a m i n a t e d , s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t t h a t Pu-239

pa r t i c l e s o f f e r a un ique c a r c i n o g e n i c r i s k . They i n d i c a t e

t h a t a s i n g l e p a r t i c l e i s capable of d e l i v e r i n g an i n t e n s e

r a d i a t i o n d o s e t o a c r i t i c a l volume of t i s s u e and t h a t t h i s

d i s r u p t i v e l y i r r a d i a t e d t i s s u e , l i k e an a t r o p h i e d h a i r f o l l i c l e ,

has a h i q h p r o b a b i l i t y (maybe a s h i g h as l/lOOO) of Secon?ing

c a n c e r o u s .

C . R e l a t e d Lung ExDeriments

The s k i n e x p e r i m e n t s with a n i m a l s are r emarkab le i n t h a t 6

a h i g h l y d i s r u p t i v e d o s e of r a d i a t i o n t o a s m a l l p o r t i o n of

r e p a i r n b l o - mammalian t i s s u e produce? f r e q u e n t c a r c i n o g e n e s i s .

The chance of p r o d u c i n g one c a n c e r p e r an imal i s e s s e n t i a l l y

u n i t y . I t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h a t a comparable

deve lopment c o u l d o c c u r i n l u n g t i s s u e .

c

While a number o f ,

r a d i o a c t i v e s u b s t a n c e s have been used t o i n d u c e l u n g c a n c q r s

i n mice and rats4*, it. is d i f f i c u l t t o d e r i v e any c h a r a c t c r i z a -

t i o n of c a r c i n o g e n e s i s from t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s .

- 48 / Cember, : I . , "Radiogenic l u n q c a n c e r , " Psoqress i a Exrwrj m c n t ; l l 'I'Limor l?csc;Irch, F . lioinliurcpr, cd. N e w York , Hafncr Pub1 i s h i n g Coinpany, I n c . , V o l . 4 , 1964, pp. 251-30 3 . -L_---- _I__-

V. 6-24

- 23 - The work o f L a s k i n , e t -- all thouqh n o t s p e c i f i c a l l ;

i n v o l v i n g d e e p r e s p i r a t o r y t i s s u e , d o e s d e m o n s t r a t e a s o u r c e

i n t e n s i t y - r e s p o n s e c u r v e . f o r l u n g t i s s u e 4 ' . A Ru-106

c y l i n d r i c a l s o u r c e w a s i m p l a n t e d i n t h e b r o n c h i o f r a t s , and

c a n c e r s were obse rved t o ar ise from t h e b r o n c h i a l e p i t h e l i u m .

The r e s p o n s e c u r v e i n d i c a t e s a s u b s t a n t i a l r e sponse ( 7 p e r c e n t )

. even a t 0 . 0 0 8 uCi b u r d e n , and a s l o w , app rox ima te ly l o q a r i t h m i c

increase of tumor i n c i d e n c e o v e r three orders of maqnitude

in t h e source i n t e n s i t y . Cor re spond ing f i r s t - y e a r doses t o

a d j a c e n t b r o n c h i a l e p i t h e l i u m v a r i e d from lo3 rad t o 1 C 6 r a d

A n i m a l s w e r e fo l lowed u n t i l d e a t h and i t was obse rved t h a t

e

50 .

the tumor i n c i d e n c e g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e d w i t h t h e d o s e accumul.ated

at d e a t h . The lowest accumula tcd dose associated w i t h a , ' .

cancer w a s 1 4 0 0 r a d . For an accumula ted d o s e o f t h e order o f

106 rad the i n c i d e n c e w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o - t h i r d s .

f o r t i f i e d g l a s s b e a d s ( 0 . 3 u diameter) w i t h s e v e r a l m i c r o c u r i e s

of Sr -90 , and s i n g l e beads were i m p l a n t e d i n t h e l u n g s o f

ra t s . Tumors were obse rved i n 7 o f 23 a n i m a l s . In a second

e x p e r i m e n t C e d e r exposed r a t l u n q s t o Ce-144 p a r t i c l e s :

Cember

For

49/ L a s k i n , S . , M . Kuschner , N . Ne l son , B. A l t s h u l c r , J.H. Har ley and M. D a n i e l s , "Carcinoma of t h e l u n s i n r a t s exposed t o t h e b e t a - r a d i a t i o n of i n t r a - b r o n c h i a l ruthenium105 p e l l e t s . 1. Dose r e s p o n s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , I1 J . N a t l . Cancer I n s t . - 31 ,

S O / A l t s h u l e r , B . , "Dosimetry from a l?ulo6-coated p l a t i n u n pe l le t , " -Rad ia t j . on R e s . 9 - , 1958 , pp. 626-632:

L

1963, pp. 219-231.

n

V . 6-25

- 24 - l

a burden r a n g e of 0 . 5 u C i to 50 uCi t h e o b s e r v e d t u m o r i n c i d e n c e i

51 f l u c t u a t e d be tween 0 . 0 4 and 0 . 3 . A l l of t h e s e l u n g e x p e r i m e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t e n s e e x p o s u r e s

and a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l o f c a r c i n o g e n e s i s . S e v e r e damage

and d i s r u p t i o n of t i s s u e w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e e x p o s u r e s .

The m o s t r e l k v a n t l u n g e x p e r i m e n t i s B a i r ' s ~ ~ 2 3 9 0 2

i n h a l a t i o n s t u d y w i t h b e a g l e s 52-54 . Expasu re w a s t o

p a r t i c u l a t e s o f 0.25 u o r 0 . 5 u median diameter; b u r d e n s were

i n t h e uCi r a n q e . Twenty o f t h e 2 1 d o g s t h a t s u r v i v e d more

than'16OO d a y s p o s t e x p o s u r e had l u n g c a n c e r . Many of t h e s e

cancers w e r e m u l t i c e n t r i c i n o r i g i n . The c a n c e r s a g a i n

a p p e a r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h s e v e r e l u n g i n j u r y . S i n c e t h e

n a t u r a l i n c i d e n c e of t h e d i s c z s e i s s n a l l , i t a p p e a r s t h a t

at t h i s l e v e l o f e x p o s u r e t h e i n d u c t i o n of l u n g c 'ancer i s a

c e r t a i n t y d u r i n g the norma l b e a g l e l i f e s p a n . At t h e s a m e

- 51/ C e m b e r , H . , 02. G. - 5 2 / B a i r , W . J . , J . F . P a r k , and fq. J. C l a r k e , "Long-term s t u d y o f i n h a l e d p l u t o n i u m i n d o g s , I 1 R a t t e l l e M e m o r i a l I n s t i t u t e ( R i c h l a n d ) I AFWL-TR-65-214 , 1966 (AD-631 6 9 0 ) .

53/ P a r k , J . F . , W . J . C l a r k e and W.J. B a i r , " C h r o n i c e f f e c t s o.f i n h a l e d 239Pu02 i n b e a q l e s , " B a t t e l l e - N o r t h w e s t L s b o r a t o r y Annual R e p o r t €or 1967 t o t h e USAEC D i v i s i o n of Biolocjy and Medic ine I V o l . I , B i o l o q i c a l S c i e n c e s , BNWL-714 , 1968 , pp. 3 .3 -3 .4 .

54 / P a r k , J . F . , e t -- a l , " P r o g r e s s i n Beagle Dog S t u d i e s w i t 1 1

T r a n s u r a n i u m E l e m c n t s a t ~ ~ t t e l l c - ~ ~ o r t ~ l ~ . ~ ~ ~ s ~ I i e a l t h Physics, Vel. 2 2 , N o . 6 , J u n e 1 9 7 2 , pp . 803-1319.

- -----

V.6-26

- 25 *

I

t i m e , s i n c e t h e p a t h o l o g i c a l r c s p o n s e i s s a t u r a t e d i n t h i s

e x p e r i m e n t , i t i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o draw any i n f e r e n c e abou t

the magnitude oE t h e r e s p o n s e a t smaller bu rdens . The smallest

burden ( a t d e a t h ) i n a dog showing lung c a n c e r was 0 . 2 uCi.

Presumably t h i s would co r re spond t o a p a r t i c l e burden of

a b o u t l o 7 p a r t i c l e s . 4 Burdens which are s m a l l e r by o r d e r s of

magnitude may s t i l l induce a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c i d e n c e of c a n c e r .

-

Indeed, t h e c a n c e r r i s k may, as f o r s k i n and s o f t t i s s u e s ,

correspoi id t o a r i s k p e r p a r t i c l e i n t h e 'neighborhood of

1/1000 t a . 1 / 1 0 , 0 0 0 .

V I . C r i t i c a l P a r t i c l e A c t i v i t y - N o t a l l p a r t i c l e s would be expec ted t o r e s u l t i n t h e s e

h i q h car,cer p r o b a b i l i t i e s . As t h e p a r t i c l e s i z e o r s p e c i f i c

a c t i v i t y p e r p a r t i c l e i s reduced so is t h e dosage t o t h e

s u r r o u n d i n g t i s s u e .

U

Indged , a t s u f f i c i e n t l y s m a l l p a r t i c l e

s i z e o r s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y , one would e x p e c t t h e r a d i a t i o n

i n s u l t t o behave s i m i l a r t o un i fo rm i r r a d i a t i o n . The s t u d y

of A l b e r t on i n d u c t i o n of c a n c e r i n r a t s k i n i n d i c a t e s 2

p r e c i p i t o u s chanqe i n t h e dose r e sponse cu rve as t h e dosage

exceeds 1 , 0 0 0 r e m . (See F i g u r e 2 ) . T h i s s u g c s t s t h a t a

p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l o f t i s s u e damaqc must o c c u r b e f o r e t h i s

un ique c a r c i n o q e n i c r e sponse o c c u r s . T h e expe r imen t s of

P

55

55/ A l b e r t , R . E . , e t a l , R a d i a t i o n R e s . - 3 0 , 02. c i t . , -- pp. 515-5211, F i q u r e 7 ; rcproduccd i n Gccsaman , UCI<L8-50387 Addcndum, Op. ciC. , - -- -

__ _ - p. 2 .

V . 6 -27

- 2.6 - L a s k i n , et G I i n d i c a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t c a r c i n o q e n i c r e sponse

in t h e l u n g a t 1 4 0 0 r e m , s u g g e s t i n g a comparable s e n s i t i v i t y

56 of l u n g ti..,., = c u e . Geesaman i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t i s s u e r e p a i r

57 t i r n e i n t h e l u n g i s of t h e o r d e r o f one y e a r . I t t h e r e f o r e

seems a p p r o p r i a t e , b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s e r v a t i v e , t o a c c e p t

as gu idance t h a t this enhanced c a n c e r r i s k o c c u r s when p a r t i c l e s

i r r a d i a t e t h e s u r r o u n d i n q l u n g t i s s u e a t a d o s e r a t e of 1030

rem/yr or more. I

TABLE Iv

P a r t i c l e A c t i v i t y and S i z e t o Give a Dose o f

5 8 1 0 0 0 rem/year t o the Surrounding Lung T i s s u e c

5 9 P a r t i c l e P a r t i c l e Diameter ( u ) Ac t i v i t y

(pCi) 2 3 9 p u ~ 2 238Pu0.2

3/4 max i n f l a t e d ( 1 3 8 a l v e o l i ) 0 . 1 4 . 0 . 8 0 .12

1 / 2 max i n f l a t e d ( 6 8 a l v e o l i ) 0 . 0 7 0 . 6 0 . 0 9

Closest 20 a l v e o l i 0 *02 0 . 4 0.06

- L 56/ L a s k i n , e t -- al, 02. G.

L 57/ Geesaman, Donald P . , UCRL-50387, 02. G., p . 11.

58/ I b i d - c _

0 .

- 59/ Based upon s p c c i f i c a c t i v i t y gj.ven by Lanclham, W . H . , 02. e., p . 7 .

V. 6-28

i i , a l p h a a c t i v i t y t o q u a l i f y as a h o t p a r t i c l e . Thus, t h roughou t

t h e remainder of t h i s r e p o r t , h o t p a r t i c l e w i l l imply a p a r t i c l e

n

- 27 - I

As s e e n . f r o m Tab le I V , u s i n g Geesaman's l ung model, a

p a r t i c l e w i t h an a l p h a a c t i v i t y between 0 . 0 2 FCi and 0 . 1 4 pCi

is r e q u i r e d to g i v e a dose o f 1000 rem/yr t o i r r a d i a t e d lung

t i s s u e . For pu rposes of e s t a b l i s h i n g a maximum p e r m i s s i b l e

l u n g p a r t i c l e burden w e w i l l u s e 0 . 0 7 pCi from long h a l f -

l i v e d ( g r e - l t e r t h a n one y e a r ) i s o t o p e s as t h e l i m i t i n g

w i t h a t l e a s t t h i s l i n ? i t i n g a l p h a a c t i v i t y which i s i n s o l u b l e

in l u n g t i s s u e . e

* * * * * * * In summary, t h e n , a h o t p a r t i c l e i s d e f i n e d as one t h a t

d e l i v e r s a dosage of a t l e a s t 1 0 0 0 rem/yr t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g lung

t i s s u e .

and c o n t a i n 0 . 0 7 pCi.

of 1 / 2 0 0 0 .

d e l i v e r l a rge r dosages t o t h e su r round ing t i s s u e , b u t t h e r i s k

per p a r t i c l e would s t i l l b e 1 / 2 0 0 0 . T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t 2 p a r t i c l e s

i n t h e l u n g (as l i t t l e as 0.14 pCi) coFresponds t o r i s k from uni form

i r r a d i a t i o n of t h e lung by 1 6 , 0 0 0 pCi.

F o r 239Pu02 , such a p a r t i c l e would be 0 .G u i n d i a m e t e r

I t would c a r r y a r i s k o f i n d u c i n g lung c a n c s r 0

P a r t i c l e s l a r g e r t han t h i s , would c o n t a i n more pCi and

* * * * * * * . .

S p e c i f i c Comments on S e c t i o n 4.G.5

We s h a l l p roceed th rough tli i s s e c t i o n , 4. G . 5 , pages 4 . G-89

t o 4 .G-105, making s p e c i f i c comments where a p p r o p r i a t e .

Paqcs 4.G-89 t o 9 0 . These pages p r e s e n t background o r g e n e r a l

mater ia l for which l i t t l c conmcnt is n e c e s s a r y . IIowcver two

n

V . 6-29

- 28 - ~

impor tan t s en tences appear on page 4 .G-90 :

"For a c u t e e f f e c t s o c c u r r i n g s h o r t l y a f t e r h igh l e v e l s of r a d i a t i o n , l i m i t i n g t h e volume of t i s s u e i r r a d i a t e d can g r e a t l y ame l io ra t e the outcome. However , adequate d a t a a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e t o i n d i c a t e whether a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s f o r l e t e e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y carc inGgenes is . "

Iie f i n d t h i s l a s t p o i n t t o be i n c r e d i b l e . There i s an

abundance of ev idence t o demonstrate t h a t when s m a l l volume; of

t i s s u e a r e i r r a d i a t e d a t 'high dosages cancer i s a f r e q u e n t , a lmost

i n e v i t a b l e occurrence . I n f a c t , it i s t h i s ev idence t h a t we have

used &ove t o s rgue € o r t h e enhance3 risk of h o t p a r t i c l e s . I n

a d d i t i o n t o t h e expzriments t h a t we r e f e r e n c e d , Table 4 . G . 2 on paga

4.G-97 p r e s e n t s d a t a from ano the r experiment i n which a h igh frequr.ncy

of cancer developed fo l lowing l o c a l i z e d i r r a d i a t i o n a t h igh dosage.

Pages 4 . G - 9 1 t o 9 2 . We have p rev ious ly mentioned t h e l ack

of guidance from ICRP ( s e e page 11) 2nd have a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e

NCR? oi ' fered no guidance i n t h i s r ega rd . I n t h e q u o t a t i o n froin ICRP

P u b l i c a t i o n 1 4 , it is n o t a t s a l l blear t h a t t h e a u t h o r s , an ICRP Task

Group, reviewed Geesaman's work b e f o r e p r e p a r i n g t h i s r e p o r t . Moreover,

whi le t h e opin ion of t h e Task Group may b e worth n o t i n g , it i s impor t an t

t o n o t e t h a t i t i s on ly an opin ion and i s t o t a l l y unsupported i n ICRP c

P u b l i c a t i o n 1 4 . Cons ider ing t h i s i n 1 9 7 4 , i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n

t h e i n t e r v e n i n g 5 y e a r s s i n c e p u b l i c a t i o n of t h a t r e p o r t , adequate sup-

p o r t for t h a t op in ion h a s n o t been for thcoming. Q u i t e t h e c o n t r a r y , the

a n a l y s i s of Geesaman and OUT r e p o r t have emerged t o suppor t t h e o p p o s i t c .

Page 4 . G - 9 4 . O n t h i s page, t h i s s t a t e m e n t appears :

"There- appears t o be a. r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h c r a d i a t i o n dose and t h e t ime of occurrence! of m a l i g n l n c i c s i n an imals :

V.6-30

- 29 -

t h e h i g h e r t h e dose (or i n case o f i n t e r n a l emitters, t h e dose ra te) th'e s h o r t e r t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r a c a n c e r t o appea r . T h i s phenomznon i s f r e q u e n t l y used t o invoke t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f an " e f f e c t i v e t h r e s h o l d " s i n c e t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o p e r m i t c a n c e r fo rma t ion f o l l o x i n g a low dose may b e so g rea t t h a t it exceeds t h e normal l i f e span even if i n d u c t i o n f o l l o w s a . l i n e a r r e l a t i o n w i t h dose . 'I

A s D r . M i r i a m F i n k e l h a s s t a t e d , much of t h e s u p p o r t f o r

t h e concept of an " e f f e c t i v e t h r e s h o l d " i s an a r t i f a c t of expe r imen t s

i n which t o o few a n i m a l s 'were exposed a t t h e lower dosaqes .

Accord ing t o D r . F i n k e l :

" A f t e r a large dose of r a d i a t i o n t h e p o i n t i n t i m e when an animal d i e s w i t h an os teosarcoma nay a r r i v e s o o n e r , b u t this is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y because t h e a c t u a l t im e l a p s i n g up t o t h e o c c u r r e n c e of i r r e v e r s i b l e n e o p l a s t i c change , o r t he " t r u e " l a t e n t p e r i o d i s s h o r t e r when t h e dose i s l a r g e . We know t h a t "tumour p r e s s u r e , " which i s i n d i c a t e d t o some e x t e n t by f i n a l o s t eosa rcoma i n c i d e n c e , i s g o i n g t o b e much g r e a t e r a f t e r a l a r g e dose - - i f it i s s t i l l i n t h e oncogen ic range-- t h a n a f t e r a small one . T h e r e f o r e , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f an animal d y i n g w i t h an os teosarcoma a t any p a r t i c u l a r t i m e w i l l bc rruch g r e a t e r i f i t h a s r e c e i v e d an amount o f radium t h a t g i v e s a h i g h tumour y i e l d t h a n i f i t h a s r e c e i v e d an amount t h a t g i v e s a low tumour y i e l d . I n o t h e r w m d s , i f the d a i l y p r o b a b i l i t y o f d y i n g w i t h tumour i s g r e a t e r , t h e chance of s e e i n g a tumour ear l ier i s also g r e a t e r . Some o f u s t e n d t o confuse h i g h tumour i n c i d e n c e w i t h s h o r t l a t e n t p e r i o d ; i . e . w e t e n d t o assume t h a t "turnour p r e s s u r e , " i f I may a g a i n u s e t h a t term, changes t h e a c t u a l t i m e it t a k e s f o r r a d i a t i o n t o induce a tumour i n s t e a d 05 r e c o g n i z i n g t h e f a c t t h a t "tumour p r e s s u r e " d e t e r n i n e s how many tumours t h e r e w i l l b e , and , as a consequence, i e t e r m i n e s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e r e b e i n g a tumour a t a p a r t i c u l a r t i m e . T h i s i s how I i n t e r p r e t o u r d a t a . w i t h 3ose h a s neve r made v e r y good s e n s e t o m e because more o f o u r d a t a c o n t r a d i c t it. t h a n s u p p o r t it."6o

T h e concep t of l a t e n t p e r i o d changincj

- 60/ F i n k e l , M.P., B.P.. B i s k i s , and P . B . J i n k i n s , " T o x i c i t y o f radium-226 i n mice," Xadia t ion- Induced Cancer (P roceed ings of a Symposium, P.theris , Greece, 2 8 Apr i l -2 Piay, 1969 , Organized by I n t e r n a t i o n a l Atomic Encrqy Agency i n C o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h t!ie World IIeal th- O r g a n i z a t i o n ) , Vienna A u s t r i a : a lso, I n t e r n a t i o n a l A t o m i c Energy Acjcncy, 1 9 6 9 . pp. 389-390.

-

V.6-31

- 30 - Page 4.G-95 and 9 6 , Table 4 . G . 2 1 on page 4.G-97. The concept

of o v e r k i l l or wasted r a d i a t i o n i s in t roduced h e r e and it i s s t a t e d ,

"Such a concept would l e a d t o t h e conclus ion t h a t t h e l a r g e r t h e p a r t i c l e ( i n terms of a c t i v i t y ) t he less e f f e c t i v e i t would be i n producing cancer s i n c e dose r a t e s c l o s e t o t h e p a r t i c l e w o u l d i n c r e a s e a s t h e a c t i v i t y i n c r e a s e d , t he reby l e a d i n g t o a g r e a t e r f r a c t i o n of r a d i a t i o n wasted on dead cells . One experiment showing t h i s e f f e c t was r epor t ed by Passonneaa l r 1 7 u s ing Sr -90 beads on r a t sk in . "61 , 6 2

The concept of o v e r k i l l i s a c t u a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n c u r a n a l y s i s

of t h e h o t p a r t i c l e r i s k . However, a s s t a t e d above on page

t h i s does n o t a . l t e r t h c r i s k p s r p a r t i c l e . A s t he p a r t i c l e becomes

larger t h a n t h e c r i t i c a l a c t i v i t y (volume) , t h e r i s l : . p e r u C i will

d e c r e a s e , b u t n o t t h e r i s k per p a r t i c l e .

The exper iment of Passonneau i s q u i t e s imi l a r t o the experiments

of Al'uert which w e r e d i scussed h o v e . (See pages 1 5 - 1 9 above ) .

The d a t a i n Table 4 . G . 2 1 show that i r r a d i a t i n g a s m a l l p o r t i o n of

r a t s k i n w i t h a h i9h dosage w i l l produce a h igh inc idence of cance r .

A l b e r t ' s exper iments gave r e s u l t s s i m i l a r t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s observed

betweer? t h o bead and p l a t e s t u d i e s of Table 4 . G . 2 1 . A s w e s t a t e d

on page 1 6 above: c

"When exposures were made wi th s t r i p e and s i e v e p a t t e r n s of roughly 1 mm s c a l e , geomet r i ca l e f f e c t s w e r e observed; n o s t

. .

- 61/ Reference #1, U . S . Na t iona l Acadeny of Sc iences - Nat iona l Research Counci l . The e f f e c t s cn p o p u l a t i o n s of exposure t o l o w l e v e l s o f i o n i z i n g r a d i a t i o n . Report o f t h e Advisory Committee on t h e BiologLcal E f f e c t s of I o n i z i n g R a d i a t i o n s . Washington, D . C. ( 1 9 7 2 ) .

- 62/ Reference # 1 7 , Passoneau, e t a l . , "Carc inogenic E f f e c t s o f D i L ' f u s u and Point-Sourco Beta I r r z d i a t i o n on Rat S k i n : F j nal. Summary, " AEC Document -ANL-49 32 , 1952. A\

-0 .

V .6-32

- 31 -

; n o t a b l y t h e cancer i nduc t ion i n t h e s i e v e geometry w a s suppressed a t doses of 1700 R , b u t n o t a t doses of 2300 R. The r e d u c t i o n , however , was aga in c o n s i s t e n t wi th t h e r e d u c t i o n i n damage as c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a t r o p h i e d h a i r . f o l l i c l e s . 'I

Actua l ly i f one chooses t o cons ide r t h e s e beads as p a r t i c l e s ,

t hey would g i v e t h e fo l lowing cancer r i s k s :

150 uCi/bead 1 cancer/46 beads o r p a r t i c l e s

75 uCi/bead 1 cancer/61 beads or p a r t i c l e s

30 uCi/bead 1 cancer/ l07 beads or p a r t i c l e s

On a microcur i e b a s i s , t h e 150 uCi bead i s less e f f e c t i v e . B u t t h n t ' s

no t t h e i s s u e h e r e . The beads derionstra,te t h a t i r r a s i a t i o n o f a

small volume of t i s s u e a t a h igh dose l e a d s t o cance r . There i s no

reason f o r doubt ing t h a t the cancer i n d u c t i o n wi th t h e s e bead:;

a lso r e l a t e s t o a t r o p h i e d h a i r f o l l i c l e s . . .

Page 4.G-95 (footnot31 . The d i s c u s s i o n l e a d i n g t o t h e k a t -

n o t e and t h e foo tno te are:

"Akin t o t h i s concept i s t h a t of ' o v e r k i l l ' of s i n g l e cells close t o t h e p a r t i c l e . (or o t h e r t i s s u e ) may y i e l d dose rates close t o t h e p a r t i c l e which can be high enouqh such t h a t even a r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d t i m e of r e s idence i n t h e t i s s u e w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e dea th of c e l l s w i t h i n a given r a g i u s , dependinq upon t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e ? a r t i c l e and t h e type of r a d i a t i o n . Such cel ls w i l l n o t reproduce and w i l l n o t l e a d t o cancer . "

*However, t h e presence of dead ce l l s , c e l l u l a r products o r f i b r o s i s may be r equ i r ed b e f o r e a c e l l u l a r t r ans fo rma t ion can e x p r e s s i t se l f a s a cancer . This p o s s i b i l i t y r e q u i r e s more s t u d y .

The a c t u a l k i l l i n g of cells and t h e development of a f i b r o t i c

A s i n g l e p a r t i c l e i n t h e lung

. l e s i o n sur rounding t h e h o t p a r t i c l e i s t h e suyges ted mechanism of

V . 6-33

- 32 - car i n o g e n e s i s . As Geeszman s t a t e d :

"Summing u p , i n t e n s e r a d i a t i o n exposure of mamrnalian s k i n and l u n g t i s s u e c ~ m n o i i l y r c s u l % s i n c a n c e r s . T i s s u e i n j u r y and d i s t u r b a n c e a r e a pr imary consequence of i n t e n s e r a d i a t i o n i n s u l t , and a r e obse rved i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h c a r c i n o q e n e s i s . A l b e r t has e x h i b i t e d a s i inple p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y between s k i n carcinomas and a t r o p h i e d h a i r f o l l i c l e s . N o Tenera1 d e s c r i p t i o n of p r e c a r c i n o g e n i c i n - j u r y e x i s t s , b u t i n a c rude sense t h e a v a i l a b l e observa- t i o n s are compa t ib l e w i t h the. i d e a of an in ju ry -med ia t ed c a r c i n o g e n e s i s . C a n c e r . i s a f r e q u e n t i n s t a b i l i t y of t i s s u e . S i n c e t i s s u e i s more t h a n an a g g r e g a t e o f c e l l s , and h a s a s t r u c t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l u n i t y of i t s o w n , . i t would n o t b e s u r p r i s i n g i f some d i s r u p t e d l o c a l i n t e g r i t y , a d i s t u r b e d o r d e r i n g , comprises a pr imary pathway of c a r c i n o g e n e s i s T h e inducti.or: of sarcomas v r i t h ir,cr-t d i s c s of Mylar, ce1loghar.e , T e f l o n and I .! i . l l ipo-e ( B r u e s , et is i n d i c a t i v e t h a t such a mechanisni zxis!-.s. Presumzbly m i t o t i c s t e r i l i z a t i o n i s an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n any c a r c i n o g e n e s i s n e d i a t e d by r z d i a t i o n - i n d u c e d t . i s s u c i n j u r y . The f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n of t h i s f a c t o r i n t h e c a r c i n o g e n i c r e sponse may be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from a l i n e a r i t y i n t h e s u r v i v i n q m i t o t i c f r a c t i o n ,

While r e g r e t t z b l y u n q u a n t i t a t i v e l . t h e h y p o t h e s i s of an i n ju ry -med ia t ed carc inogenes j - s i s . n u g g e s t i v e l y desci- ip- t i v e . I f t h e r e s p i r a t o r y z0p.e of t h e l c n g c m t a i n s a s t r u c t u r e ana logous t o t h e r a t h a i r f o l l i c l e , and i f a r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c u l a t e d e p o s i t e d i n t h e r e s p i r a t o r y zone has t h e c a p a c i t y t o disrupt one o r more of these s t r u c t u r e s and create a p recance rous l e s i o n , t h e n c a n c e r r i s k s of the order of 10-3 t o 10-4 per p a r t i c l e can b e e x p e c t e d . " 6 3 , 6 4

' The f o o t n o t e on page 4.G-95 r e c o g n i z e s t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y and

i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t r e q u i r e s more s t u d y . The purpose of o u r comments

h e r e , of o u r p e t i t i o n and of o u r r e p o r t i s t o i n d i c a t e that t'lis e

i s a v e r y r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y and t h a t it l e a d s t o g r e a t l y enhanced

risks when h o t pa r t i c l e s are invo lved . Any d e c i s i o n , such as t h a t

63/ Geesaman, Donald P., UCRL-50387, Addendum, sp. c i t . , pp. 6-7.

64/ and 71. Rrube . I\lcchzn i s m s of carcinocjeiics is. Argonne N a t i o n a l L a b o r a t o r y , B i o l o q i c a l and Kei i ical Research D i v i s i o n Annuzl Report f o r 1367 , ANL-7409 , 151-155 , 1 9 6 7 .

- B r u e s : e t a 1 . l 7 , r e f e r s t o E r u e s , A.M. , M. Auerbach, G.M. D e Roclic, -

b e i n g made r

V. 6-34

- 33 -

l a t i v e t o t h e LMFBR, must t a k e t h i s enhanced r i s k

f r o m h o t p a r t i c l e s i n t o accoun t . The f a i l u r e t o d o t h i s when

e s t i m a t i n g b i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s i n t h i s Drazt S t a t e m e n t i s one o f

i t s most s e r i o u s f l a w s .

Page 4 . G - 9 C . I t i s i n c o r r e c t t o say t h a t Geesaman6' performel

an a n a l y s i s s imi l a r t o t h a t of D e a n and Laiigham. 66 The l a t t e r

c a l c u l a t e d t h e dose t o i n d i v i d u a l ce l l s and t h e n made estimates o f

t h e c a n c e r r i s k based upon t h e s e c e l l u l a r dosages . Geesaman, as

d iscuLscd &ove, sug5zsLeG t h a t , when t he dose frcjn a par t i c l c t o

t h e i r r a d i a t e d t i s s u e m a s s was suf f i . c i e n t to d i s t u r b i t s a r c l i i t c c t u r e ,

such a d i s r u p t e d t i s s u e mass i n t h e l u n g would pose a un ique

c a r c i n o g e n i c r i c k -- a r i s k s imi l a r t o t h a t posed by a d i s r u p t e d

. ..

h a i r f o l l i c l e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , r e g a r d i n g bot!i a n a l y s e s the f o l l o w i n g

cr i t ic ism i s nade: U

"The r e s u l t s of t h i s work can be q u e s t i o n e d on many grounds i n c l u d i n g e x t r a p o l a t i o n of t h e d a t a on tumors i n r a t s k i n t o tumors i n human l u n j t i s s u e , t h e f i n d i n g of A l b e r t t h a t the s e n s i t i v e cel ls are at. t h e b a s e of t h e follicle i n t he r a t s k i n . . .I'

T h i s i s a n o t h e r of t h e ra t .her i n c r e d i b l e s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s P

s e c t i o n . As t h e AEC knows , most. of our i n f o r m a t i o n i n r a d i o b i o l o g y

comes from an ima l expe r imen t s . S i n c e w e are i n t e r e s t e d h e r e i n

p u b l i c h e a l t h and s a f e t y , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o b e l i e v e , as t h i s

s t a t e m e n t would s u g g e s t , t h a t t h e AEC i s a s k i n g us t o w a i t u n t i l

w e have t h e human c o r p s e s .

I 65 / Geesaman, Donald P . UCRL-50387, Addendum, 0% - c i t .

V.6-35

- 34 - Moreover , it i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t a l l of t h e r e f e r e n c e s

i n this s e c t i o n are t o an ima l d a t a and s t r a n g e l y , no r e f e r e n c e i s

made t o t h e a r t i c l e of Lushbaugh t h a t d e a l s w i t h a p recance rous

l e s i o n i n human s v f t t i s s u e caused by a plutoniurn p a r t i c l e . As

w e i n d i c a t e d on page 2 1 above , i f we had used j u s t the human d a t a

i n e s t i m a t i n g t h e h o t p a r t i c l e r i s k , w e would have had t o a s s i g n a

r i s k per p a r t i c l e t h a t wa; g r e a t e r t h a n 1/1000, r a t h e r #an t h e

1/2000 t h a t we assumed. I n t h i s r e s p e c t , i t is i m p o r t a n t t o r e c d l

(see p ~ g e 3)

l e s i o n s i n t h e lung of h a n s t e r s t h a t are s i m i l a r t o t h a t observed >)7

Lushbaugh i n human s o f t t i s s u e .

such a l e s i o n would d c v e l o p i n t h c human lung a?d t h e n p r o g r e s s into

a cance rous growth.

C h h t R j chmond d e x c n s t r a t c d t h a t h o t p a r t j . c l e s proc'ucc b

There i s l i t t l e r e a s o n t o d c S k t h a t

F i n a l l y , i t is s t a t e d as f a c t cn this page of t h e Draft 2;s:

". . . t h a t t h e assume2 e f f i c i e n c y of p r o d u c t i o n of lung c a n c e r per c e l l does not conform to t h e experience with humans i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n of l u n g t u z o r s f rom ex te rna l r a s i a t i o n . I'

It would be of c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t t o l e a r n t h e b a s i s f o r t h a t

s t a t e m e n t . Dean and Langham, f o r examp$e, made no mention of t h i s

f a c t i n t h e i r a r t i c l e . I n f a c t , t h e d a t a of S s n d e r s that is r e f e r e n c e d

l a t e r i n t h e s e c t i o n would l e a d t o t h e o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n . 67

Paqes 4 .G-98 and 1 0 1 . Here a g a i n t h e expe r imen t s of Richmond

are ment ioned , b u t a g a i n no mention i s made.of t h e s i m i l a r i t y

-- 6 1 / This i s r e f e r e n c e $ 2 4 , c i t e d o n page 4 . G - 1 0 2 , S a n d e r s , C.L. , "Carc inogcn ic iky of I n h a l c d ~ ~ l u t o n i u m - 2 3 8 from Crushed Miczosphercs I "

P a c i f i c Nor thwc :s t Laboratorj .cs Annual Repor t i 3 7 2 ; P a r t 1 13NWL-1'75O : 2 8 ( 1 3 7 3 ) .

L .

. ' .

V . 6-36

- 35 - between t h e lung l e s i o n s produced i n t h e s e expe r imen t s and t h e

human s o f t t i s s u e l e s i o n d e s c r i b e d by Lushbaugh.

I t i s s t a t e d ,

" I n t h e expc r imzn t of Xichmcnd, e t a l . ,' quoted &love, t h e p a r t i c l e s were f i r m l y h e l d i n t h e pulmonary c a p i l l a r i e s and, t h e r e f o r e , were n o t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f p a r t i c l e s a c t u a l l y d e p o s i t e d in t h e a l v e o l i . I4ovement of i r i a l e d p a r t i c l e s i s known t o o c c u r v i a movement by t h e c i l i a , and by macrophage enqu l fmen t . "

The AEC i s a p p a r e n t l y unaware t h a t t h e a l v e o l i axd a s s o c i a t e d

deep r e s p i r a k o r y t i s s u e a r e n o t c i l i a k c d .

of t h e partic!.cs ~50"s occur , bu . t ho:.r .this r e l a t e s t o l u n g c l e z r a n c e

i s not u n c l c r s t o d . Nore s i g n i f i c a n t to t h e h o t p a r t i c l e probl.cn

is the measured l c n g t e r m r e t e n t i o n of these p a r t i c l e s ( i n e x c e s s

of 5 0 0 d a y s ) i n t h e l ~ m i j , whick inay b e r e l a t a d to . the eiigulfmenL

of t h e s e p a r t i c l e s by e p i t h e l i a l ce l l s or by c y t o t o x i c e f fec ts on

macrophages. 6 8

ment a g a i n d i g r e s s e s i n t o t h e i r r e l e v z n t i s s u e of o v e r k i l l .

Page 4.G-102. T h i s page i s a flagrant example

blacrophage engulZn-.enL

... ,.

The d i s c u s s i o n following t h e above qvo ted s t a t e - ,(

of t h e s h a l l o w anc? s e l f - s e r v i r l g n a t u r e of t h i s D r a f t S t a t emen t .

I t i s an i n e x c u s a b l e p r o d u c t f o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t h a s a m u l t i -

b i l l i o n d o l l a r y e a r l y b u d g e t , t h a t i s r e q u e s t i n g funds € o r a m u l t i -

b i l l i o n d o l l a r LMFBR Program, and t h a t h a s a b i o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h

budget of o v e r $ 1 0 0 m i l l i o n p e r y e a r .

.'

68/ S a n d e r s , C . L . and R . R . Adec, Health Phys&~, Vol. 1 8 , 1 9 7 0 , pp. 2 9 3 - 2 9 5 . -

n

http://probl.cn

V . 6-37

- 36 - ,

Near the t o p of t h i s page , the f o l l o w i n g a p p e a r s :

"The f a c t t h a t leukemia i s a r e l a t i v e l y rz rc o c c u r r e n c e i n e x p e r i m e n t a l an ima i s a d m i n i s t e r e d p lu tonium may s e r v e as an i n d i c a t o r t h a t i r r a d i a t i o n of a s m a l l p o r t i o n of an o rgan ( t h e marrow) t o a h i g h dose i s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y t roublesome as l ong as t h e ave rage dose i s low."

The re have been no expe r imen t s where in h o t p a r t i c l e s were i n t r o d u c e d

d i r e c t l y i n t o bone marrow. A s t h e AEC knows, o n l y 'Is01.uble" o r

" s o l u b i l i z e d " p lu tonium i s c a p a b l e ' o f d e p o s i t i o n i n t h e bone. More-

o v e r , as t h e AEC lx~ovrs l t h i s p l u t o n i u a i s d e p o s i t e d p r e f e r e n t i a l l y i n

a c t i v e a r e a s of bone growth ( a s m P J . 1 por t io! i of the orcIi7n). As a

result, a s d i s c u s s d above ( s e e pages 5-5) , kt i s 5 tircss m r e

e f f c c t i v g i n producing bone cznce r t h a n i s rad ium which i s more e v e n l y

d i s t r i b u t e d . T h i s s t a t e r m n t i n t h e D r a f t E I S i s , t h e r e f o r e , g rGss ly

m i s l e a d i n g .

C o n s i d e r i n g what h a s appeared e x l i e r i n t h i s sec t icn ani? a l s o

what f o l l o v x , t h e r e a d e r chn n o t h e l p b e i n g confused b y ' t h e f o l l o w i n g

statement on t h i s page:

"NO clear c u t l o v e r a l l p i c t u r e of t h e r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s o f uniform v e r s u s f o c a l dose can b e drawn from t h e p re se r i t da t a . "

W e would i n a q u a l i t a t i v e sensz a g r e e w i t h t h i s s t a t e m e n t , b u t

we must emphasize t h a t t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t h o t

parti 'cle r a d i a t i o n l e a d s t o an enhanced r i s k of c a n c e r (as much as

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 t i m e s t h a t of un i fo rm i r r a d i a t i o n ) . Fol lowing t h e above s e n t e n c e , t h i s s t a t e r r e n t i s made:

"It a p p e a r s from t h e 238Pu02 microspherc d a t a and t h e s k i n e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h 9 0 S r t h a t , i n t h e 2xtrerr.c s i t u a t i o n 0 2 . a s i n g l e , v e r y a c t i v e p a r t i c l e s , t h e f o c a l r a d i a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y less damaging. I'

We have p rev i .ous ly di.scusscc1 bo th of these expc r imcn t s (see pngcs 3 I

I I

V . 6-38 - 37 -

30-31, 34-35) . As w e i n d i c a t e d i n these d i s c u s s i o n s , t h e s e c x p e r i -

rnents d o n o t sugges. t a r educed r i s k for h o t p a r t i c l e s . Q u i t e t h e

c o n t r a r y , t h e y s t r o n g l y s l lppor t o u r a n a l y s i s of an enhanced r i s k for

h o t par t ic les . Then, w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e i n a c c u r a c y , t h e n e x t s e n t e n c e i s

g iven as j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e conc lud ing remark of t h i s s e c t i o n :

"Cember22 conc ludes t h a t f o r b e t a emitters t h e f o c a l s o u r c e is less damaging t h a n i s t h e un i fo rmly d i s t r i b u t e d s o u r c e . ,169

C e r n b e r ' s e x p e r i m e n t s c o u l d n o t j u s t i f y t h i s c o n c l u s i o n and , i n f ac t , h e d i d n o t so conc lude . Cember concluded:

"Expcrin>,znts with rats have shown t? ia t radiozctive sub- s t a n c e s deposited i n t h e l ung c m l ead to puinionary neoplc?sia. R a d i a t i o n s from S 3 5 , Sr90-k .90 , and ~ c l d 4 c l . i c i t e d b ronchogen ic carcinoina and a1veola.r c e l l carcinoma i n a d d i t i o n t o s e v e r a l o t h e r tumor t y p e s . These expe r imen t s d i d n o t c o n f i r m t h e e x i s t e n c e of a un ique c a r c i n o g e n i c h a z a r d due t o t h e Tn tensc conccn t r zL ion of absorbed e n e r g y i n t h e l u n g t i s s u e i , qmed ia t e ly s u r r o u n d i n g an i n h a l e d r a d i o a c t i v e pa r t i c l e . " 7 0

The major t h r u s t of t h e Cedser a r t i c l e d e a l s w i t i i 1 4 4 C e

The 1 4 4 C e w a s i n t r o d u c e d admixed w i t h

"

par t i c l e s i n t h e l u n g .

stable C e as e i ther CeF3 o r CeC13 i n p a r t i c l e s of a b o u t 1 u i n

d i a m e t e r ( 0 . 5 u 3 ) .

i t s d a u g h t e r p r o d u c t 144Pr emits i3 b e t a of 3 MeV.

144Ce emits a b e t a p a r t i c l e of 0.275 MeV and

The r a t e of

ene rgy l o s s f o r t h e s e be ta p a r t i c l e s i n t i s s u e i s abou t 0 . 2 Kev/u

compared t o some 9 4 Kev/u € o r p lu ton ium a l p h a p a r t i c l e s .

T h i s d i f f e r e n c e in eiiergy loss p e r miczon i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e

a c t i v i t y of t h e 1 e 4 C e emitters would have t o be sone 500 t i m e s

t h a t of t h e 239Pu i n o r d e r t o d e p o s i t t h e same ene rgy i n t h e t i s s u e ~

n

V . 6-39

- 38 *

i r r a d i a t e d by 239Pu a lpha p a r t i c l e s . Moreover, s i n c e t h e QF

f o r a lpha p a r t i c l e s i s 1 0 , t h e 144Ce p a r t i c l e s m u s t have an a c t i v i t y

(10) x (500) o r 5 , 0 0 0 times t h a t of a 233Pu02 p a r t i c l e t o q u a l i f y

as a h o t p a r t i c l e .

p a r t i c l e i s 0 . 0 7 pCi, a h o t p a r t i c l e of 1 4 4 ~ ~ ~ 1 3 would have t o

con ta in more than 350 pCi. Af t e r c o r r e c t i n g f o r t h e h a l f - l i f e of

144Ce (288 days) a h o t p a r t i c l e would have t o con ta in some 5 0 0 pCi.

The geometr ic mean diameter of t h e p a r t i c l e s i n t h e s e exper i -

S ince t h e l i m i t i n g a c t i v i t y of a 239Pu02

ments tias 1 micr-on. The h i g h 9 s t exposure group rcc:eived 50 uCi

of

thn, b e t a - a c t i v i t y 2 e r p a r t i c l e of 1 u diameter i s only 5 pCi.

. i n 30 ug of CeF3. h l l o v i n g a d e n s i t y of G g/cm3 f o r t h e CcF3,

I n o t h e r words, t hese experiments d i d n o t involve h o t p a r i i c l e s a s

de f ined above. The carc inogenes is observed i n t h e s e C e m b e r

experiments , which w a s cons ide rab le , was r e l a t e d t o high t o t a l and

r a t h e r uniform organ dosage ( 1 , 0 0 0 - 3 0 , 0 0 9 r a d ) .

Following t h e mention of t h e Cerher experiments , t h i s

s t a t emen t i s made:

"The d a t a of Grossman, c t a1. ,23 i n d i c a t e a seeming dec rease i n t h e tumor inc idence as well a s i nc reased s u r v i v a l wi th f o c a l sources 02 210Po on i r o n oxide p a r t i c l e s . " 7 1

As w e mentioned p rev ious ly , t h i s r e f e r e n c e i s on ly t o an a b s t r a c t .

The AEC seemed t o be more i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e conclusion than i n

t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e experiment .

71/ Li t t le and W.P. O'Toole, "Role of Carrier P a r t i c l e s i n t h e Induct ion 0: Bronchial Cancer i n Hamsters by 210Po Alpha P a r t i c l e s , " - Rad. -- R e s . - 47:1-. ' ( 1 9 7 1 ) . W e do not know w h e t h e r a morc d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t hesc experiments was published. s u f f j cicnt t c clcqcnstratc t h a t tlic cxpci-imcnt w a s i r r e l e v a r t licrc , r c g a r d l c s s of i t s o v e r a l l v a l i d i t y .

Grossman, e t a1.23 refers t o t h e a b s t r a c t : Grossman, R . N . , J . B .

T h e in format ion given i n t h c dbstractr. war;

V . 6-40

- 39 -

I n t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s , t h e h i g h e s t exposure invo lved 0 . 2 uCi

of 21oPo absorbed on 3 mg o f f e r r i c o x i d e carr ier p a r t i c l e s

(98% < 0 . 7 5 u ) . Allowing a d e n s i t y of 5 g/cm3 f o r t h e part-cies,

t h e 3 mg would i n v o l v e 2 x lo9 p a r t i c l e s o f 0 . 8 u d i a m e t e r .

a c t i v i t y p e r p a r t i c l e would t h e n by o n l y 1 x 10-4 pCi.

The

Again,

t h i s exper iment does n o t i n v o l v e h o t par t ic les as d e f i n e d above.

I t r e p r e s e n t s r a t h e r un i form i r r a d i a t i o n of t h e l u n g t o h i g h dosage

(2,250 t o 4 5 , 0 0 0 rem) and a g a i n , t h e s e l a r g e dosages produce a h i g h

inc idcnci? of cancer.

Followinrj the r e f e r e n c e t o t h e h o v e abstract, t h i s s t a . t e n c n t

a p p e a r s :

" S a n d e r s , 2 4 as a r e s u l t o f h i s s t u d i e s w i t h s o l u b l e 233Pu d e r i v e d from c rushed : ~ i c r o s p i ~ e r e s , a r r i v e s a t a C O i 1 c l u S i O ~ ~ t h a t s p r e a d i n g t h e d o s e mere unir'or-rcly results i n an i n c r e a s e d c a n c e r i n c i d e n c e due t o t h e g r e a t e r nurrber of e p i t h e l i a l ce l l s invo lved . T h i s conclusi .cn w a s based on t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of I - - a s i g n i f i t a n t i n c i d e n c e of t u n o r s i n t h e l u n g and j-n o t h e r t i s s u e s a t r a d i a t i o n d o s e s t h a t have n o t p r e v i o u s l y been shown t o b e c a r c i n o g e n i c i n an ima l s . ' '72

The c o n c l u s i o n o f Sande r s is n o t j u s t i f i e d by t h e expe r imen t

d e s c r i b e d i n t h e r e f e r e n c e d a r t i c l e . Sande r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t h o t

par t ic les were n o t i nvo lved i n t h i s s$pdy.

j u s t i f i e d by t h e r e su l t s of t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t t h e exposure s t a n d a r d s

The c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i s

f o r p lu tonium may be much t o o h i q h ( a t l e a s t 100 times t o 0 h i g h )

even when h o t p a r t i c l e s a r c n o t i n v o l v e d . ?he r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e

t h a t a uni form d o s e of 15 r e m doubled t h e n a t u r a l i n c i d e n c e of lung

- 7 2 / Sande r s refers t o Sandci-s , C . L . , " C a r c i n o g e n i c i t y of 1 n h n l c 3 Plutonium-2 3 8 f rorn Crushed Microsphcrcs , 'I P a c i i i c Northwest Lr?bor- a t o r i e s Annual Repor t 1372, P a r t 1 C W L - 1 7 5 0 : 2 8 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .

http://conclusi.cn

V . 6-41

- 40 -

c a n c e r I n t h e exposed r a t s . A worker i s a l lowed t h i s d o s e each

y e a r and a member of t h e p o p u l a t i o n cou ld accumula te t h i s d o s e i n

1 0 y e a r s . I t i s somewhat d i s t u r b i n g t h a t t h e AEC would r e f e r e n c e

t h i s e x p e r i m e n t and t h e n i g n b r e i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s .

One f u r t h e r p o i n t cou ld be made concer r , ing t h i s s t u d y . It

is n o t a t a l l c l e a r f r o m t h e d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n i n the r e f e r e n c e t h a t

t h e e x p o s u r e s d i d n o t i n v o l v e a feiit hundred h o t p a r t i c l e s . I f t h i s

were s o , t h e s e p a r t i c l e s cou ld have been p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e for thz

obsc rvcd cmcers . Paqe 4 .G-103. - Heire we f inG the coiiclusicin rcac!:ed i n t h i s

s e c t i o n :

"Therefore , t k L e co i lc lus ion i s that t h e p r e p n d e r a n c e of the e v i d e n c e i n z l c a t c s t h c t t h e u s e of an ave rage l u ~ y dosn i s a p p r o p r i a t e i n e s t i m a t i n g health consequences and may well be c o n s e r v a t i v e . "

As we have i n d i c a t e d above, t h e r c is no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r

this c o n c l u s i o n s o f a r as h o t pa r t i c l e s are concerned . I n f a c t ,

w h i l e none o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s d e t r a c t from o u r c o n c l u s i o n s , one of

t h e r e f e r e n c e s used i n t h i s s e c t i o n a c t u a l l y s u p p o r t s oar c o n t e n t i o n

t h a t h o t p a r t i c l e s c a r r y g r e a t l y e n h a n w d c a n c e r r i s k s . 7 3 Islore-

o v e r , t h e e x p e r i m e n t o f Sande r s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r i s k es t inates

f r o m the B I E R Repor t t h a t d i g e r e used i n t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t may be

s e r ious u n d e r e s t i m a t e s of t h e . e f f e c t s even when hot p a r t i c l e s are

n o t i n v a l v e d . .

73/ Richmond, C . R . , e t a l . , 01.. c i t . -

V.6-42

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

Mr. J. G. Speth Natura l Resources Defense Council , Inc. 1710 N. S t r e e t , N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear M r . Speth:

Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1974 commenting on the Atomic Energy Conmission's Draf t Environmental Statement on the Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor (LNFBR) Program. The Statement has been rev ised where appropr i a t e i n response t o t h e many comments rece ived , and a COPY of t h e Final Sta t e - ment is enclosed for your information. The o t h e r enc losure t o t h i s l e t t e r provides responses t o t h e var ious po in t s you r a i s e d , p r imar i ly on p a r t i c l e lung dose e f f e c t s and r e l a t e d i s sues . adequate ly responsive t o your concerns.

We t r u s t t h e enclosed information is

Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e UIFBR Program is appreciated.

S incere ly ,

v s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

Enclosures: 1. AEC S t a f f Response t o Comments 2. Final Environmental Statement ,


V.6-43

ENCLOSURE 1

AEC S t a f f Response t o NKDC Comments op. P a r t i c l e Lung Dose E f f e c t s

1. NRDC Comment (pp. 2-3):

"In o u r r e p o r t and i n o u r cummunication of 26 Dec. 2 9 7 3 , ~e c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h e pape r of Lushbaugh, - e t . &. , 6 where in a s i n g l e p a r t i c l e or' p lutonium produced a p recance rous l e s i o n i n t h e palm of a mechanic. The Lushbaugh a r t i c l e i s s i g n i f i c a n t because i t demons t r a t ed t h e h a z a r d of a s i n g l e p a r t i c l e . A s a n example of t h e s e l f - s e r v i n g n a t u r e of t h e s e pages of t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t , no mention i s made of t h e Lushbaugh a r t i c l e , bur: r e f e r e n c e i s made t o a n a r t i c l e by Richmond, et: a l . , ( r e f e r e n c e no. 9) seeming ly t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n reached on page-4.G-103. We say seemingly because t h i s a r t i c l e a c t u a l l y s u p p o r t s o u r arguments; f o r example, Richmond, e t a l . , s t a t e t h a t s imi l a r l e s i o n s are produced i n t h e l u n g by h o t p a r t i c l e s :

'Such a l e s i o n w i t h c o l l a g e n o u s d e g e n e r a t i o n and subsequen t l i q u e f a c t i o n , due t o t h e l a r g e l o c a l dose of r a d i a t i o n a t a h i g h dose r a t e , h a s been r e p o r t e d by Lushbaugh e t a 1 . , ( 9 ) whose d e s c r i p t i o n of a plutonium l e s i o n found i n t h e dermFs is v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h a t observed f o r p lu ton ium i n t h e l u n g . ' "

AEC Response:

Nowhere i n t h e r e f e r e n c e d pape r of Lushbaugh, e t a l . , i s t h e s t a t e m e n t found t h a t "a s i n g l e p a r t i c l e of plutonium produced a p recance rous l e s i o n . . . I t The a u t h o r s s t a t e t h a t "Their ( t h e tisscle changes obse rved) s i m i l a r i t y t o known cance rous ep ide rma l e y t o l o g i c changes. . . I t . When used by a p a t h o l o g i s t , t h e t e r m "precancerous" means o b s e r v a t i o n s s imi l a r t o t h o s e obse rved i n o t h e r p recance rous t i s s u e s : changes i n n u c l e a r and c e l l s i z e ; l a g g i n g d i f f e r - e n t i a t i o n a l t e r a t i o n s and i n c r e a s e i n m i t o s e s ; and p o l y p l o i d n u c l e a r forms, hyperchromatism and o t h e r changes i n s t a i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Use of t h e t e r m does n o t mean t h a t a malignaccy o r c a n c e r w a s p r e s e n t ; t h e p a t h o l o g i s t is s a y i n g t o - t h e informed r e a d e r t h a t w h i l e changes i n c e l l u l a r appearance,, s i z e and numjer were s e e n , t h e changes n e c e s s a r y f o r a d i a g n o s i s of cance r were n o t s e e n . That such c y t o l o g i c changes can b e r e v e r s e d by c e l l u l a r r e p a i r is w e l l known; c o n v e r s e l y t h e y can a l s o proceed t o d e g e n e r a t e and so are o f t e n accompanied by a h i g h c e l l u l a r d e a t h r a t e when r e p a i r p r o c e s s e s f a i l . p a t e i n c a r c i n o g e n e s i s . Obviously, t h e n , t h e r e i s e c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n c y t o l o g i c changes b e i n g t r u l y p recance rous and b e i n g s imi l a r t o such changes.

The changes r e p o r t e d by Richmond, e t a l . , were s i m i l a r t o t h o s e s e e n by Lushbaugh, e t a l . ( s e e above) which were s i m i l a r t o known p recance rous changes. The plutonium i n t h e lung w a s i n t h e form of 180 !Jm d i a m e t e r

However, d e g e n e r a t e s te r i le and dead ce l l s do n o t p a r t i c i -

V.6-44

2

239Pu02 p a r t i c l e s and i n j e c t e d i n t r a v e n o u s l y i n t o t h e j u g u l a r v e i n so as t o l o d g e i n t h e v a s c u l a t u r e of t h e lung . (Obviously, t h e i n h a l a t i o r ? of p a r t i c l e s t h i s s i z e would be n e a r l y i m p o s s i b l e . ) The changes are s t a t e d as b e i n g c o n s i d e r a b l y less t h a n would no rma l ly be expec ted from t h e same q u a n t i t y of p lu ton ium d i s t r i b u t e d th roughou t t h e l u n g , and novhere i n t h e paper are t h e changes s t a t e d t o be e i t h e r p r e c a n c e r o u s o r cance rous .

2. NBDC Comment (pp. 27-28):

"Pages 4.G-89 t o 90. material f o r which l i t t l e comment i s n e c e s s a r y . However two i m p o r t a n t s e n t e n c e s appea r on page 4.6-90:

-~ These pages p r e s e n t background or g e n e r a l

'For a c u t e e f f e c t s o c c u r r i n g s h o r t l y a f t e r high l e v e l s of r a d i a t i o n l i m i t i n g t h e voiume of t i s s u e i r r a d i a t e d

j can g r e a t l y a m e l i o r a t e t h e outcome. l iovever, a d e q u a t e d a t a are n o t a v a i l a b l e t o i n d i c a t e whether a sirri lar s i t u a t i o n ex is t s f o r l a t e e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y c a r c i n o g e n e s i s . '

"We f i n d t h i s l as t p o i n t t o be i n c r e d i b l e . There i s a n abundance of e v i d e n c e t o d e m o n s t r a t e tha t when s m a l l v o l u n e s of t i s s u e a r c i r r a d i a t e d a t h i g h d o s a g e s , c a n c e r i s a f r e o u e n t , a lmos t i n e v i t a b l e o c c u r r e n c e . I n f a c t , i t is t h i s e v i d e n c e that: w e have used above t o a r g u e f o r t h e enhanced r t s k of h o t p a r t i c l e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t s t h a t ve r e f e r e n c e d , Tab le 4.G.2 on page 4.G-37 p r e s e n t s d a t a from a n o t h e r experiment i n which a h i g h f r equency of c a n c e r developed fol lorzing l o c a l i z e d i r r a d i a t i o n a t h i g h dosage .

AEC Response: .-

The h e a r t of t h i s comment seems to be i n t h e s t a t e m e n t : "There is a n abundance Qf e v i d e n c e t o demons t r a t e t h a t when small volumes of t i s s u e are i r r a d i a t e d a t h iFh d o s a z e s c a n c e r is a f r e a u e n t , a lmos t i n e v i t a b l e o c c u r r e n c e . " The re i s no doubt t h a t r a d i a t i o n can c a u s e c a n c e r when d e l i v e r e d i n h i g h enough d o s e s t o r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e volumes of t i s c u e . The b a s i c i s s u e , however, i s whether t h e number of induced c a n c e r s i s g r e a t e r i f t h e r a d i a t i o n ene rgy is c o n c e n t r a t e d i n a spa11 t i s s u e vo lune o r i f i t i s d i s t r i b u t e d un i fo rmlv th rouehou t a l l of t h e orqan. The "evidence" f o r a g r e a t e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s p r e s e n t e d by t h e ::pDC is based l a r g e l y on a t h e o r y of c a n c e r p r o d u c t i o n which i s u n t e s t e d and which is r e f e r r e d t o by t h e XRDC as t h e "Geesarran hvqo thcs i c . " The examina t ion of i n f o m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e i n t h e r e n n r t w a s i n t & e d t o look f o r ev idence t o see whether t h e p r e d i c t i o n s of t h i s h u m t h e s i s liere c o r r e c t o r dnetlier o t h e r p l a u s i b l e hypo theses involvinR g r e a t e r c e l l i n t e r a c t i o n s o r m u l t i p l e i n t e r a c t : i o n s i n t h e c e l l cou ld a v l y .

We would a l s o submit t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e c a n c e r ou tcone a t h i g h d o s e s as ". . . . .a f r e q u e n t , a lnos t i n e v i t a b l e occur rence ' ' (emphasis

V.6-45

3

added) is u n j u s t i f i e d . It i s t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t compels t h e r a d i o - t h e r a p i s t t o res t r ic t h i s f i e l d of i r r a d i a t i o n t o as smal l a volume as p o s s i b l e . H e minimizes t h e f i e l d volume so as t o r educe t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of c a n c e r i n d u c t i o n .

Regarding Tab le 4.G.21, i t shou ld b e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e r e w a s a lesser r i s k as t h e p a r t i c l e became " h o t t e r , " i . e . , a s t h e a c t i v i t y p e s bead i n c r e a s e d , t h e number of tumors p e r m i c r o c u r i e d e c r e a s e d ; however, t h i s t a b l e h a s been d e l e t e d from t h e F i n a l S t a t emen t s i n c e i t is now a v a i l a b l e i n t h e r e f e r e n c e d material .

3. WC Comment (p. 28):

"Pages 4.G-91 t o 92 . We have p r e v i o u s l y mentioned t h e l a c k of gu idance from ICRP ( s e e page 11) and h-ave a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e NCRP o f f e r e d no guidance i n t h i s r e g a r d . I n t h e q u o t a t i o n from ICRP P u b l i c a t i o n 1 4 , i t i s n o t a t a l l clear t h a t t h e a u t h o r s , an ICRP Task Group, reviewed Geesaman's work b e f o r e p r e p a r i n g t h i s r e p c r t . Moreover, w h i l e t h e o p i n i o n of t h e Task Group may b e worth n o t i n g , it i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t i t is o n l y an o p i n i o n and i s t o t a l l y unsupported i n I C R P P u b l l c a t i o n 1 4 . Cons ide r ing t h i s i n 1974, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n t h e i n t e r v e n i n g 4 y e a r s s i n c e p u b l i c a t i o n of t h a t r e p o r t , a d e q u a t e s u p p o r t f o r t h a t o p i n i o n h a s n o t been fo r thcoming . Q u i t e t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e a n a l y s i s of Geesaman and o u r r e p o r t have emerged t o s u p p o r t t h e o p p o s i t e . "

AEC Response:

The ICRP and NCRP have p e r i o d i c a l l y c o n s i d e r e d and a d d r e s s e d t h i s q u e s t i o n . However, i t i s a p p a r e n t t h s t t h e s e knowledgeable b o d i e s c o n s i d e r t h e u s e of a v e r a g e o rgan dose t o be a c c e p t a b l e i n t he absence of any ev idence t h a t t h e non-uniform dose d i s t r i b u t i o n i s more haza rdous .

It is c e r t a i n t h a t members o f t h e ICRP and NCRP have been aware n o t o n l y o f Geesaman's h y p o t h e s i s , b u t a l s o t h a t i t i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a t e d by e x p e r i m e n t a l ev idence .

4. NRDC Comment (pp. 28-29):

"Page 4.G-94. On t h i s page, t h i s s t a t e m e n t a p p e a r s :

'There a p p e a r s t o b e 9 r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e r a d i a t i o n dose and t h e t i m e of o c c u r r e n c e of m a l i g n a n c i e s i n an ima l s : t h e h i g h e r t h e dose ( o r i n t h e case of i n t e r n a l emitters, t h e dose ra te ) t h e s h o r t e r t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r a c a n c e r t o appear. T h i s phenomenon is f r e q u e n t l y used t o invoke t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a n " e f f e c t i v e t h r e s h o l d " s i n c e t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o pe rmi t c a n c e r f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w i n g a

V.6-46

4

low dose may be so g r e a t t h a t i t exceeds t h e normal l i f e span even i f i n d u c t i o n f o l l o w s a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n w i t h dose. '

"AS D r . M i r i a m F i n k e l h a s s t a t e d , much o f t h e s u p p o r t f o r t h e concept of a n ' e f f e c t i v e t h r e s h o l d ' is a n a r t i f a c t of expe r imen t s i n which t o o few an ima l s were exposed a t t h e lower dosages. According t o D r . F i n k e l :

' A f t e r a l a r g e dose of r a d i a t i o n t h e p o i n t i n time when an an ima l d i e s w i t h a n osteosarcoma may a r r i v e s o o n e r , b u t t h i s i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e c a u s e - t h e a c t u a l t i m e e l a p s i n g up t o t h e o c c u r r e n c e of i r r e v e r s i b l e n e o p l a s t i c change, o r t h e " t r u e " l a t e n t p e r i o d i s s h o r t e r when t h e dose i s l a r g e . W e know t h a t "tumour p r e s s u r e , " which is i n d i - c a t e d t o some e x t e n t by f i n a l osteosarcoma i n c i d e n c e , i s go ing t o be much g r e a t e r a f t e r a l a r g e dose--if i t is s t i l l i n t h e oncogenic range--than a f t e r a osteosarcoma a t any p a r t i c u l a r t i m e w i l l be much g r e a t e r i f i t h a s r e c e i v e d an amount t h a t g i v e s a low tumour y i e l d . I n o t h e r words, i f t h e d a i l y p r o b a b i l i t y of dy ing w i t h tumour is g r e a t e r , t h e chance of s e e i n g a tumour ear l ie r i s a l s o g r e a t e r . Some of u s t:end t o confuse h i g h tumor i n c i d e n c e w i t h s h o r t l a t e n t p e r i o d ; i . e . we t end t o assume t h a t "tumour p r e s s u r e , " if I may a g a i n u s e t h a t t e r m , changes t h e a c t u a l t i m e i t t a k e s f o r r a d i a t i o n t o induce a tumour i n s t e a d of r e c o g n i z i n g t h e f a c t t h a t "tumour p r e s s u r e " d e t e r m i n e s how many tunours t h e r e w i l l b e , and a s a consequence, d e t e r m i n e s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e r e be ing a tumour a t a p a r t i c u l a r t i m e . T h i s is how I i n t e r p r e t ou r d a t a . The concep t o f l a t e n t p e r i o d changing w i t h dose h a s n e v e r made v e r y good s e n s e t o m e beca e more o f o u r d a t a c o n t r a d i c t i t t h a n s u p p o r t i t . ' % I 1

AEC Response:

The r e f e r e n c e d statement does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t .

5. hw)C C o m e n t (pp. 30-31):

"Page 4.G-95 and 96, Tab le 4 . G . 2 1 on page 4.G-97. The concept of o v e r k i l l o r wasted r a d i a t i o n is i n t r o d u c e d here and i t is s t a t e d ,

' '60Finkel, M. P . , B. C. B i s k i s , and P . B. J i n k i n s , " T o x i c i t y of radium-226 i n mice," Radiat ion-Induced Canc-e2 (Proceedings of a Symposium, Athens, Greece, 28 Apr i i -2 May, 1969, 0rgP.nized by I n t e r n a t i o n a l Atomic Energy Agency i n C o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h t h e World Hea l th O r g a n i z a t i o n ) , Vienna, A u s t r i a : a l s o , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Atomic Energy Agency, 1969, pp. 389-390.''

V.6-47

5

'Such a concep t would l e a d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e l a r g e r t h e p a r t i c l e ( i n t e rms o f a c t i v i t y ) t h e l e s s e f f e c t i v e i t would b e i n p roduc ing c a n c e r s i n c e d o s e rates c l o s e t o t h e p a r t i c l e would i n c r e a s e as t h e a c t i v i t y i n c r e a s e d , t h e r e b y l e a d i n g t o a greater f r a c t i o n of r a d i a - t i o n wasted on dead ce l l s . iment showing t h i s effect was re gp:&Sd by Passonneau One u s i n g Sr-90 beads on r a t s k i n . '

"The concep t o f o v e r k i l l is a c t u a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n o u r a n a l y s i s o f the h o t p a r t i c l e r i s k . However, as s t a t e d above on page (sic) t h i s d o e s n o t a l t e r t h e r i s k peg p r t i c l e . A s th'e p a r t i c l e becomes l a r g e r t h a n t h e c r i t i c a l a c t i v i t y (volume), t h e r i s k p e r pCi w i l l d e c r e a s e , b u t n o t t h e r i s k per par t ic le .

"The experiment of Passonneau i s q u i t e s imi l a r t o t h e experimenLs of A l b e r t which were d i s c u s s e d above. The d a t a i n Tab le 4.G.2: show t h a t i r r a d i a t i n g a small p o r t i o n of r a t s k i n w i t h a h i g h dosage w i l l produce a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of c a n c e r . A l b e r t ' s expe r imen t s gave r e s u l t s similar t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s observed between t h e bead and p l a t e s t u d i e s of Tab le 4.G.21. As w e s t a t e d on page 1 6 above:

(See pages 15-19 above.)

'h3ten exposures were made w i t h s t r i p e and s i e v e p a t t e r n s of rough ly 1 rm s c a l e , p e o n e t r i c a l e f f e c t s were obse rved ; most n o t a b l y t h e c a n c e r i n d u c t i o n i n t h e s i e v e geornetry was s i ippressed a t doses of 1700 R , b u t n o t a t d o s e s o f 2300 R. The r e d u c t i o n , however, was a w i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e d u c t i o n i n daonge as c h a r a c t e r i z e d by atro- ph ied h a i r f o l l i c l e s . '

"Ac tua l ly , i f one chooses t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e beads as p a r t i c l e s , t h e y would g i v e t h e f o l l o w i n g c a n c e r r i s k s :

150 pCi1bead 75 pCi/bead 30 pCi/bead

1 cance r146 beads o r p a r t i c l e s 1 cance r161 beads o r p a r t i c l e s 1 cancer1107 beads o r p a r t i c l e s

61Reference 1, U.S. N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s - N a t i o n a l Research Counc i l , " I o n i z i n g Rad ia t ion . " Report of t h e Advisory C o n n i t t e e on t h e B i o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s of I o n i z i n g R a d i a t i o n s , Washington, D.C. (1972).

The E f f e c t s 5n P o p u l a t i o n s of Exposure t o Low L e v e l s of

62Reference 1 7 , Passoneau, e t a l . , "Carc inogen ic E f f e c t s of D i f f u s e and Point-Source Beta I r r a d i a t i o n on Rat Skin: ANL-4932, 1952.

F i n a l Summary," AEC Dcturnent

V.6-48

6

On a m i c r o c u r i e b a s i s , t h e 150 U C i bead i s less e f f e c t i v e . But t h a t ' s n o t t h e i s s u e h e r e . The beads demons t r a t e t h a t i r r a d i a t i o n of a small volunie of t i s s u e a t a h i g h dose l e a d s t o c a n c e r . There is no r e a s o n f o r doub t ing t h a t t h e c a n c e r i n d u c t i o n v i t h t h e s e beads a l s o r e l a t e d t o a t r o p h i e d h a i r f o l l i c l e s , I'

AEC R e s p o n s :

The expe r imen t s of A l b e r t et 5:. and t h a t of Passonneau are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n t n a t t h e y used d i f f e r e n t r a d i a t i o n s o u r c e s and i r r a d i a t e d a r e a s so t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of r a d i a t i o n dose and volume i r r a d i a t e d were n o t s i n i l a r . Rega rd le s s , bo th show t h a t t h e same amoung of r a d i a t i o n e n e r g y d e l i v e r e d t o a g i v e n volume w i l l r e s u l t i n a d e c r e a s i n g t u n o r i n c i d e n c e a s t h e volume o f t i s s u e i r r a d i a t e d d e c r e a s e s . This e f f e c t may well be due t o an "overk.il1" on ce l l s i n t h e Passonneau e x p e r i n e n t . However, i n t h e A l b e r t expe r imen t s t h e dos,es d e l i v e r e d were c l o s e t o t h e o p t i r a l for p roduc t ion of t h e v e r y s p e c i f i c t y p e s of tumors i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h e s p e c i f i c strair. of expe r imen ta l animal .

The s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e r i s k p e r ?a r t i c l e is unchanyed, of c o u r s e , i s based upon one h y p o t h e s i s a s t o t h e mechanism of cance r p r o d u c t i o n , and i t i s t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , a long w i t h oLhers which p r e d i c t d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s , t h a t i s be ing examined. TO assert t h a t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s proven f a c t i s unwarranted; i t h a s been a v a i l a b l e as a l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t s i n c e 1968, v i t h l i t t l e os no g e n e r a l accep tance by t h e s c i e n t i f i c community.

We vould a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e i n c i d e n c e p e r p a r t i c l e c a l c u l a t e d from t h e "Sr experiment d i f f e r s r a t h e r s i p i f i c a n t l y from the one i n 2000 t o one i n 4003 quoted by Geesaman as d e r i v e d from t h e A l b e r t r a t s k i n e x n e r i n e n t s . would i n d i c a t e a somewhat more complex s i t u a t i o n t h a n t h a t env i s ioned by t h e t24X w i t h t h e r e sponse being mediated by some f a c t o r s o t h e r t han t h e s imple p r e s e n c e of t h e p a r t i c l e .

The p o i n r a t i s s u e is whether o r n o t a g i v e n q u a n t i t v of a c t i v i t y from a r a d i o n u c l i d e is more hazardous when sp read th rouehou t a r e l a t i v e l v l a r o e volume o r when t h e a c t i v i t y is c o n c e n t r a t e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y few d i s c r e t e h i g h l y r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c l e s . 'The Fassonneau d a t a c l e a r l y sh0r.s t h a t i n terms of tumor i n d u c t i o n a few "hot" p a r t i c l e s a r e less e f f e c t i v e i n c a u s i n g tumor fo rma t ion t h a n a r e more numerous less r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c l e s .

T h i s

6 . N M C Comment (pp. 31-33):

"Page 4.G-95 ( f o o t n o t e ) . 'I'he d i s c u s s i o n l e a d i n g t o t h e f o o t n o t e and t h e f o o t n o t e are:

'Akin t o t h i s concept i s t h a t of " o v e r k i l l " of slnp,?e c e l l s c l o s e t o t h e p a r t i c l e . A s i n g l e p a r t i c l e i n t h e l u n i ( o r

V.6-49

7

o t h e r t i s s u e ) may y i e l d dose ra tes c l o s e t o t h e p a r t i c l e which can be h i g h enouy,.h such t h a t even 3 r e l a z i v e l v l i m i t e d t i n e of r e s i d e n c e i n t h e t i s s u e w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e d e a t h of c e l l s wi t i i i n a g i v e n r a d i u s , depend ins upon t h e a c t i v i t y of the p a r t i c l e and t h e t y p e of r a d i a t i o n . Such c e l l s w i l l n o t reproduce anu w i l l n o t l e a d t o cance r .*

*Hovevfr, t h e p re sence of dead c e l l s , c e l l u l a r p r o d u c t s o r f i b r o s i s n a y be r e q u i r e d b e f o r c a c e l l u l a r t r a c s f o r m t i o n can e x p r e s s i t s e l f as a c a n c e r . T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y r e q u i r e s more s t u d y . '

"The a c t u a l k i l l i n g of c e l l s and t h e developsi tnt of =. f i b r o t i c l e s i o n su r round ing the ho t p a r t i c l e i s t h e sugges t ed mechanism of c a r c i a o g e n c s i s A s Geesamzn s t a t e d :

i 'Summing up, i n t e n s e r a d i a t i o n exposure of mammalian s k i n I

and l u n g t i s s u e commonlv r e s u l t s i n c a n c e r s . T i s s u e i n j u r y and d i s t u r b a n c e a re a p r imary consequence of i n t e n s e r a d i a t i o n i n s u i t , and are observed i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h c a r c i n o g e n e s i s . A l b e r t h a s e x ? i i b i t e d a s imple p r o p o r t i o n - s l l t y between s k i n carcinomns axd c?trophted h a i r f o l l i c l e s . No g e n e r a l f i e s c r i p t i o n of p r e c a r c i n o g e n i c i .njury e x i s t s , b u t i n d c r u d c s e n s e t h e avni1ahl.e o b s e r v a t i o n s are cnnmat- i b l e w i t h t h e i d e a of an in ju ry -med ia t ed c a r c i n o g e n e s i s . Cancer i s a f r e q u e n t i n s t a b i l i t y of t i s s u e . S i n c e t i s s u e j-s more t h a n a n a g g r e p t e of c e l l s , and h a s a s t r u c t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l u n i t y of I t s ovn, it. trould n o t be s i i r p r i s i n y i f some d i s r u p t e d local i n t e g r i t y , a disturbed o r d e r i n g , compr i se s a pr imary pathway of c a r c i n o g e n c s i s . The i n d u c t i o n of sarcomas w i t h i n e r t d i s c s of Y y l a r , c e l l o p h a n e , T e f l o n and > f i l l i p o r e ( R r u e s , e t a l .17> i s i n d i c a t i v e t ha t such a mechanism e x i s t s . Presumably m i t o t i c s t e r i l i z a t i o n i s an impor t an t f a c t o r i n any c a r c i n o g e n e s i s mediated by r a d i a t i o n - induced t i s c u e i n j u r y . The f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n of t h i s f a c t o r i n t h e c a r c i n o s e n i c r e s p o n s e may be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from a l i n e a r i t y i n t h e s u r v i v i n g m i t o t i c f r a c t i o n .

'Khile r e g r e t t a b l y u n q u a n t i t a t i v e , t h e h y p o t h e s i s of a n i n j ury-med i a t e d c a r c i n o g e n e s i s i s s u g g e s t i v e l y d e s c r i p t i v e . I f t h e r e s p i r a t o r y zone of t h e l u n g c o n t a i n s a s t r u c t u r e ana logous t o t h e r a t h a i r f o l l i c l e , and i f a r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c u l a t e d e p o s i t e d i n t h e r e s p i r a t o r y zone has t h e c a p a c i t y t o d i s r u p t one or more of t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s and

V.6-50

8

create a p r e c a n c e r o u s l e s i o n , t h e n c a n c e r r i s k s of t h e o r d e r of t o F e r p a r t i c l e can be. e x p e c t e d . ' 6 3 ~ 6 4

"The f o c t n o t e on page 4.G-95 r e c o g n i z e s t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y and i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t r e q u i r e s more s t u d y . The pu rpose of o u r comments h e r e , of o u r p e t i t i o n and of o u r r e p o r t is t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s is a v e r y ro-al p o s s i b i l i t y and t h a t i t l e a d s to g r e a t l y enhanced r i s k s when h o t p a r t i c l e s are invo lved . t h y d e c i s i o n , s u c h as t h a t b e i n g made r e l a t i v e t o t h e LIlFUR; must take t h i s enhanced r i s k from h o t p a r t i c l e s i n t o accoun t . The f a i l u r e t o do t h i s when e s t i m a t i n g b i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s io t h i s D r a f t Statement: is one of i t s most s e r i o u s f l aws . "

AEC Response :

Me c o n t i n u e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e mechanisms f o r c a n c e r i n d u c t i o n do r e q u i r e more s t u d y , as was i n d i c a t e d i n t h e f o o t n o t e . l;ow2vpr, t o q u o t c one h y p o t h e s i s as a proven f a c t , p a r t i c u l a r l v when, e x c e p t f o r t h e XRDC, t h i s h y p o t h e s i s h a s ga ined l i t t l e a c c e p t a n c e d u r i n g t h e s i x y e a r s s i n c e i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n , d o e s n o t p r o v i d e ev idence of a s c i e n t i f i c a l l v j u s t i f i a b l e b a s i s f o r t h e a r g u n e n t s p r e s e n t e d . P r e s e n t e x p u r i n e n t a l eviclence ( see Appendix I I . C . 6 ) f a i l s t o show t h a t "hot p a r t i c l e s " are more e f f e c t i v e t h a n t h e same a c t i v i t y uq i fo rmly d i s t r i b u t e d i n t i s s u e .

63Geesaman, Qonald ?. , UCRL-50387, Addendum, 9. c i t . , pp. 6-7.

64~rties, e t a l . , and D. Brube. Yechanisms of c a r c i n o g c n e s i s . Argonne l i a t i o n a l 1,abora- t o r y , B i o l o g i c a l and X e d i c a l Research D i v i s i o n Annual Xeport f o r 1967,

r e f e r s t o Erues , A. M . , II . Auerback, G. X, D e ?ache,

A!L-7409 , 151-155 , 1967.

7. L W C Comment (pp . 33-34):

"Page &:G-36. It is i n c o r r e c t t o s a y t h a t G e e ~ a m a n ~ ~ performed a z a n a l y s i s similar t o t h a t of Dean and Langham.6G c a l c u l a t e d t h e dose t o i r i d i v i d u a l c e l l s and t h e n made estimates of t h e c a n c e r r i s k based upon t h e s e c e l l u l a r dosages . Geesaman, as d i s c u s s e d above, suggcs t ed t h a t , when t h e d o s e from a p a r t i c l e t o t h e i r r a d i a t e d t i s s u e mass w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o d i s t u r b i t s a r c h i t e c t u r e , such a d i s r u p t e d t i s s u e mass i n t h e lung would pose a un ique c a r c i n o g e n i c r i s k -- a r i s k similar t o that posed by a

The l a t t e r

65Geesaman , Donald P. UCRL-50387, Addendum, 9. G. 66Dean, P. N. and h'. H. Langham, "Tumoripenici ty of S m a l l ! l ighly R a d i o a c t i v e P a r t i c l e s , " l!ealth P h y s i c s , Vol. 1 6 , 1969, pp. 79-84.

V.6-51

9

d i s r u p t e d h a i r f o l l i c l e . H e v e r t h e l e s s , r e g a r d i n g b o t h a n a l v s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t i c i s m is made:

'The r e s u l t s o f t h i s work can be ques t ioned on many grounds i n c l u d i n g e x t r a p o l a t i o n of t h e d a t a on tumors i n r a t s k i n t o tumors i n human l u n 8 t i s s u e , , t h e f i n d i n g of n l b e r t t h a t t h e s e n s i t i v e c e l l s are a t t h e base of t h e f o l l i c l e i n t h e ra t s k i n . . . '

"This is a n o t h e r of t h e r a t h e r i n c r e d i b l e s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s s e c t i o n . A s t h e AEC knows, most of ou r i n f o r m a t i o n i n . radio- b i o l o g y comes f r o n an ima l e s p e r i m e n t s , S i n c e w e are i n t e r e s t e d here i n p u b l i c h e a l t t i and s a f e t y , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o b e l i e v e , as t h i s s t a t e m e n t c~ou ld s u g g e s t , t h a t t h e ALC i s a s k i n p u s t o w a i t u n t i l we have t h e human c o r p s e s .

"Moreover, i t i s impor t an t t o n o t e t h a t a l l of t h e r e f e r e n c e s i n t h i s s e c t i o n are t o a n i n a l d a t a and s t r a n y , e l y , no r e f e r e n c e i s made t o t h e a r t i c l e of Lusiibaug!i t h a t d e a l s v i t l i a p r e c a n c e r o u s l e s i o n i n human s o f t t i s s u e caused by a plutonium p a r t i c l e . A s we i n d i c a t e d on page 2 1 above, i f we had used j u s t t h e human d a t a i n e s t i m a t i n g t h e h o t p a r t i c l e risl:, o e would have had t o a s s i g n a r i s k p e r p a r t i c l c t h a t waa g r e a t e r t h a n l / l O O P , r a t h e r t h a n t h e 1/200iJ t h a t w e a s suned . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o recall (see page 3) t h a t Riclimond demons t r a t ed t h a t h o t P a r t i c l e s produce l e s i o n s i n t h e l u n g of hams te r s t h a t are similar t o t h a t observed by Lushbaugh i n human s o f t t i s s u c . The re i s l i t t l e r e a s o n t 2 doubt t h a t such a l e s i o n would deve lop i n t h e human l u n g and then p r o g r e s s into a cance rous groirth.

i

" F i n a l l y , i t is s t a t e d as f a c t on t h i s page o f t h e i l r a f t Environmental Impact S t a t e m e n t :

' : . . . that t h e assumed e f f i c i e n c y of p r o d u c t i o n of lung c a n c e r p e r c e l l d o e s n o t conform t o t h e e x p e r i e n c e w i t h humans i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n of l u n g tumors from e x t e r n a l r a d i a t i o n .

"It would be of considerab1.e i n t e r e s t t o learn t h e b a s i s f o r t h a t s t a t e m e n t . f a c t i n t h e i r a r t i c l e . I n f a c t , t h e d a t a of Sande r s t h a t is r e f e r e n c e d la te r i n t h e s e c t i o n would l e a d t o t h e o p p o s i t e ~ o n c l u s i o n . 6 7 ' ~

Dean and Langham, f o r example, raade no mention of t h i s

67This i s r e f e r e n c e 3 4 , c i t e d on page 4.G-102, S a n d e r s , C. L., " C a r c i n o g e n i c i t y of Inha led Plutonium-238 from Crushed ? I i c r o s n h e r e s , ' I P a c i f i c Xorthwest L a b o r a t o r i e s , Annual Xeport 1973, P a r t 1 BSLZ-1750: 28 (1973).

V.6-52

10

AEC Response:

The Dean and Langham and t h e Gciesanan a n a l v s e s have b o t h s imi la r i t i es a n d , i ndeed , d i f f e r e n c e s . Based upon s k i n tumor e x p e r i r i e n t s I n t h e r a t , t h e Dean and Langham method Tias “ to compute t h e p r o b a h i l i t v t h a t each c e l l exposed w i l l form a tumor and t o sum f o r a l l c e l l s exposed t o o b t a i n t o t a l tumor p r o b a b i l i t y . ” I n t h e i r s u m a r v their c l e a r l y c a u t i o n t h a t t h e tumor p r o b a b i l i t y v e r s u s dose - re sponses c u r v e t a k e n from s b i n tumor d a t a on t h e r a t ma)’ be d i f f e r e n t f o r c a n , t h a t t h e r e s p o n s e of l u n g t i s s u e mav d i f f e r from t h a t of s k i n , a n i t h a t “niijny of t h e b i o l o g i c a l p a r a m e t e r s used i n t h e model are p o o r l y d e f i n e d or 3re mere ly a s sumpt ions . ” On t he o t h e r hand t h e XKDC s ta tes t h a t Geesaman ”sugges t ed t h a t , when t h e d o s e from a p a r t i c l e t o t h e i r r a d i a t e d t i s s u e irlass was s u f f i c i e n t to d i s t u r b i t s a r c h i t e c t u r e , such a d i s r u p t e d t i s s u e rnass I n t h e lung would pose a unicrrie c a r c i n o p n i c r i s k . . .similar L O t h a t posed by a d i s r u p t e d h a i r f o l l i c l e . “ U n f o r t u n a t e l v , t h e c r i t i c a l “ a r c ! i i t e c t u a l ” u n i t i n i‘ne l u n z is n o t d e f i n e d . O b v i o u s l v a s sumpt ions are made h e r e a l s o , y e t t h e r e i s EO c a u t i o n e x ? r e s s e d r e g a r d i n g t h e i r v a l i d i t y .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , v h i l e ;.he two h y p o t h e s e s d i f f e r i n t h e i r approach , aild i n t h a t Dean and Sang1ia:n i d e n t i f y t h e l i n i t a t i o n s of t h e d i r e c t a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e b i o l o z i c a l d a t a u s e d , bot?: h y p o t h e s e s r e l y h e a v i l y unon t h e r a t s k i n t u n o r d a t a re ; )or ted by , l l b e r t and his a s c u c i a t c s . 1:e:ice the c o n c l u s i o n s of e i t h e r of tnese h y p o t h e s e s can be ouesc ioned s i n c e b o t h make a s sumFt ions r e g a r d i n g t h e a p ? l i c a b i l i t y of t h i s d a t a .

The AEC e x t e n s i v e l y re l ies upon r e s u l t s from a n i m a l e x p e r i m e n t s i n atten1ltfr ,c. t o d e f e r n i n e t h e b iomed ica l and ge i i e ra l h e a l t!i consecucnces r e su l t j -nc . from a v a r i e t y of r a d i a t i o n exPos i re so1irccc. Hovever, as di-pciissed i n t!:e .I!’C r e s p o n s e s t o t h e EP.! Comment Letter, c o n f i d e n c e of q - u n l i t a t f v e , and f n sori? i n s t a n c e s q u a n t i t a t i v e , r e l a t i o n s h i p s to exposure can be made o n l v when comparabl e r e s u l t s a re o b t a i n e d i n seve ra l . s p e c i e s .

The u n c e r t a i n t i e s p r e s e n t i n P x t r a p o l a t i n g e f f e c t s from a s i n q l e o r s a n 0 6

t i s s u e j n a s i n g l e s p e c i e s t o t l i s sane t i s s u e o r o r g a n i n a n o t h e r swic ie , . are g e n e r a l l y r ecoEn ized . To e x t r a p o i a t e from a t i s s u e o r o r g a n in one s p e c i e s t o a d i f f e r e n t t i s s u e o r o r z a n i n a n o t k c r s p e c i e s i s c lear ly a p rocedure which must be approachecl w i t h c a u t i o n and a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s i nvo lved .

These c a u t i o n s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s c l e a r l y a p p l y t o t h e e x t r a n o l a t i o n o f t h e r a t s k i n tumor d a t a i n t h e Geesaman and :;Si)C h y p o t h e s i s : t h e r e i s no known a r c h i t e c t u r a l u n i t i n t h e r a t l u n g o r t h e human lung ana logous t o :he rat s k i n h a i r f o l l i c l e , and comparable s k i n tumor s t u d i e s have n o t r e s u l t e d i n s imilar r e s u l t s be ing obse rved i n t h e mouse o r i n o t h e r s t r a i n s of r a t s .

V . 6-53

11

The NRDC use of the. Geesaman h y p o t h e s i s h a s r e c e n t l y been reviewed by D r . G. W. Dolphin, N a t i o n a l R a d i o l o g i c a l P r o t e c t i o n Bcard, H a r w e l l , England. H e conc ludes :

"The h a i r f o l l i c l e c a n c e r s found by A l b e r t e t a l . i n r a t s were n o t found i n similar expe r imen t s c a r r i e d o u t by Hulse ( 1 9 6 9 ) u s i n g mice. H e found o n l y ep ide rma l and dermal c a n c e r s . Hence t h e h a i r f o l l i c l e c a n c e r s d e s c r i b e d by A l b e r t e t a l . may be p e c u l i a r t o t h e ra t s p e c i e s . If e x t r a p o l a t i o n from r a t s k i n t o mice s k i n is n o t p o s s i b l e i n t h i s work, t h e n l i t t l e c o c f i d e n c e can e x i s t i n t h e e x t r a p o l a t i o n from rat s k i n t o human l u n g t i s s u e . "

It is a p p h r e n t t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r basing. human h e a l t h d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e lung upon r e s u l t s observed i n t h e rat s k i n , e s p e c l a l l y when t h e s e r e s u l t s cannot be v e r i f i e d i n mouse and o t h e r r a t s k i n s t u d i e s .

The NRDC acatement t h a t Lushbaugh r e p o r t e d "a p recance rous l e s i o n i n human s o f t t i s s u e caused by a ? lutonium p a r t i c l e " and t h e r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d by Richmond have a l r e a d y been addres sed i n r e sponse t o 3 p r e v i o u s comment on t h e same s u b j e c t .

!i'hc quo ted s t a t e m e n t r ega rd fng t h e r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c i e s of l ung c a n c e r p r o d u c t i o n i s n o t i n t h e F i n a l Statement s i n c e t h e quoted s t a t e m e n t r e l i e d on improper s s sumpt ions . N e v e r t h e l e s s , s o l e l y f o r t h e purpose of i l l u s t r a t i o n , . i f t h e a s sumpt ions of t h e Dean and Langham model a r e used ( c e l l d i ame te r = 2 3 . 4 pm; c e l l t h i c k n e s s = 6 .0 pm; and tumor p r o b a b i l i t y p e r c e l l as a f u n c t i o n of d o s e ) , and assuming a 570 gram lung w i t h a c e l l d e n s i t y of u n i t y , one can c a l c u l a t e t h a t t h e lung c o n t a i n s some 2 . 2 x 1011 c e l l s , and t h a t a dose of 1500 r a d should r e s u l t i n 22,000 tumors (g iven a tumor p r o b a b i l i t y p e r c e l l a t t h a t dose of 1 x 10-7). Although t h e dose-response curve from t h e A l b e r t rat skin s t u d y shows an apparent t h r e s h o l d a c abou t 700 r a d , u s i n g t h e Dean and Langham assumpt ions , and t h e f o u r t h power law (" the tumor p r o b a b i l i t y r ises a s t h e f o u r t h power of t h e dose t o a maximum a t 2000 r a d . . . " ) , a dose of 400 r a d shou ld r e s u l t i n 11.1 tumors p e r animal . I n c o n t r a s t , e x p e r i e n c e w i t h exposure o f t h e huma6 l u n g from e x t e r n a l r a d i a t i o n does n o t conform ta t h i s p r e d i c t i o n . The o n l y X-ray exposure of t h e human lung which t h e B E I R r e p o r t c o n s i d e r s i s t h e d a t a a v a i l a b l e from s p o n d y l i t i c p a t i e n t s . The mean lung dose was 400 r a d s , and t h e i n c r e a s e i n r e l a t i v e r i s k p e r rem w a s 0.0019, o r 0.76 p e r 400 r a d (RBE = 1). Thus, t h e observed i n c i d e n c e i n humans from e x t e r n a l r a d i a t i o n exposure of t h e lung i s g r e a t e r t h a n two o r d e r s of magnitude below t h a t p r e d i c t e d by t h e Dean and Langham h y p o t h e s i s .

8. NRDC Comment (pp. 3 4 - 3 5 ) :

"Pages 4.G-98 and 101. Here a g a i n t h e expe r imen t s of Richmond a r e

V.6-54

I

12

mentioned,,but aga in no mention is made of t h e s i m i l a r i t y between the lung l e s i o n s produced i n these experiments and t h e human s o f t t i s s u e l e s i o n descr ibed by Lushbaugh.

"It is s t a t e d ,

' In t h e experiment of Richmond, et al.', quoted above, t h e p a r t i c l e s were f i rmly he ld i n t h e pulmonary c a p i l l a r i e s and, t h e r e f o r e , were n o t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of p a r t i c l e s a c t u a l l y depos i ted i n t h e a l v e o l i . Movement of inha led p a r t i c l e s is known t o occur v ia movement by the c i l i a , and by macrophage engulfment. '

"The AEC is appa ren t ly unaware t h a t t he a l v e o l i and a s soc ia t ed deep r e s p i r a t o r y t i s s u e are n o t c i l i a t e d . Macrophage en ru l fnen t of t h e p a r t i c l e s does occur , bu t how t h i s r e l a t e d t o limp, c l ea rance i s no t understood. ?fore s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e hot p a r t i c l e problem is t h e measured long term r e t e n t i o n of t h e s e p a r t i c l e s ( i n excess of 500 days) i n t h e lung , which may be r e l a t e d t o t h e engulfment of these p a r t i c l e s by e p i t h e l i a l ce l l s o r by cy to tox ic e f f e c t on macrophages. The d i scuss ion fol lowing the above quoted s ta tement aga in d i g r e s s e s i n t o t h e i r r e l e v a n c i s s u e o v e r k i l l . "

68

AEC Response: - The experiments by Kichmond and t h e s i m i l a r i t y of t h e l e s i o n t o t h a t descr ibed by Lushbaugh have been d3.scussed i n t h e AEC response t o t h e f i r s t NIu)C cornnent i n t h i s l e t t e r . Again, we emphasize t h a t such l e s i o n s do n o t i n v a r i a b l y lead t o cancer . The s ta tement i n t h e Draf t S t a t enen t t h a t movement out of t h e lungs does occur was poorly worded and does no t appear i n the F i n a l Statement. The i n t e n t was t o i n d i c a t e t h a t movement out of t he lungs does occur by c i l i a r y a c t i o n once the p a r t i c l e s have been noved by nlacrophages o r o t h e r mechanisms t o t h e c i l i a t e d r eg ions of t h e r e s p i r a t o r v tree.

9. hTDC Comment (p . 36) :

"Near the top of t h i s page, t h e fo l lowing appears:

'The f a c t t h a t leukemia i s a r e l a t i v e l y rare occurrence i n experimental animals adn in i s t e red plutonium may se rve as an i n d i c a t o r t h a t i r r a d i a t i o n of a smal l p o r t i o n of an organ ( the marrow) t o a high dose is no t p a r t i c u l a r l v t roublesone a s long as t h e average dose is lot^.'

68Sanders, C. L. and R. R. Adee, I ieal th Phys ics , Vol. 18, 1970, ?p. 233-395 .

V.6-55

13

"There have been no expe r imen t s wherein h o t p a r t i c l e s were i n t r o d u c e d d i r e c t l y i n t o bone marrow. " s o l u b i l i z c d " plutonium i s c a p a b l e of d e p o s i t i o n i n t h e bone. ?o reove r , as t h e ACC knows, t h i s plutonium is d e n o s i t e d p r e f e r e i i t i a l l v i n a c t i v e areas of Lone growth ( a s r r n l l ; .ort ion of t h e o r o n n ) . As a r e s u l t , a s d i s c u s s e d abovr- ( s e e pages 5-6) , i t i s f i v e tir-es more e f f e c t i v e i n p roduc ing bone c a n c e r t h a n is radium which i s n o r e e v e n l y d i s t r j b u t e d . T h i s s t a t e m e n t i n t!ie D r a f t Environmental ImFact S ta t emen t i s , t h e r e f o r e , g r o s s l y m i s l e a d i n g . ' I

As t h e ALC knows, o n l y "so1ul)le" o r

AEC Response :

These comrnerits are c o n f u s i n g because i t i s novhere imp l i ed i n the d i sc t in s ion i n t h e Draft S ta t emen t t h a t we were d i scuss iny , h o t p a r t i c l e s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o bone marrot:. As wc i r d i c a t e d i n t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t , "The o u t s t a n d i n p example; of a n increasec! c a r c i n o g e n i c i t y r e s u l t i n g from a d e n o s l t e d r a d i o n c t l v e material due t o i t s 1 o c a l . i z a t i o n and non-unlform d o s e - d i s t r i b u t i o n i s p lu ton ium i n bone." Ide want t o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d vel1 be due t3 t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c r i t i c a l t i s s u e f o r 0steogeni .c s a rconn cou ld be t h e s u r f a c e ce l l s l i n i n g t h e m i n e r a l i z e d bone so t h a t t h e comparison w i t h r a d i u n may n o t c o n p l e t e i y d e s c r i b e t h e r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s u n l e s s t h e radium d o s e t o t h i s s u r f a c e of t h e bone was used as t h e index . Plutonium is f i v e tirres as e f f c c t i v e a s radi.u;n on t h e b a s i s of ave rage s k e l e t a l dose. The v e r y rare o c c u r r e n c e of leukemia as a r e s u l t o f plutonium a d n i n i s t r a - t i o n is a s i g n i f i c a n t o b s e r v a t i o n vhcn c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e f f e c t s of non-uniform d o s e t o a s e n s i . t i v e o rgan . As was i n d i c a t e d , c a l c u l a t i o n s s!iov t h a t a p o r t i o n of t h e marrow docs r e c e i v e a l o c a l i z e d d o s e , and t h i s e v i d e n c e would i n d i c a t e t h a t such a l c c a l i z e d dose does not ?reduce an e f f e c t c o n n e n s u r a t e w i t h local dose. I n c i d e n t l y , t h i s is n o t a new c o n c l u s i o n . The F e d e r a l R a d i a t i o n C o u n c i l ( F K ) , i n i ts r e p o r t Xo. 2 i n 1961, when d i s c u s s i n g 90Sr (pa rag raph 4 . 2 . 3 , n o t e s : "Data on e x p e r i m e n t a l animals i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p r o t e c t i o n of a small p o r t i m of bone marrow from a h igh d o s e o f r a d i a t i o n may markedly lower t h e i n c i d e n c e of leukemia. T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t , f o r t h e case of non- u n i f o r m i t y $f r a d i a t i o n dose t o t h e bone marrow, t h e a v e r a g e dose j.s a more mean ingfu l i ndex of haza rd t h a n t h e maximum h e a l dose and t h a t , for a g i v e n a v e r a g e , a non-uniform d i s t r i h u t i o n o f dose may be l e s s haza rdous than a uniform d e p o s i t i o n . "

The LRDC seems a p p a r e n t l y unaware o f expe r imen t s i n which ' 'hot p a r t i c l e s " have indeed been i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e marrow. Both F i n k e l and B i c k i s ( "Tox ic i ty of Plutonium i n ?lice", H e a l t h Phys. 8: 565-579, 1962) and Rosen tha l and Linderibaun ("Osteosarcomas as R e l a t e d t o T i s s u e D i s t r i b u t i o n of llonomeric and Po lymer i c Plutonium i n Y i c e , " In: Delayed E f f e c t s of Bone- Seek ing R a d i o n u c l i d e s ( C . W. ?fays, !J. s. s. Jee, F.. D. Lloyd, B. J. S t o v e r , J. €1. Douglierty, and G . X. T a y l o r , e d s . ) , pp. 3 7 1 - 3 8 4 , U n i v e r s i t y of l i t ah P r e s s , 1969) i n j e c t e d polymeric 239Pu i n t o mice. t a k e n up by r e t i c u l o - e n d o t h e l i a l c e l l s i n t h e l i v e r , s p l c e n , a i i d bone nnyrow (see a u t o r a d i o g r a p h i n 2 o s e n t h a l and L indenban ' s a r t i c l e ) .

The Pu agp , r epa te s W C K ~

I n t e r e s t i n z i y ,

W.6-56

1 4

t h e i n c i d e n c e of leukemia w a s not i n c r e a s e d , and t h e main e f f e c t from t h e plutonium w a s t h e i n d u c t i o n of bone sarcoma.

10. NRTX Comment (pp. 36-32):

Page 4.G-102. "Consider ing what h a s appeared ear l ier i n t h i s s e c t i o n and a l s o what f o l l o w s , t h e r e a d e r can n o t h e l p b e i n g confused by t h e f o l l c w i n g s t a t e m e n t on t h i s page:

'No clear c u t , o v e r a l l p i c t u r e of t h e r e l a t i v e e f f ' e c t s of uniform v e r s u s f o c a l dose can be dram from t h e p r e s e n t d a t a . '

"We would i n a q u a l i t a t i v e s e n s e a g r e e w i t h t h i s s t a t e m e n t , 'out we must emphasize t h a t t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t h o t p a r t i c l e r a d i a t i o n leads t o an enhanced r i s k of cance r (as rnuch as 100,000 t ines t h a t o f uniform i r r a d i a t i o n ) .

"Following t h e above s e n t e n c e , t h i s s t a t e m e n t i s made: i

' I t a p p e a r s from t h e 238Pu02 ni icrosphere d a t a and t h e s k i n expe r imen t s w i t h 90Sr t h a t , i n t h e extreme s i t u a t i o n of a s i n g l e , v e r y a c t i v e p a r t i c l e , t h s f o c a l r a d i a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y less damaging.'

"We have p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d b o t h of t h e s e expe r imen t s ( s e e pages 3, 30-31, 34-35). A s w e i n d i c a t e d i n t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s , t h e s e expe r imen t s do n o t s u g g e s t a reduced r i s k f o r h o t p a r t i c l e s . Q u i t e t h e c o n t r a r y , t hey s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t ou r a n a l y s i s of a n enhanced r i s k f o r h o t p a r t i c l e s . "

AEC Response :

The "data" t o which t h e NRDC r e f e r s as s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p a r t i c l e r a d i a t i o n l e a d s t o an.enhanced r i s k of cance r is a p p a r e n t l y t h e h y p o t h e s i s of cance r fo rma t ion fd rmula t ed by Geesnan and modif ied by Tamplir! and Cochran and n o t t h e r e s u l t s of e x t e n s i v e expe r imen ta t ion . Th i s h a s been d i s c u s s e d ear l ier .

11. NRDC Comment (pp. 37):

Page 4.G-102. "Then, w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e i n a c c u r a c y , t h e n e x t s e n t e n c e i s g i v e n a s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e concluding remark of t h i s s e c t i o n :

'Cember22 concludes t h a t f o r b e t a emitters t h e f o c a l s o u r c e i s less damaging than i s t h e uniformly d i s t r i b u t e d source."69

Y. 6-57

Cember's experiments could n o t j u s t i f y t h i s conclusion and, i n f a c t , I t

he d i d n o t so conclude. Cember concluded:

'Experiments wi th ra t s have shown that r ad ioac t ive subs tances depos i ted in t h e lung con lead t o pulmonary neoplas ia . Radia t ions from S35, SrgO-YgO, and Ce144 e l i c i t e d bronchogenic c a r c i n m a and a l v e o l a r ce l l carcinoma i n add i t ion t o s e v e r a l o t h e r tumor types. These experiments d id not confirm t h e e x i s t e n c e of a unique carc inogenic hazard due t o t h e i n t e n s e concent ra t ion of abcorbed energy in t h e lung t i s s u e immediately surrounding an inha led r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c l e . 70

AEC Response:

The quota t ion from Cember given by the NRDC c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s experimenter has concluded t h a t no unique hazard r e s u l t s from such p P r t i c u l a t e r a d i a t i o n , a t l eas t from b e t a mitters. I f one r e a d s f u r t h e r ir, t h e Cember art icle, we f i n d the € o l l o w i q s ta tement: "Furthermore, t h e experimental r e s u l t s imply that t h e ca rc inoben ic i ty of a given moun t of absorbed r a d i a t i o n energy increases up t o a p o i n t , as t h e absorp;ion of t h e enerzy, low-level, cont inuous exposure of t h e t o t a l lung may be more carc inogenic than t h e same m o u n t of energy de l ive red a c u t e l y t o a r e s t r i c t e d volume of t i s sue . " We do nor: b e l i e v e t h a t t h e statemen: i n t h e I)rcf t Ewirom.enta1 Impact Statement can be cha rac t e r i zed as being given "with co3s ide rab le inaccuracy. ' I

12. NRDC Coment (pp. 37-38):

"The major t h r u s t i n t h e lung. The Pi4Ce w a s introduced admixed wi th s table Ce as e i t h e r CeF3 o r CeC13 in p a r t i c l e s of about 1 u i n diameter (0.5 u3). 144Cc emits a b e t a p a r t j c l e of 0.275 MeV and i t s daughter product 144Pr emits a be ta of 3 MeV. b e t a p a r t i c l e s i n t issue I s about 0.2 Kevlu compared t o some 94 Kev/u f o r plutonium a lpha p a r t i c l e s .

"This d i f f e r e n c e in energy loss per micron i n d i c a t e s that the a c t i v i t y of t h e 144Ce emitter would have t o be some 500 times that of the 239Pu in orde r to depos i t t h e same energy in t h e t i s s u e i r r a d i e t e d by 2 3 9 P ~ al ha p a r t i c l e s . Moreover, since t h e QF f o r a lpha p a r t i c l e s i s 10, t h e I4'Ce art icles m i l s t have an a c t i v i t y (10) x (500) o r 5,000 t imes that of a 299Pu02 p a r t i c l e t o q u a l i f y as a ho t p a r t i c l e , Since t h e 12q i t ing a c t i v i t y of a 233Pu02 p a r t i c l e is 0.07 pCi, a hot p a r t i c l e of 144CeC13 would have t o con ta in more than 350 pCi. l i f e of 144Ce (288 days) a hot p a r t i c l e would have t o con ta in some 500 pci .

t he Cember a r t i c l e d e a l s wi th 144Ce p a r t i c l e s

The rate of energy loss for t hese

Af t e r c o r r e c t i n g for t h e ha l f -

7oCember22, &. e&., pp. 289-290.

W.6-58

16

I1 The geometric mean diameter of t h e p a r t i c l e s in these experiments was 1 micron. 30 ug of CeF3. be t a -ac t iv i ty per p a r t i c l e of 1 u diameter is only 5 pCi. words, t h e s e experiments d id not involve hot p a r t i c l e s as def ined above, The carc inogenes is observed i n these Cember experiments, which w a s cons iderable , was r e l a t e d t o high t o t a l and r a t h e r uniform organ dosage (1,000 - 30,000 rad)."

The h ighes t exposure group received 5 0 p C i of 144Ce i n Allowing a d e n s i t y of 6 g / m 3 f o r t h e CeF3, t h e

In o the r

AEC Response:

The d iscuss ion concerning t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a "hot" p a r t i c l e is r e l a t e d t o t h e recent p e t i t i o n by Tamplin and Cochran-to t h e AEC and EPA concerning r a d i a t i o n s tandards f o r p a r t i c u l a t e a c t i n i d e elements. d e f i n i t i o n of a "hot p a r t i c l e ' ' is a r b i t r a r y . j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r us ing t h e Tamplin-Ccchran c r i t e r i a for a ''hot p a r t i c l e " PO make "judgment on Cember's work with beta-gamma emi t t ing 144Ce p a r t i c l e s .

The Tamplin-Cochran There i s no experimental

13. NRDC Coment (pp. 38-39):

"Following t h e mention of t h e C e m b e r experiments, t h i s s ta tement is made:

'ma d a t a of Grosman, e t d., 23 i n d i c a t e a seeming decrease i n t h e tumor incidence as w e l l as i n c r e a s e d , s u r v i v h l wi th f o c a l source. o f 21%o on i r o n oxide p a r t i c l e s . 71

As we mentioned previous ly , t h i s r e fe rence is on ly an a b s t r a c t . The I1

AEC seemed t o be more i n t e r e s t e d in t h e conclusion than i n t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e experiment.

I n these experknents , t h e h ighes t exposure involved 0.2 p C i of 210Po absorbed on 3 mg of f e r r i c oxide c a r r i e r p a r t i c l e s (98% <0.75 p ) . Allowi g a d e n s i t y of 5 g/cm3 f o r t h e p a r t i c l e s , t h e 3 mg would involve 2 x 10 p a r t i c l e s a t 0.8 p diameter. then be only 1. x hot p a r t i c l e s as def ined above. of t h e lung t o high dosage (2 ,250 t o 45,000 r e m ) and aga in , t hese l a r g e dosages produce a h igh incidence of cancer.''

I1

8 The a c t i v i t y pe r p a r t i c l e would

It rep resen t s r a t h e r uniform i r r n d f a t i o n pCi. Again, t h i s experiment does not involve

71Grossman, e t a1 23 r e f e r s t o t h e a b s t r a c t : Grossman, B. N., J. R. L i t t l e and W. F. O'Toole, "Role of C a r r i e r P a r t i c l e s i n t h e Induct ion of Bronchial Cancer i n Hamsters by 210Po Alpha P a r t i c l e s , "Rad. Res. 47: 253 (1971). Ve do n o t know whether a more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t hese experiments was p b l j s h e d . The information given i n t h e a b s t r a c t was s u f f i c i e n t t o demonstrate t h a t t h e experiment was i r r e l e v a n t here , r ega rd le s s of i t s o v e r a l l v a l i d i t y .

V.6-59

1 7

AEC R e s p o a s

The work of Grossman, e t a1 was p r e s e n t e d a t t!ie h d i a t i o n Resea rch S o c i c t y X e e t i c g i n 1971 and a t t h e Iianford Eiology Symgosium (1972) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e sane r e f e r e n c e vas usccl b) t h e ELIF. Cormitt .ee.

14. I R D C Co,nncnt ( p p . 3 9 - 4 P ) : -

"Following t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e above a b s t r a c t , t h i s s t a t e m e n t a p p e a r s :

' S a n d ~ r s , ~ ~ as a r e s u l t of h i s s tud iec ; w i t h s o l u b l e 238Pu d e r i v c d from cruslicd mic rosnhe res , a r r i v e s a t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t spreadir i f t h e d o s e v o r e uniforci ly r e s u l t s i n an i n c r e a s e d c a n c e r i x i d e r t c e due t o t h e g r e a t c r number of e p i t h e l i a l c e l l s involvcc!. T h f s c o n c l u s i o n i'as based on t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of ' ---a s i r n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n c e of t u r w r s i n t h e lun: and i n o t h e r t i s s u e s a t r a d i a t i o n doscs t h a t have n o t p r e v i o u s l y been shor-n t o be c a r c i n o g e n i c i n a n i m a l s * ' ' 7 2

"The c o n c l u s i o n of Sande r s i s no t j u s t i f i e d by t h e ex I \ e r i i i en t describec! i n t h e r e f e r e n c e d z r t i c l e . Sande r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t h o t p a r t i c l e s v e r e n o t in.-olvcd in t!iis s t u d y . The c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i s j u s t i f i c c i by t h e r e s u l t s of t!iis stuciy is t h a t t h e exposure s t a n d a r d s f c r r l u t o n i u m i ~ a y be ~ luc l i t o o h i g h ( a t l e a s t 100 t i n e s t o o h i g h ) even vhcn h o t par t ic les a re n o t i nvo lved . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t a un i fo rm d o s e of 1 5 rcm doubled t h e n a t u r n l i n c i d e n c e of l ung c a n c e r i n t h e exposed r a t s . A \corker i s a l l o v e d t h i s dose each y e a r and a member of t h e p o p u l a t i o n c o u l d accumulate t h i s d o s e i n 10 y e a r s . I t i s some~ihat d i s t u r b i n g t i i a t the ACC Lould r e f e r e n c e t h i s e spe r imen t and t h e n i g n o r e i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s .

One f u r t h e r p o i n t cou ld be nadc c o n c e r n i n g t h i s s t u d y . It i s n o t a t a l l cl .ear f r o n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n i n t h e r e f e r e n c e t h a t t h e exposures d i d n c t i n v o l v e a fev hundred h o t p a r t i c l e s . I f t h i s vere so , t h e s e p a r t i c l e s cou ld have been p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e € o r t h e obse rved c a n c e r s . "

AEC Res?=:

Sande r s based his c o n c l u s i o n on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e 238Pu used I n h i s experiment vas comprised o f e x t r e n e l y smal l s i z e , r e a d i l v s o l u b l e p a r t i c l e s which were d e p o s i t e d th roughou t t h e lung g i v i n c a n o r e uniform d j s t r i b u t i o n of d o s e t h a n o c c u r r z d i n h i s e a r l i e r expe r imen t w i t h 230Pu02 p a r t i c l e s .

77 fron Crushed :.!icrosphercs, I f P a c i f i c Northwest L a b o r a t o r i e s Annual %?port 1972, P a r t 1 E:XL-1750:28 (1373).

S a n d e r s , 2 4 r e f e r s t o Sande r s , C . L . , " C a r c i n o g e n i c i t v of I n h a l e d Plutonium-233

V.6-60

18 The r e l a t i v e l y uniform d i s t r t b u t i o n of dose $735 mre Ffect-Je than t h e non-uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n of dose t h a t occurred wi th 25gPu02 and i n o t h e r experiments wi th p a r t i c u l a r e 238Pu02. crushed 23sPu microspheres t h s t about 1% of t h e i n i t i a l a l v e o l a r burden w a s p re sen t i n t h e lungs a f t e r a y e a r and t h a t i t w 3 s concent ra ted wi th hemosider in- l ike granules loca t ed i n pe r ib ronch io lo r and pe r ivascu la r areas of t h e lung. lIowever, most of t h e lung cancers observed i n the experiment d id no t appear t o o r i g i n a t e i n these a r e a b u t i n subp leu ra l reg ions . Fu r the r , 80% of t h e r a d i a t i o n dose was de l ive red wi th in the f i r s t fou r mont.hs a f t e r t h e i n h a l a t i o n exposure, when most of t h e p!utonium i n t h e lung was h igh ly d ispersed . Therefore , Sanders a t t r i b u t e d the lung cancers t h a t occurred t o t h e d i f f u s e r a d i a t i exposure of the lung t i s s u e . In o t h e r experi t rents i n which r a t s i rhn lcd 238Pu02 o r 2 3 9 ~ u ~ 2 p a r t i c l e s , lung burden equ iva len t t o those r e t a i n e d f o r long t i n e s i n t h e expcritnent wi th t h e crushed microsphere 238Pu, d id c o t cause lung cancer i n 77 rats observed f o r about 6G0 days.*

Sanders no te s i n h i s s tudy with

Sanders c a l c u l a t e d an average dose of: 32 r ads o r 320 r e m t o t h e lungs of the rats which shaded a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t inc idence of lung cancer. Because t h i s IS t h e lowest dose a t which lung cancer has been observed i n exper imenta l animals, because t h e r e were less than 100 ra t s i n the e::periii;ent, because t h e r e s u l t s are on only one animals spec ie s , and because experiments which w i l l provide informat ion r e l a t i v e t o the r e p r o d u c i h f l i t y of t hese r e s u l t s are no t y e t complete, i t is premature t o s p e c u l a t e upon the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e r e s u l t s t o r a d i a t i o n s t anda rds .

"Page 4.G-103. Here w e f i n d the conclusion reached i n t h i s s e c t i o n :

'Therefore , t h e conclusion is t h a t t h e przpanderance of t h e evidence ind ic i i tes t h a t t h e use of an average lung dose is appropr i a t e i n e s t i m a t i n g h e a l t h consequences and m y w e l l be conserva t ive .

"As w e have i n d i c a t e d above, t h e r e is no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s conclusion so f a r as ho t p a r t i c l e s are concerned. In f a c t , wh i l e none of t he re ferences d e t r a c t from our conclusions, one of t h e r e fe rences used i n t h i s s e c t i o n a c t u a l l y suppor t s o u r conten t ion t h a t ho t p a r t i c l e s c a r r y Brea t lv enhanced cancer risks .73 t h a t t h e r i s k estimates from t h e B E I R Report t h a t were used i n t h e

Koreover, t he exp'riment of Sanders suggcsts

*C. L. Sanders and G. E. Dagle, "Studies of Pulmonary Carinogenesis i n Rodents fo l lowing I n h a l a t i o n of T ru l su ran ic Compounds, '' 13: E-xperimental Respi ra tory Carcinogenesis and Bioa,say (J. F. Park and E. Karbe, e d s , ) , Proceedinns of a Symposium he ld a t the Ba tc l l c -Sea t t l e Research Center , June 23-26, 1974, S e a t t l e , Washington.

73H&mond, C. R., e t a l , 9. G.

V.6-61

19

Draf t Statement may be s e r i o u s underes t imates of t h e e f f e c t s even when hot p a r t i c l e s are not involved,"

AEC Response:

The conclus ion of t h e NRDC i s t enab le only i f we accept one p a r t i c u l a r hypothes is €o r t h e induct ion of cancer by radiat ion-- the Geesarnan hypothes is as modif ied by Tamplin and Cochran, i n preference t o a number of o the r p o s s i b l e hypotheses and the d i r e c t r e s u l t s from animal experiments.

The F i n a l Statement con ta ins r i s k estimates based on anfmal experiments wi th t ransuranium elements as w e l l as e s t i m a t e s based on t h e BEIR Report.

'4.7-1

4,nri 1 11, 1774

v.7-3

! 'crry, l J 7 1 ) .

I n 1 1 5 0 , t h e p e r c a p i t;l consumpt ion or e l e c t r l c poi/zt- ~ P S

v.7-4

Source o f i o n i z i n z Averaze annual exposure !!umber o f d e a t h s r a d i a t i o n i n m i lli rems p e r year

?-lq

1 7 7

n

I t prcscnt , c i v i l i a n u:,cs of ncrclcar po\/cr a r c r c s t r i c t c d to

t h e .rrcncr,?tlon nf e l c c t r i c i : ~ . I n l l l C 7 , thn use o f n u c l c 7 r 'c1s1

r

c c C

L .- L L- C L

L

t C 7

c; l-4 1. c C Le

c L

c' c

r.

.- e

C C

z r.

IJ

-. Lf c 7

1 C

-. c u

r: L

c

- - .- c 5 f -.

r. C

'

_.

c

. c. r; C

u

C

Y C. L c ,. ;

c: T

C L

C C

' \.

C. -- c +

J

.- - - c C

C

7

L

- r,. c +' 1

c

r

.-. .- 11

c

C C .

7

I

+I c. L

c'

- - ? L

\c

k..

t f 0 .- .- - 4' t-

t c .- x. C ln

c. J 4,

(1

.- L

ri L

L? C

L

c L . r- c r c C L

7.

.. bl C L

CJ

c

L

c'

- - c, L C c,

- C 1

u- C

+J

1' C c C. 7

L? G

6

C! .- - F

c i

? c

+J

[? I

c t' t L. u

CJ C

c

-. .--

-.

P..

c

C' .- !. J

I

c

.-- r: L.1 r;;

C C' r

lJ

c: L

C

ci L

L

. L-

"

r. n

,

L

L-

4

L? C

' .- .- 5

1

.- . L'

u

.- c'

17 c

C'

c I

u

C F

- c' c L c. . 7 C : 1' I.. c :

-. - +I

C . _. 4

,

C c

L-, 1- C c: c L C :' C L? :> I

- L? .- c

C .- u c T

C c

c! L

- - 1..

- .

r. 7

-

C c

7 1

C'

C 4

c .-

C

c

C C

A

- I;

L

+: - 1

C

- c, r.

L'

C

t-- .

c

C

.- I. +'

cc

4-1

L-

I

V.7-10

I

v.7-I1

r

r

V .7-13

v . 7 - I 4

r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l r c l e a s c d t o t h e c n v i ron r i cn t 1 m c i 1 r l

V.7-15

u- C

c' >

17 .-

U

c C

Li

7.

c c L

G c L I- C

.-- c; c

C 7

T C

L' - c c L*

ry A

c c E .-- c

.- - r\

?

c

IT E L c

T- 6 L

u C

.- I

C' 4J V

a K

.- .- c

cc L t C L

V

.- 7

-

.- 4.J f: C'

'L

c u

L' Tc C

U

.- c

C Ll

- t c t rr

c

t - C L u

- I

c t r - - c

>

c

- t .: I

.- L

C 4J C r. C. L

L" c, c

- C' 51 L

I

LJ c L'

C: L

r.

C

C

I

- @ C

V

1" .-

. 3. C

L

t r .-

u- c i

K

C .-- u

r;

C'

Ti c . i:

L

+- a

ffl .-

u

C

.- C

Li

a C C

.- T c L

U- C

t. C

c rc V

2

C

I

c' U

c

r

L

rJ r

c' L

.- .- 2 - u

T C 6

.- L? c

T

c '7

CL L 6

%-

W L

4 r

tJ

c -. +

L

C

L

.- r?

C

c-

- C

0

-E

C 0

C' K C

4-J

A

r': r. r-:

r.

c'

u T

II r:

. r - c .-- c-

L' c! +

J

C

. c I C

C

- C

C

L'

+J

C

r: .- c

-.

.- L

7

c

c L C C'

CI -. ..

L

C

r.

C

V.7-17

<

c ii c - -_ .. i/

I C 4-

T

5 LJ

c!,

E

T c

R

C I

4J

- c' - L

4'

Ll

.c

U

I

r

3. >. 4-J .-. .-.- .-. c, - - t c U

1'.

.- .- .I r. c

-: :-

c

r - 4-' t. C

+I

c.

C L C

C.

L

L

C: 4 . 41

.- I--

.- P

-.

.- L: c :

L? c' L

- ? c1

Ll

r; c

a-

c- L' ' ./ c' L. 42

c

c. .- JJ

L

C

v. C

- r- LT C

C C

L' c L L1 f.

r

.- -.. -- c r: L' r-

4J

.-.. . - u

C

C' c' (?' L

c-

.-. J.J c

-_ - 11 c L? C c L r

- L 7

c;

L

49

.- L7 c

.-.

t C

C

L

.- a :

E v\

L. c T C

r. 1 -' v:

C

C

L7 L?

7

.- .- c L c 7: c rI

c I L- - - C

E a S

C U

c

.- .- - c

L

c .- -. L

l .- c ,-. -. r. C

J

v: C

- L

c

C C r.

1

u

u

.- S

. .. > 0

.- .-

LJ

L

J c

.- r.

Ll c

C

.- C

T c;

C' L

I

u

C C

i

IJ

C'

.- n

'L

E' a .-

I

t L?

TC

C 1

JA

Et

ri

I

r \

t' I.'

v1 C

' L

c: o

c

.- L

c

c x

c L

T. c

c

5' L

L

". c

.-

uc

-

L?

;c

T

CT

L

-

.- C

CC

ZQ

'

<-

1

'

VK

CC

L.

U

C .d - c c

.- C

LL

'.

-L

ai L c

>> L

r. L

.-. >

o

- c\

u

r- L

>

C

r.. .-

C

.- u

:_

'c

.-

rc

(r

.- x 7

P

- - - C

a,

- c L L

U

C

r

- r; l? C L a

cn I h

7

c

c' c.

C

C

.- +J c7 CJ

L

C'

C V

r. c L

C C

C

C

r

r-

C

U

.- 7 7

.- L!

U

.- E

.- c c'-

K c-

C' u

h

0' c:

- c

h

c-

L1

fr

:c

7

cc u ce. .- .-

cm

.-

I

c

- -.

V

C' 'C

u: c

E

U

K

c! 73

.- v)

m 0' L

T

C!

4-

u

.- .- c

L7 L

co

L

c

a* c

u

L

L

2 u u- C

c

r -. / 4-

L

m c

U

2- c C <

c

CJ > a

c

L' -7

-

C

c: 7

7

r. I

c

I.

L

V.7-20

V. 7-2

c n v i ronrwnt .

V. 7-23

V. 7-24

c

v. 7-25

V.7-26

UNITED STATES

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

&KC 3 1 1974

Richard Dai f uku 44 Buwell Street Boston, Massachusetts 02215

Dear Mr. Daifuku:

Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1974 commenting on the Atomic Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement on the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LYFBR) Program. The Statement has been revised where appropriate in response to the many comments received and a copy of the Final Statenent is enclosed for your information. AEC staff responses to your specific comroents are also enclosed. More detailed information concerning your comments and concerns on Plutonium Toxicity is presented in Section 4.7 and Appendix 1I.G of the Final Statement.

Your concerns on thermal pollution were discussed in Section 4.2 and Appendix 4.H of the Draft Statement and are also discussed in the Final Statement. discussed in the Draft Statement. t o demonstrate LWBR plant reliability, to an extent beyond that presently known. This information will be obtained in part from the LMFBR Demonstration Plant Project, which is discussed i n the Final Statement under Section 3.5.

Your concerns regarding nuclear plant reliability were not One purpose of the LWBR Program is

Your interest in the LMFBR Program and comments on the Draft Statement are appreciated.

Sincerely,

for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Programs

Enclosures : 1. AEC Staff Response to Comments 2. Final Environmental Statement,


V . 7-27

E n c l o s u r e 1

AEC S t a f f Kesponse t o S p e c i f i c Con-ments by Nr. Richard Daifuliu

1. Comment (page 1 1 ) :

"It w a s c l a imed t h a t I , . . t h e d i r e c t d i s c h a r g e of r a d i o a c t i v e materials accoun t s f o r less t h a n one hundred m i l l i o n t h of t h e t o t a l r a d i o a c t i v e wastes which are s t o r e d i n t a n k s as c o r r o s i v e l i q u i d s t h a t w i l l b o i l f o r more t h a n 100 y e a r s . . . ' r a d i o a c t i v i t y s t o r e d by 1980 were p r e s e n t e d and r e f e r e n c e s t o e a r l y t a n k l e a k s a t Hanford were c i t e d . It was then s t a t e d t h a t "It is i n e v i t a b l e t h a t some of t h e s e r a d i o i s o t o p e s w i l l f i n d t h e i r way i n t o t h e w o r l d ' s hydrosphere."

Then q u a n t i t i e s of

Response :

Most of t h e waste ( i n terms of c u r i e s ) w i l l o r i g i n a t e a t f u e l r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t s as l i q u i d h i g h - l e v e l was t e . Cur ren t F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e t h a t t h i s l i q u i d waste be c a n v e r t e d t o a s o l t d material w i t h i n f i v e y e a r s a f t e r s e p a r a t i o n i n t h e f u e l r e p r o c e s s i n g s t e p . T e c h n i c a l a s p e c t s of t h e HanL'ord waste t ank l e a k s are f o r t h e most p a r t u n r e l a t e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n of comnerc i a l h i g h - l e v e l waste management. l i q u i d s t o r a g e is p a r t of t h e commercial was t e management p l a n , c o r r o s i o n res is tent a l l o y s w i l l b e used f o r t h e pr imary containment b a r r i e r s ( t a n k s ) and more t h a n one b a r r i e r w i l l b e used ( e . g . , t anks i n s t a l l e d i n l i n e d v a u l t s ) , The p r o b a b i l i t y of l e a k s w i l l t h u s be v e r y low; t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a s i z e a b l e l e a k could go unde tec t ed w i l l a l s o be v e r y low ( t h e l e a k w i l l be t r apped and d e t e c t e d i n t h e v a u l t ) and t h e s e f a c t o r s combined w i t h t h e s h o r t - t e r m s t o r a g e (5 y e a r s o r l e s s ) make t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of unr-ontrol- l e d l a r g e i e a k s ex t r eme ly s m a l l . Analyses of p o s s i b l e p a t h s t o t h e hydrosphe re f o r r a d i o i s o t o p e s from waste management o p e r a t i o n s have n o t shown any instance where a s e r i o u s p u b l i c h e a l t h haza rd r e s u l t e d .

When s h o r t - t e r m


"A major r i s k a s s o c i a t e d w i t h n u c l e a r p l a n t s is t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a r e a c t o r a c c i d e n t ."

Response :

A l l c i v i l i a n power r e a c t o r s must undergo a n e x t e n s i v e s a f e t y review by t h e AEC. The g e n e r a l s a f e t y r equ i r emen t s which must b e m e t are set f o r t h i n t h e t ex t o f t h e F i n a l Statement in S e c t i o n 4.2.7.3. Through a d e f e n s e i n d e p t h approach , t h e r i s k of a r e a c t o r a c c i d e n t is reduced t o a c c e p t a b l e levels. The e x p e r i e n c e of t h e SL-1 a c c i d e n t and a l l o t h e r r e a c t o r a c c i d e n t s , such as t h e Fermi meltdown i n c i d e n t , h a s been f a c t o r e d i n t o t h e d e s i g n and c o n s t r u c t i o n of b o t h LWRs and f u t u r e LMFBRs. It may

V.7-28

2

be pointed ou t aga in h e r e t h a t no member of t h e genera l pub l i c has been k i l l e d o r i n ju red as a r e s u l t of a r e a c t o r acc ident .

3. Comment (pages 11-12):

"In 1961, t h r e e r e a c t o r s t a f f members were k i l l e d by r a d i a t i o n and an explosion of steam i n an experimental AEC r e a c t o r owing t o mismanage- ment of a s i n g l e c o n t r o l rod. I n 1957, a plutonium product ion r e a c t o r i n England malfunctioned, a l l r e a c t o r safeguards f a i l e d , and radio- a c t i v e f i s s i o n products (approximately 20,000 c u r i e s of Iodine-131) went up t h e s t a c k and w e r e spread over a 400 m i l e area, contaminat ing milk and vegetab les . The l a t t e r [explos ive acc iden t wi th coolan t duc t plugged] is p r e c i s e l y what happened t o D e t r o i t ' s Enrico Fermi Power P lan t i n 1966. The San Onofre nuc lear power p l a n t , which is nea r t he Western White House, was shu t down due t o an acc ident j u s t before P res iden t Nixon p ra i sed i t on t e l ev i s ion . "

Response :

I n t h e San Onofre and Fermi examples c i t e d , no s i g n i f i c a n t amounts of r a d i o a c t i v e material were r e l eased from t h e containmenr. The San Onofre "accident" w a s a minor malfunct ion which t h e p l a n t w a s designed t o accon- modate and r e s u l t e d i n very l i t t l e e f f e c t on opera t ion . i nc iden t is d iscussed i n more d e t a i l i n t h e response t o Comment 8 and i n t h e text i n Sec t ions 4.2.7.5 and 4.2.7, Annex C. It should a l s o be noted t h a t t he B r i t i s h r e a c t o r w a s an air-cooled r e a c t o r using metall ic f u e l , completely d i f f e r e n t from p resen t o r planned U.S. nuc lear power p l a n t s wi th respec t t o p o t e n t i a l f o r f i s s i o n product r e l ease . SL-1, an e a r l y pro to type m i l i t a r y r e a c t o r , experienced a malfunct ion of a type which would not be poss ib l e i n any cu r ren t power r e a c t o r .

The Fermi

4. Comment (page 12) :

"An atomic explosion is no t p o s s i b l e i n c u r r e n t l i gh twa te r r e a c t o r s , bu t a malfunct ion of t h e r e a c t o r wi th simultaneous f a i l u r e of sa feguards could r e s u l t i n a f u e l mel.tdown."

Response :

Simultaneous f a i l u r e of s e v e r a l sa feguards and m u l t i p l e r e a c t o r system malfunctions would have t o occur t o s i g n i f i c h n t l y damage an LMFBR r e a c t o r core. p l a n t s is so great a s t o make t h i s p r o b a b i l i t y vanish ingly small. C a p a b i l i t i e s t o achieve comparable o r improved l e v e l s of s a f e t y are addressed i n Sec t ions 4.2.7.4 and 4.2.7.5 i n t h e F i n a l Statement. The

The m u l t i p l i c i t y of l i n e s of defense i n c u r r e n t nuc lea r power

.

V . 7-29

3

acc iden t c i t e d is addressed i n Sec t ion 4 . 2 . 7 .

5 . Comment (page 12):

In a 1000 megawatts parer r e a c t o r , t h e r ad ioac t ive m s t e r i a l re leased I f

t o t he environment would approximate t h a t r e l eased i n t h e explosion of a 50 megaton bomb."

Response :

A l l r e a c t o r s are b u i l t wi th many b a r r i e r s t o t h e r e l e a s e of f i s s i o n products t o the environment. i ts c l add icg , t he r eac to r v e s s e l and primary cool ing system, and the p l a n t containment bui ld ing . of these b a r r i e r s is extremely remote, so remote as t o c o n s t i t u t e an i n s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k . I n any event , a r e l e a s e of r ad ioac t ive m a t e r i a l approximated by t h a t produced i n a 50 megaton bomb would simply no t be poss ib le .

These b a r r i e r s are t h e nuc lear f u e l ,

The p o s s i b i l i t y f o r escape through a l l


"Even i f t he nuc lear f i s s i o n is shut down promptly upon f a i l u r e of cool ing , b u i l t up r a d i o a c t i v i t y i n t h e f u e l cont inues t o gene ra t e hea t a t a s u f f i c i e n t r a t e to m e l t t h e fue l . For a r e a c t o r of 1000 megawatts or more, molten f u e l would breach no t on ly t h e r e a c t o r containment s t r u c t u r e s i n the present des igns , bu t would melt through t h e s t r u c t u r e and s tee l cas ing , and down i n t o t h e ea r th . be a s e r i o u s occurrence, for many r a d i o a c t i v e wastes o r d i n a r i l y t rapped wi th in t h e f u e l are gases . A t t h i s po in t , a t least, t h e gaseous po r t ion of t h e r a d i o a c t i v e wastes would be re leased t o t h e o u t s i d e air."

This would

Response :

The p o s s i b i l i t y of enough molten f u e l reaching t h e bottom of the r e a c t o r vessel t o breach i t is very remote because of t h e many s a f e t y f e a t u r e s , i nhe ren t and designed. If, however, i t is a r b i t r a r i l y assumed t h a t normal coolant is l o s t , and t h a t a l l s a f e t y f e a t u r e s f a i l , inc luding a l l decay hea t renoval systems, and t h c t no emergency measures were taken t o provide cool ixg , i t would be poss ib l e t h a t r tol ten material would eventu- a l l y escape i n t o the ground. The number of simultaneous major f a i l u r e s which must be assumed however put t h i s event f a r o u t s i d e reasonable cons i d e r a t ion.

4


"The p o t e n t i a l f o r a s e r i o u s r e a c t o r acc ident r e s u l t i n g i n widespread d i spe r s ion of r a d i o a c t i v e wastes is h igher i n some types of breeder r e a c t o r s than i n l i g h t water r e a c t o r s used today ... . I '

Response :

There are many inhe ren t f e a t u r e s i n the LMFBR t h a t reduce the p o t e n t i a l f o r c e r t a i n types of acc idents as compared t o l i g h t water r e a c t o r s . These f e a t u r e s inc lude t h e l a r g e margin from b o i l i n g i n t h e coolan t (500-600°F), low p res su re of t h e system, and t h e thermal capac i ty of t he coolan t ( see Sec t ion 4.2.7.4 of t h e F i n a l Statement) . Both LWRs and LMFBRs have design f e a t u r e s t o prevent t h e occurrence of acc iden t s and t o mi t iga t e acc ident consequences i f one should occur . The p o t e n t i a l f o r a s e r i o u s r e a c t o r acc ident i n e i ther type of system i s considered extremely s m a l l .


'I... an explos ive acc ident is p o s s i b l e i f a cool ing duct becomes plugged. Fermi Power P lan t i n 1966. The r e a c t o r was an advanced iMFBR. A p iece of metal blocked the l i q u i d sodium coo lan t , causing p a r t i a l mel t ing of a few f u e l assemblies . Some r a d i o a c t i v e gas escaped wi th in t h e p l a n t , a l though none was de tec t ed o u t s i d e t h e bu i ld ing . While they analyzed the p o s s i b i l i t i e s , t h e ope ra t ing s t a f f hes i - t a t e d f o r a month t o probe f o r t h e source of t r o u b l e and scope of damage f e a r i n g t h a t an explos ion might be t r i g g e r e d because of t h e d i s t o r t e d f u e l conf igura t ion t h a t r e s u l t e d from t h e meltdown (Fabr icant and Hallman, 1971) . ' I

The latter is p r e c i s e l y what happened t o D e t r o i t ' s Enrico

Response :

Extensive work has been performed on t:he i n t e r a c t i o n between molten f u e l and sodium coolant a t t h e high temperatures a s soc ia t ed wi th p a r t i a l coolan t blockage. This work has shown t h a t a l though t h e r e would be some t r a n s f e r of energy from t h e f u e l t o the coolan t which might lead t o p a r t i a l vapor i za t ion of t h e coolan t and some increased p res su re i n the coolan t duc t , t h e ex ten t and rate of t h i s energy t r a n s f e r would not be of such magnitude as t o c h a r a c t e r i z e i t as an explosion. I n t h e case of Fermi, coolan t blockage w a s followed by f u e l mel t ing and a consequent -- decrease i n energy product ion rate. Although t h e r e was some unce r t a in ty fol lowing the p a r t i a l meltdown as t o the b e s t way t o proceed with a n a l y s i s of t h e i n c i d e n t , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of an explosion w a s no t a major concern. See Sec t ion 4 . 2 . 7 , Annex C f o r a more complete d i scuss ion of t h e Fermi i n c i d e n t .

V. 7-31

5

Future LMFERs w i l l be designed t o prevent blockage of coolan t channels i n the core through t h e use of s t r a i n e r s and o t h e r engineer ing f e a t u r e s (see Sec t ion 4 .2 .7 .4 ) ; experiments and ana lyses ( c i t e d i n Sec t ion 4.2.7.6.4) have shown t h a t eve? f o r l a r g e flow blockages, on the o rde r of 80-90% of t h e t o t a l cco lan t flow through a subassembly, only very minor temperature rises w i l l r e s u l t , as c ros s flow of coolan t between f u e l p i n s i n a subassembly w i l l remove s u f f i c i e n t hea t t o prevent excess ive overhea t ing o r flow i n s t a b i l i t y .


"Emphasis should be placed on energy conserva t ion and on the development of environmental ly sound energy sources . "

R e s pons e :

The AEC agrees t h a t a n a t i o n a l e f f o r t on energy conserva t ion is necessary , as discussed i n Sec t ion 6C of the F i n a l Statement . However, whi le recog- n i z i n g t h a t conserva t ion measures have r ecen t ly had an important impact r e s u l t i n g i n reduced energy usage, i t is a l s o r e a l i z e d t h a t t he e x t e n t by which conserva t ion measures may a l ter f u t u r e energy demand o r growth r a t e s is at t h i s t i m e unce r t a in . I t would t h e r e f o r e appear t h a t energy con- s e r v a t i o n a lone , d e s p i t e i t s necess i ty , should no t be r e l i e d on t o completely o f f s e t those f a c t o r s which l e a d t o increased energy usage. It is i n t h i s contex t t h a t w e b e l i e v e the developnient of a l l environmental ly sound energy sources is necessary along wi th conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s . These sources , such as s o l a r energy, should be developed t o t h e i r f u l l p o t e n t i a l , and t h e AEC, NASA, NSF and o t h e r government agencies are already supporting work in t h e s e areas ( s e e Sec t ion 6 ) . Howe-ier, f o r t h e several reasons d iscussed i n t h e F i n a l Statement , i t does n o t appear t h a t our energy requirements can be s a t i s f i e d (even assuming a success fu l conserva t ion program) without t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of and con t r ibu t ion from s e v e r a l energy sources , i nc lud ing t h e LHFBR. It is t h e r e f o r e f e l t t h a t f a i l u r e t o develop the LMFBR would l ead t o our be ing unable t o meet p ro jec t ed energy demands.

3900 Cashion P1.. Oklahoma C i t y , Okla. 73112 Monday, A p r i l 15, 1974

Director , %vironmental Impact Review Soard f o r t he L i c u i d ffe t d Fas t Breedar Reactor Atomic Znergy Coxmission Washington, D.C. 20545 Dear S i r ,

My h u s t m d and I wou'd l i k e t o s u b m i t the following papers t o be

en t s red i n t o the 3nvironmental Impact S ta temmt i n opposi t ion t o

the l i g u i d metal f a s t breeder r eac to r . Along with our s ta te tmnts ,

prepared sepa ra t s lg and i n two separa te f o l d e r s , I am a l so sending

along l i t e r a t u r e derogatory t o the LNFBR, a l s o ma te r i a l i l l u s t r a t i n g

the hazards of t he p r o l i f e r a t i n g use of plutonium, which i s the

ch ief f u e l of t h e f a s t breeder reac tors .

Some of t h i s ma te r i a l i s of na t iona l conc$rn and some p e r t a i n s t o

our l o c a l s i t u a t i o n i n Oklahoma. Outside of some of t h e l o c g l inspec t ion r epor t s , I havs n o t included m a t e r i a l p u t o u t by the A . Y . C .

s i n c e t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e t o you a.lready.

We have t he g raves t concsms about t he safety of t h e fest breeder

r eac to r s , and cannot too s t rong ly urge ou r government t o no t

proceed w i t h t h e i r dev?loprnsnt and use. There a r e s a f e r and ' saner

forms of energy t h a t can be dsveloped- one might be our 300 t o

1000 year supply of coal.

With d m p e s t concern. - 3

V.8-2 n

Background Xa te r i a l Cpposing the Liquid !%tal Fast Bxoder Reactor and the Flutonium Iconomy

t o be ontsred into the environmental impact statement aga ins t the LI4FBR

A ril 15, 1974 8 e n e and Gay ord Younghein 3900 Cashion P1. Oklahoma C i t y , Ckla, 73112 405-946-6368

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9 .

10.

11.

12.

13 1

14.

1s.

16.

V.8-3

L e t t e r dated March 18, 1974 from Barry Smirnoff (Hudson I n s t i t u t e ) t o (addressee omit ted) concerning c u r r e n t LWR's.

Unknown source , information concerning Fuel F a c i l i t i e s (General E l e c t r i c Company, Kerr-McCee Corporat ion (Cimarron F a c i l i t y ) , Green Bay X-Ray Se rv ice , Inc . , Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Letter from Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporat ion, March 7, 1974 t o M r . R . G . Page, Chief of Mater ia l s and Plan t P ro tec t ion Branch, D i r e c t o r a t e of Licensing, USAEC, Washington, D . C . , and a r e t u r n l e t t e r from R . G . Page of t h e USAEC t o Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporat ion, M r . W. J. Ske l l ey , D i rec to r Regulat ions and Cont ro l , Kerr-McGee Center , Oklahoma C i t y , Oklahoma on February 14, 1974, concerning phys ica l s e c u r i t y of Cimarron F a c i l i t y .

Not Man Apar t , Apr i l 1974. (a) "Marianas Trench Linked To A-Plants" (b) "Green Thumbs Vs . Fas t Breeders"

"Science Conquers A l l , ' I Johns Hopkins Magazine, November 1973.

I l ene Younghein, "A G r i m Fa i ry Tale - Or Is It," The Oklahoma Observer, Janclary 25, 1974.

Richard Lewis, The Nuclear Power Rebel l ion , B u l l e t i n of Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , pages 5-25.

Science and Public A f f a i r s , "Need f o r Breeder Reactors , I 1

page 30. A p r i l 1974,

"Atom P lan t Passes Tes t ,'I Dai ly Oklahoma, September 29, 1973.

J. K. Frenkel , M.D., "Biologic E f f e c t s of Nuclear Power , I t Mid-American C o a l i t i o n f o r Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s , Newsle t te r , Volume 1, number 5 , March 1974.

Al len L. Hammond, "Breeder Reac tors : Marvel o r Menace ?'I Harpers , pages 30-34, January 1973.

Amory B. L w i n s , "The Case Against The Fas t Breeder Reac tor , " B u l l e t i n of t he A t o m i c S c i e n t i s t s , March 1973, pages 29-35.

Natura l Resources Defense Counci l , Inc . , "Report Conclused Present Radiat ion P ro tec t ion Standards f o r Plutonium 100,000 T h e s TOO Lax To Pro tec t Publ ic ," News Release, February 1974.

" S c i e n t i s t Warns of Bootleg A-Bombs ,I1 Oklahoma C i t y Times, March 1974.

Roger Rapoport , "Catch 24,400 (or , Plutonium Is My Favor i t e Element) , ' I

Eco-Catastrophe, San Franc isco , pages 54-66, 1971.

Poisoned Power, "How Radia t ion From Atomic Energy Programs Gets To You," pages 60-61.

17.

18.

19.

20 .

21 .

22;

23 .

24.

25.

26 .

27 .

28.

29.

3 0 .

31.

32.

33 .

v. 8-4

P e r i l s of t h e Peaceful A t o m , "Don't Bother Running," pages 134-135.

"Hanford's Radioact ive Leak - A "Disgraceful" Accident," U.S. N e w s & World Report , September 10, 1973.

"Goodbye, Colorado," Harpers, A p r i l 1974.

Anthony Rip ley , "Law Group C a l l s f o r Far S t r i c t e r Safeguards on Radia t ion from Plutonium," The New York Times, Sunday, February 17, 1974.

Donald P. Geesaman, "Plutonium and t h e Energy Decision," B u l l e t i n of t he Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , pages 33-36, September 1971.

New Yorker, r e : Plutonium Toxic i ty , December 1973.

Map shoving popula t ion d e n s i t y and l o c a t i o n of Kerr-McGee Plutonium Plant .

"The Plutonium Challenge.," no d a t e .

Jack Shepherd, "The Radiant Nucleus," I n t e l l e c t u a l Digest pages 20-22, March 1973.

*Task Force Against Nuclear Po l lu t ion ,

W. J. B a i r and R. C. Thompson, "Plutonium: Biomedical Research," Science, pages 7150721, February 2 2 , 1974.

"Plutonium and t h e 'Hot P a r t i c l e Problem," and "Environmental Group Proposes a Draconian Answer ,'I Science, pages 834-835, March 1974.

"Hot Water Problem.. .A tom frets over A E C ' s r a d i o a c t i v e ove r s igh t s , " The Nat iona l Observer, January 5 , 1974.

H. Peter Metzger, The Atomic Establ ishment , "Radioactive Waste: The Moyse T h a t Roared, pages 148-151.

Articles ( 8 ) Environment Apr i l 1972 @) Environment July/August 1973.

"Two More Bodies Found i n Enid: T o l l N o w Four," Dai ly Oklahoma, October 1 2 , 1973.

L e t t e r t o the A t o m i c Energy Conmission, Tuesday October 9, 1973, from Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord Younhein, Oklahoma C i t y , Oklahoma.

Reply l e t t e r t o M r . and Mrs. Gay'lord Younghein's l e t t e r of October 9, 1973. L e t t e r from James G. Keppler, Regional D i r e c t o r , D i rec to ra t e of Regulatory Operat ions, Region 111, l e t t e r da ted January 11, 1974.

V .8-5

34. Material obtained from Publ ic Records from Gutherie Library : L e t t e r dated March 12, 1973 from Richard Chitwood t o W . I. Ske l l ey Di rec to r of Regula t ion and Cont ro l , r e : Cimarron Plutonium P lan t . AEC Inspec t ion Report dated February 12-16, 1973, r e " E f f l u e n t , Par t 111, Plutonium P l a n t , from AEC Inspec t ion Report June 18-22 , 1973, Cimarron F a c i l i t y . March 7 , 1973 l e t t e r t o D i r e c t o r a t e of Regulatory Opera t ions , AEC N o t i f i c a t i o n of a n Inc iden t , from G . H. Bedinger, G. W . Roy, and R. H. Engelken. L e t t e r f r o Kerr-McGee, dated A p r i l 17 , 1973 t o AEC Richard B. 'Chitwood , Chief , Technical Support Branch, D i r e c t o r a t e of Licensing, o r i g i n a t o r Ceorge F. Parks, Execut ive Vice P res iden t L e t t e r from R . B. Chitwood, Ch ie f , t o Kerr-McGee, A t t e n t i o n : George Parks. L e t t e r from R . G . Page, Materials P lan t P r o t e c t i o n Branch, t o Kerr-McGee, a t t e n t i o n : M r . Morgan Moore. L e t t e r from AEC, Frank Malone, Chief , Admonistrat ive Se rv ices Branch, Off i c e of Adminis t ra t ion . L e t t e r from W . J. Skel ley t o AEC.

Environmental Report f o r

Liquid

(1)- Gutherie Dai ly Leader, Fr iday , March 9, 1973. Kerr-McGee Reports

(j) Minor F i r e . L e t t e r t o Parker S . Dunn, Vice P r e s i d e n t , Nuclear Opera t ions , Kerr- McGee from Harold L. P r i c e , D i rec to r Of Regula t ions .

V.8-7

€VEL FACILITIES

General Electric Company RIFRpl

Inspections were ,conducted on nine days between March, 5 and 19 to review cold run and test activities. has been delayed further as a result of tests carried out on the U" Calciner-Airveyor System following recent modifications. the Operating License is not expected until July or August 1974.

The integrated plant cold run

Issuance of

Kerr-McGee Corporation (Cirnarron Facility)

The licensee informed R0:III by telephone on February 28 that the February monthly plutonium physical inventory showed a significant material unaccounted for (MUF) loss quantity. ' As a result, Kerr- PlcGee stopped fuel fabrication work and initiated a new inventory on March 1. resulted in finding most of the plutonium MUF.

The reinventory, which was conducted from March 1 through 11, - Inspections were conducted on March 1 through 13 to observe the reinventory and to review the implementation of the licensee's physical saclrritj' pzcgr". No sipniiico,it lzficicncies vere identified. Four samples of plutonium nitrate solutions representirig :tic scrsp inventory were taken by RO for evaluation at Los Alamos. plutonium is not considered significant for the operation involved and fa believed-to be in the process piping systems. Based on the results >f the licensee's reinventory and the RO inspection findings, the licensee was permitted to resume production operations.

The unaccounted for

Green Bay X-Ray Service. Inc.. Green Bay.~Wisconein

In response to the Commieeion'e Order of February 19, impoeing civil penalties of $SOOO, the licensee responded on February 28, offerlng to pay $2500, but requesting a hearing on seven of the alleged vio- lations on which the remaining $2500 civil penalties vere f8rrstneeJ. This matter is under review by RO.

111-9

V.8-0 I

KERR-MCGE :lUCL EAR CORPffRATION ficnn.Llccu c i n r m QRUWQYI am. QIUHOY. 7312s . March 7 ,

% , . ;. I

Mr. R. 'G. Page, Chief Mater ia l s a n d P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n Branch D i r e c t o r a t e o f Licensing . . U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545

Dear Mr. Page:

P l ease r e f e r t o y o u r l e t t e r o f February 1 4 r e q u e s t i n g t h a t we s u b m i t a r e p l y t o t h e i tems numbered 1 and 2 by March 1 , 1974.

O u r r ep ly has taken t h e form o f a s u b s t a n t i a l r e v i s i o n t o t h e s e c u r i t y p l a n . A r ev i sed p l a n fo r License SNfl-928 is a t t a c h e d . You w i l l a l s o f i n d t h e r e q u e s t f o r c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s tn t h P r o n i i i r e m o n t c ~f 1Q 7 3 e. ldr~==r : ! a S e p a r a t e l y a t r a c n e a ' Appendix. t h e r e q u e s t f o r except ion should be r e l e a s e d t o t h e p u b l i c I n accordance w i t h 10 C F R 2.790(d).

P lease l e t me know i f you have a d d i t i o n a l comments.

we do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t

WJS : m l . . . .

A t tachme n t

v.3-9

;.;2 :1.?~2 2stablish2d t h a t tiz enclosures t o your let ters of January 5 , 1E74 a n d Jawary 25, 1974 coniain inforcation of a i y p ~ specified in 15 CF?, 2.79?(a). sr:tirity p l a n s art c!?en:d t o bs comercizl or fins.ncia1 infomation :.;:thin t h i neaning o f 10 CFf? 9.5(a) (4) and sha l l be s u b j x t t o dis- c l o s r e only i n accordance vith the provisions o f 10 CFR 9.10. For s iqi lsr rzasons, we are withhalding the enclosures t o this letter from publ i c disclosure..

Accordingly, pursuant t o k c t i o n 2.790(d), your

Sincerely,

R: G. Pa&!, Chief 13a teri a 1 s and P1 a n t Protection

Directorate of Licensing Branch

Enclosures : 1. Aidi t iona l questions on

Kerr-3cGee Pu Physical Protection Plan

&rr-XcG?s U Physical Prot2ction PI 3n

2. Addit ional Questions on

V.3-10

April 1974 '

New Research:

Marianas Trench .Linked to A-plants

' in Those Days They Worried About

The "America Syndrome"

Researchers at the Brookhovel National &boratories have recently discovered evidence

-suggesting that the Marianas Trench - the deepest hole in the ocean's floor - may have been caused by a meltdown of a prehistoh: light-water reactor. .-

Scientisrs have so far been unable to determine whether the reactor was of the boiling- water o r pressurized-water variety.

Contacted for comment at her cozy house- trailer, "Bide-a-wee." AEC Chairman Dixy Ray Gunn said. "why sure they had a meltdown. They tried to build a reactor down there on the bottom side of the earth, and the lid simply fell off. Dummies..'

The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency released the following statement early this morning:

"The alleged discovery of a nuclear history to the geologic origins of the Marianas Trench marine formation is the product of untrustwor- thy pseudo-scientists who didn't go to an AEC-accredited university and seldom take baths."

Senator Tedward Kenney. in a speech on the Senate floor, called for emergency legislation to fund a new agency of the federal government to study the new findings and determine what link, if any, exists between the major oil companies and the Trench.

Golf Oil was rumored to be dispatching a

- _

team of researchers to the site to determine if i t will be feasible to mine the radioactive residue at the bottom of the Trench. Vice President Elmer Curie joked with reporters, :'The stuffs nearly as potent now as i t ever was." . The Center for Atlantis Studies, in a related press release, confined their comments to one

'sentence: :'We told you so." A call was placed to Friends of the Earth's office in San Francisco for comment, but all this reporter could get from the person who answered the phone w a hysterical laughter.

Fair Is the Wind From France

Green Thumbs

Fast Breeders vs; -

Thursday last month, I went to the information meeting of "Lrs Amis de la Terre." hoping I would get good advice for my gardening. I entered a rather small room where people were ;

excitedly discussing the plans for a new action. They were heatedly accusing mysterious entities called "EDF" and "CEA" of hushing-up the seriousness of the situations. Puzzling words like "millirems," "periods," "transuranian alpha-emitters" were exchanged. Taking advantage of a l u l l in the discussion, I asked:

"What are.you guys talking abbut?" "Breeders, fast breeders." And the abstruse discussion went on. These ,

crazy people were so engrosed in their "breed- ' e n " that it was- useless t o try extracting from . them any tip about gardening; they were forget- '.

ling "la Tern!" So I left, trying to figure out by myself what they were so excited about.

Breeders? Brceders? Fast ones?? Maybe a bonanza for the cattle business'? But 1 suddenly remembered that Les Amis de la Terre are worried by overpopulation and that they translated and published an American book called "La Bombe P." SO I decided to ask "Le Planning Familial,'' a nice group which gave contracep- tive information to my girl friend. They probably are also interested in overpopulation, and surely they are more accessible than these high- brow ecologists at Les Amis.

greeted me at "Le Planning Familial." Well, they are overworked, the government has cut their funds, life is hard in Pompidoulian France for groups fighting for more freedom. But. yes, my question is important. Fast breeders are surely a big menace. Something must be done.

The young lady, who has some knowledge of human biology, helped me to guess what the problem is about. Breeders, fast ones . . . probably a kind of mutant who breeds faster than ordinary human beings . . . bad . . . very bad. Moreover they engender things with very long periods . . . probably poor females, even more handicapped than their normal sisters! Great ex-, citement at "Le Planning Familial."

The story went to the ears of journalists. What a scoop for them! Five-centimeter head-, lines on the front pages: "Fast Breeding Mut- ants! Beware!" Latent racist feelings arose, pushing our beloved Minister of the Interior and his police into organizing a nalionwide mutant- hunt: cars stopped on the roads by search pat- rols, compulsory blood-tests, third-degree questioning. . . Everybody a suspect! 1984!

Today, a friend who works in a lab told me something from which I gather that there may be some connection between "breeders" and nuclear energy. Maybe I made a mistake? But do not tell anyone. I might very well end up in jail if "they" discover that 1 am at ttie origin of all

Jules Sibiragou (P.c.c. Pierre Samuel)

A short-haired young lady in blue jeans .

this fuss(

-

V.8-11

UNITCD STATES AT0 X IC EN E i? S Y C 08'4 i v l I SS I ON

WASHINSTO%. D.C. 20543

. . . . . I . .

Kerr-l!c%? I: t iclxr C w o 3 r z t i o n ATTI':: ?r. 2 . J . S k l l e y , Director ,

Rtzulation and Control Kerr-2cGno Center Okl a ho72 C i ty, 0'11 ahcca 731 25

. Gentlcrm:

We hay2 r e v i w i d yzyr Jenmry 5 , 1975 subai i ta l f o r the physical p r o t e c t i m of ths plgtmi.;;: plant a n d your January 26, 1974 subni t ta l

' for tk physic21 prarection of ths u r a n i u m plant located a t the Cinarrm F3ci l i ty . .

O u r revizr; id2ntifie.J 3 nc:hr of ~ p ~ i r e ~ e n t s o f 10 CFF? 73.50, 73.50, 73.70, and 73.7i bhich ? r e c o t ad?ql:?!.tely addressed i n your securi ty p l z ~ s . ! ? w i n ? 3 p i a n r v i c i t . by fir. F m i k A . Cosiiiliii GY; r&rtixy E, 5, 1974, t h z e i t e x k;ore discussed zcd explained i n detai l with represen ta t ivss o f y m r s t a f f . 2 u s i n g t ? e fornat of Enclosure 4, o f our general l e t t e r sen t t o l icensees on FIove;;l%r 25, 1973. concerniq the plutoniun s x u r i t y p l z n ; Enclosure 2 pertains t o t h 2 u r a n i m plant securi ty p l a n .

Me r~qu2st tint ysu subcit your reply t o t h e i t e m s i n Enclosures 1 and 2 by I2rch i, 197g. Pleast subnit youl. reply f o r each securi ty plan as a separzte enclosur2. I t i s imperative t h a t we receive your reply by t h i s date so t h s t v:? m y co7plete our revie;/ of your securi ty plan by blarch 6, 1974. nay bc necessary f o r us t o supplensnt your securi ty p lans w i t h amencl- mnts t o your l icenses.

In y c J r reply, any requcst f o r an gxception from a spec i f ic requircaent i n the r q u l a t i o n s PUS^ be submitted separately from the securi ty plan. A detai led j u s t i f i c a t i o n r u s t be presznted f o r each such request. An exception request G u s t be prepared i n a manner sui table f o r p u b l i c disclosure; hwtvir, the d e t a i l s of a l te rna t ive methods o f protection should b i s u h i i t e d a s an enclosure so t h a t they may be viithheld fron public disciosurs .

These i t e o a re listed i n Enclosures 1 and

Enclosure 1 ccntains our comments and questions

I f w2 do not receive your reply by March 1 , 1974, i t

V.8-12

Prom Jolins Hopkins Magaxlne

Some cheerful rules for research in a world where anything that can go wrong will.. .

is manuscript, found in the lohns Hovkins Medical School

&.b i f i ce of L u r e Aurelian, Ph.D., & of unknown provenance. All Dr. Aurelion will say is, “It’s been around for a long time. But a bunch of us who believe in cynicism did glorify it o bit. ’’

First Low of Experiment: In any field of scientific,endeavor, anything that can

. go wrong will go wrong. Corollary 1: Everything goes wrong at

one time. Corollary 2: If there is a possibility of

several things going wrong, the one that will go wrong is the one that will do the

Corollary 3: Left to themselves, things will always go from bad to worse.

Corollary 4: Experiments must be reproducible; they should fail in the Same way.

Corollary 5: Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.

Corollary 6: If everything seems to be going well, you have overlooked something.

-most damage.

W n d Low: It is usually impractical to worry beforehand about interference; if you have none, someone will supply

Corollary 1: Information necessitating a change in design will be conveyed to the designer after, and only after, the plans are complete.

Corollary 2: In simple cases, present- ‘ing one obvious right way vs. one obvious wrong way, it is often wiser to choose the wrong way so as to expedite

Corollary 3: The more innocuous a modi6cation appears to be, the further its influence will extend and the more plans will have to be redrawn.

. some for you.

’ subsequent revisions.

Third Low: In MY collection of data, the figures that are obviously correct, beyond all need of checking. contain the mors.

Corollary 1: No one whom you ask for help will see the error.

Corollary 2: Any nagging intruder who stops by with unsought advice will spot it immediately.

Fourth Low: If in any problem you find yourself doing an immense amount of work, the answer can be obtained by simple inspection.

The following rules have been formulated for the use of those new to the field of research:

1. Build no mechanism simply if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.

2. A record of data is useful; it indicates that you have been busy.

3. Before studying a subject, first understand it thoroughly.

4. Do not believe in luck; rely on it. 5. Always leave room, when writing a

report, to add an explanation if it does not work (Rule of the Way Out).

6. Use the most recent developments in the field of interpretation of experimental data:

a. Items such as Finagle’s Constant and the more subtle Bougerre Factor (pronounced “bugger”) are loosely grouped, in mathematics, under constant variables, or if you prefer, variable constants.

b. Finagle’s Constant, a multiplier of the zero-order term, may be characterized as changing the universe to fit the equation.

c. The Bougerre Factor is characterized as changing the equation to fit the universe. It is also known as the “Sooth- ing Factor”; mathematically similar to the damping factor, it has the characteristic of dropping the subject under discussion to zero importance.

d. A combination of the two, the Diddle Coefficient, is characterized as changing things so that universe and equation appear to fit without requiring a-change in either. r91

V.8-13

A Grim Fairy Tale Is It?

By ILENE YOUNGHEIN In the country of Newlandia lived a

most amazing people. They loved moving around, hither and yon, to and fro, crisscrossing the countryside. through the-air. on the water, under the water, over hill anddale. even thoughtunnelsin the ground, until no mole was safe in his hole.

Many. in their joy of moving, took their houses with them like, snails. Their mobiles were powered by blackgloil- a substance that had been accumulating in the deep regions of the earth for eons - dating back before there were Newlanders. or anybody else. Primitives thouqht the qloil wasa nuisance until the Newhders- came along and DIS- COVERED it. and DISCOVER itthey did.

The old Newlanders were knownto be thrifty, hardworking. simple folk, but with the great gloil windfall the people began to change. Not only did they build mobiles to take them hither and yon, up and down, over and under, but they built machines to do their work and even contraptions to entertain them. So, besides going to and fro they learned to push buttons, pull levers. and spend hours watching the magic picture box.

But, alas, something was amiss in the land. The Newlanders became fat and bored and started moving around all the more frantically - using up their gloil in tremendous glunks.

One day a wise man, from the Middle of the East, came to the kingdom and announced to the king and his court that the gloil was depleting and that the Newlanders would have to make do with less. The magic picture box carried the dire news to the remotest area of the country. For the first time in a generation, the Newlanders stopped. They looked kt their fat bellies, shriveled muscles, and mechanical slaves and panic reigned.

While rumors flowed back and forth like the tides, there arrived at the palace

ates Georgia Dee Beam. the Wizardess

retinue of worthy advisors, two pets, a Siberian Greyhound and a smoodle. her house - like a snail - and a mysterious lead lined glass box bornevery carefully by four black clothes bearers.

She was granted an audience by Good King Richard II himself. "What do you

replied the Wizardess, "in this lead-lined glass box, I have a most miraculous substance called satonium. Satonium is the fuel of the rapid multiplier reactor, and it is truly amazing. The more you burn, the more you have - works on the principal of perpetual motion, you know. With this stuff, the Newlanders can come and go, push buttons, pull levers, and watch the magic picture box to their hearts' content.. ."

The king and his council were over- ioved at the wonderful news. Servants

B rom the West. She arrived with a grand

. want, Georgia?' he said. "My Lord,

were ordered to go to the coffers and bring back five and a half billion gold duckets to dump at the Wizardess's feet. Good King Richard II handed down a decree that she go and develop the rapid multiplier reactors and f i l l them with the amazing satonium. The newswas broad- cast far and wide, on the magic picture box and happiness again reigned throughout the land.

But amid all the rejoicing. the Wizardess turned serious. "There is one thhg I forgot to mention." she confess- ed. "The Wicked Witch of the Atolls has put a curse on the satonium. She is vcry angry because we stole it from her while she was busy making bombs with it. A speck the size of flea's dandruff can give anyone breathing it afatal dread disease: what's more, it can continue killing peo- plefor 200,000 years. An amount the size of your Christmas turkey could kill everyone in the land You must be extremely careful and never, never allow any of it to get out. Only top experts should be employed to handle i t - people who never make mistakes."

But the king and his council and the Newlanders were so busy celebrating and rushing to and fro and turning the billboard lights on again that they paid no attention. "We trust you. Georgia, to do a good job." they said.

So. the Wizardess from the West gathered together all of the top perfec- tional scientists in the land, men from Lost Alamost, Oak Rim, the Madhattan Project, Prince Town, Orderance Labs, MitteiS and Califects. and they all went busily to work building the rapid mul- tipliers and filling them with satonium fuel.

Of course, as you might expect, there were some hysterical peasants who had misgivings about the whole thing. These prophets with their long hair, flowing beards. and faded patched trousers, pedaled their twocycles out of the woods and descended on the palace.

"We think you are making a dreadful mistake," they pleaded.

"You alarmists are very backward about going forward." yelled the king as he slammed the gates on their departing twocycles.

Well, dear reader, I guess you can imagine what happened. Everything went along well in Newlandia for awhile.

'But after some time, they became careless. Dullites from the hinderland were hired. One day a Dullite was reading the "Fogpatch" comic strip instead of watching the rapid multiplier, when thesatonium in therapid multiplier began multiplying too rapidly. It all melted down in a dreadful mess and the satonium got OUT.

Newlandia is still there, sparsely covered with odd looking plants, but there are no people, no birds, no animals, not even any snakes. Maybe in about 200,000 years another Columbus will come along and discover it.

.IO THE OKLAHOMA OBSERVER, JANUARY 25,1974

1 Another Kind of Fire

The Committee has notcd \vith concern in the past year the increased public opposition, not a little of it wholly unreasoning, to the construction of all electrical generating sources and their transmission systemr -Rrporf of fhr Joirrr Coiiiiiiiffrc, oii Afoinic Eiirrgy. Uiiired

. Sfnrrs Congrrss, 1910 <

s" 4 From the altitude where airliners pass over the region, the Endless a

Mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania are configured like the folds of a carpet pushed inward from its edge. The rounded ridges and shallow valleys run in parallel from the southwestern to the northeastern horizons. The view from a!oft suppo.-ts a theory that the mountains were formed by forces exerted against the continrn- tal margins of North America' by sea-Roor spreading, as magma from the earth's mantle was extruded from the mid-Atlantic Ocean rift.

Through this northerly region of .\ppalachi: fl.ws thr north branch of the Susquchanna River ?.long i ts cast h.:vk. 1 N O x r r s of level farinland near thc \ i:la~c of 3lcrho;ykit in \\')omi!lg County were staked nul i ir i 767 Cur :i l>;.:,)ri. .:c. ::apii~int. c' : this site, the Pcnnsy1v:inia E1ccti.i~ C,>I:I~VI;!. ; I 5r:hsitliar) of GLT- era1 Public Utilities Corporation. i>rop:>scd 11) bui1C.i an adv:t!Iccd typc of atomic-power plant in partncrbhip \\ it11 the Atomics Inter- national Divisio:i of North Aincr ic;;n RncL\vcll Corporation and the United Statcs Atomic E n c q y CL>mini.,sit>;i. L!c proposed plant

4 1 T H E N U C L E A R - P O W E R R E B E L L I O N

would demonstrate for the first tiinc the commercial application of the Liquid Mctal Fast Brccdcr Rcactor to clectric-power production. A second-gcncration fission rcactor wliicli the AEC had developed at a cost approaching a half-billion dollars to supplant its light-\\ atcr reactor, then coming’ into widesprcad use, the “breeder” was the product of a makeshift national cncrgy policy based on the expectation that, carly in the twenty-first ccntury, advanced fission reactors \\ ould bc producing half of the nation’s electrical energy and eventually would replace coal, oil, and gas to become the principal energy source.

In fuel efficiency and economy, the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFRR) would be as far ahead of the first light-water reactor put into commercial demonstration in 1957 at Shipping- port, Pennsylvania, as that device was ahead of Enrico Fermi’s Chicago Pile No. I , where the first controlled nuclear chain reaction was achieved on December 2, 1942.

A nuclcar reactor is ano:her kind of fire-a source of heat. In- stead of coal, oil, or gas, the light-water reactor developed in the United States “burns” the fissionable fuel uranium-235. The heat of the fissioning atoms boils water and makes steam to run turbine generators. But elcctric utilities using these reactors face rising fuel costs because uranium-235 is very limited in nature. I t amounts to only 0.7 per cent of natural uranium.

With breeder reactors, however, the picture is brighter. The fast breeder can tap up to 75 pcr cent of the energy in natural uranium-a hundred times more than the light-wat, -r reactors can utilize. Brecdcrs d o this by transmuting the bulk of natural ura-. nium, which is not fissionable, into fissionable plutonium-239, which does not exist in nature. In theory, the breeder reactor can “breed” three atoms of plutoniuin-239 for every two atoms of uranium-235 undergoing fission in the fucl rods. Hence it is capable of brccding mcve f u ~ l than it consumes.

With the brccdcr rcactor, the nuclear-power industry could look forward to the extension of an economical fucl supply from decades to millennia. The breeder thus becomes the device which a

Another Kind of Fire 1 5

growing nuclear-power establishnlcnt can cmploy to become a principal supplier of energy in the United States and the world.

A Rising of Skeptics

In proposing to build the first demonstration breeder in the Endless Mountains, the utility did not anticipdk the reaction of some of the residents. The comrnunitics in Wyoming County re- semble those of New England in some ways. White-painted frame houses, unpretentious and neat, are predominant. A considerable dsgree of economic homogeneity is suggested by the lack of con- spicuous affluence or poverty. In this part of Pennsylvania, on the border of the great anthracite coal-mining region, as in Xew Eng- land, one encounters a highly articulate skepticism that has questioned the impact of every technological innovation since the elec-

.

< tric light. (3

I

ul Possibly because the summers are pleasant and the autumns are

A

long and warm, with mountains illuminated by glorious foliage of red and gold, the natives take great satisfaction in the natural sur- roundings that they have begun to refer to as their environment They display a special concern for the preservation of a style of uncrowded country and village life in which the devices of modern technology can be used without altering or intruding coarsely on the rustic scene.

It was inevitable that some of the residents would consider the construction of a large nuclear-power demonstration plant, still in an experimental stage of design, as an intrusion and a threat in an area where no need for it existed. Five hundred niega\vatts was more than five times the demand for clcctricity in the region. N’ho needed that much? The ans\ver was obvious and unacceptable 10 some people. Not Wyoming Count) or w e n the csntcrs of nearby Scranton and Wilkes-Bsrre. This \vas ponr‘r for the future, sen- ing the Northeastern industrial coniplcx. I t had no relation t o the needs of Wyoming County, and its environmental impact W ~ S

considered only by the people who lived there.

1

6 / THE NUCLE\R- rO\VER R L B C L L I O S

It \vas by no nieans an overnight dcvclopnicnt. As early as 1962, the blucprint for thc hlcshappcn breeder and its sister dem- onstrators had hcsii drau n in the AEC‘s rcport to President John F. Kennedy. It said, in part, “. . . we estimate that by 4 . ~ . 2000, nucle3r power \\auld bc assuming the total increase in electrical- energy production. . . . We have cnidely estimated that by the century’s end. nuclcar installations niight actually be generating approximately half o f the total electric energy in the country.” The report, which in the words of Chairman Glenn T. Seaborg represented a “new and hard look at the role of nuclear power in our economy.” urged the development of the breeder reactor to exploit “the vast energy resources latent” in uranium-238 and thorium.,

Some of the people who began to feel concern about the plans of Pennsylvania Electric Company, Atomics International, and the AEC for Wyoming County had never heard of this report, were not aware of industry claims of greatly increased power requirements for the twenty-first century, and were not impressed by the AEC‘s visions of the atomic future. The demonstrator served interests remote in space and in time, interests which were guarded by mountain walls and distance from any accidental release of massive radiation from a new type of nuclear reactor. And it served these interests, it seemed, at the expense of the security of a small, dispersed population which the nuclear-energy planners considered evacuable in the “unlikely event’’ (as they were always saying) of a nuclear emergency.

What kind of an emergency would that be? Some people believed that nuclear reactors could blow up, like bombs. And they were right-about fast reactors, fueled with plutonium. Under certain conditions, breeders running on plutonium could blow up and spew deadly radioactive poisons all over the country,side. Or they could be sabotaged or strcck by missiles ni th thc-same effect.

In a report on “Public Health Factors in Reactor Site Selec- tion,” the United States Public Health Service had commented:

Numbered reference notes begin on p.,299.

Atioflicr K i t i d of Fire ! 7 Population density is an important factor to coiir:tlcr i n sclccting optinium rcaclor sites. Bascd on data a\*ailable to the public. rcleace rates of radioactive air and tvatcr contaniiiinntb from power rr‘ac:ors during normal operations have bccn quite low. Houcvcr. i n the unlikely event of a reactor accident. rclativcly largc qi;aiititics, of r2dio- active matcrials could be relcascd to thc cnvironnient. This ncccs- sitates locating reactors i n arcas Lvith low population dcmi ! l a ’ or close to populations of high mobility a h o could bc nio\cd in a short time period.2

While the population of Wyoming County could not be described as “highly mobile,” the road network in the county tvould enable most people to flee a massive release of radiation frorn a reactor at Meshoppen, if they were Xvarncd in time. How the urban populations of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre within a radius of thirty miles would fare might be regarded with less optimism. But W y s ~ i f i g Ccuztj. deai!y rirct the F%ib:ic Heaitii Service criteria for population density. The county seat, Tunkhannock, has a population of 2100 and a traffic light.

A Committee Is Formed

One evening in the autumn of 1969, Mrs. Joan Daniels, a housewife and mother who worked part time in the county library at Tunkhannock. was driving home from a Quaker meeting at Wilkes-Barre, when she decided that something ought to be done about the Meshoppen breeder. She turned to her friend and remarked, “I’d like to do something about that.”

Mrs. Daniels recalled (even after two years) that her frier1.d had responded without any hesitation, “All right. I’ll help.”

“That’s the frame of mind you get into at a Quaker misting,” Mrs. Daniels rclated. So began an organization called the Citizens Committee for Environmental Concern, which in 1969 opened its campaign to block the construction of the 500-mcga\vatt LhlFBR at Meshoppen.

Within twelve months, the committee had recruited members in Luzerne and Lackawanna counties, had entered into an extended

8 / THE SL'C1.F \R-PO\!'ER R C B I ~ L L I O S

Ji;ilogue \vith statc Icgislators and with rcprescntatives in Con- crc'ss. had brought ;? t\\o-iuonths series of scnlinars on atomic energy to the Tunkhmncck l!igh Scl1col a!iditorium, and had gathered six thousand naiiies to a pctition asking county, state, and fedcral officials to prevent the construction of the Meshoppen breeder. Thc comniit!c\: \vas influential in motivating State Rcpre- scntativc Franklin I,. Kury of Sunbury to introduce a bill in the I970 Pennsylvania legislature outlawing the building of breeder reactors in that state. The Kury bill did not survive-but it was a beginning. By the spring of 1970, thc proliferation of conventional, light-

water reactors in Pennsylvania-a coal-producing state-had aroused concern among environmental groups in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. According to the State Director of Radiological Health, Thomas M. Gerusky, Pennsylvania had more nuclear reactors in operation, in construction. or in the planning stages than any other state. In view of the rising concern about the Meshop- pen breeder emanating*.from'Tunkhannock, and the publicity at- tending Representative Kury's bill, the State Senate appointed a Select Committee to "see what all the hullabaloo is about" Public hearings were held at the State Capitol in Harrisburg during the summer and fall of 1970.

Another Kitid of Firc 1 9

About a dozen nicn a d womcn wcrc sc:itcd around a polished table, talking informally m d :dl at once. Thc nroinn of pcrcnlating coffee fillcd thc room. What could thcsc "country pcople" do to frustrate thc dcsign of a i Establishment i n \vhich the government was formally allicd with thc privatc electric-puxcr industry arid its industrial suppliers? Whcn the Lirnitcd Tcst Ran Treaty was de- bated in the Unitcd Statcs Senate in 1963. some scientists expressed regret that the mysterics of the nuclcar agc \yere so arcane that only an intellectual elite, an atomic priesthood, \\as capable of understanding and passing judgment on qucstions of nuclear policy. Advancing nuclear technology was disenfranchising the people.

However reasonable this opinion may have appeared in 1963, there was no basis for it in Wyoming County in 1970. After a year of study, lectures, seminars, and discussion, members of the Citizens Committee for Environmental Concern had acquired a firm grasp of the technical issues of nuclear power and its safety

had a more sophisticated understanding of the hazards of radiation contamination and fuel-core overheating than most of their elected representatives. They could see clearly enough the propaganda, half-truths, and inconsistencies in the promotional marter purveyed by both the AEC and the industry to persuade residents of the area that fission reactors were safe, clean, wholesome devices for power prdduction. Mrs. Daniels had become co-chairman of the committee with

Dr. Bryan Lee, Jr., a veterinarian. Mrs. Danicls. with the cffi- ciency of a librarian, had assembled a prodigious file of atomic- energy and environmental information. With the forbearance of her husband, Sidney, she set up a library of her o n n in the'bed- room of their home.

Members of the Citizens Committee werc people who bote carefully at clcctions, pay their taxes, perform useful work in the community, help each other in times of stress, offer their children as much higher education as the children will take, and arc concerned about the future of their community, nation, and humanity.

<

5" problems. Indeed, I found that the folk of the Endless Mountains d

v

The Hullabaloo

The anatomy of a hullabaloo is least likely to be perceived at legislative hearings where, too often, ideas are drowned in rheto- ric. One frosty night in January 1971, I attended a meeting of the Citizens Committee for Environmental Concern at the United States Department of Agriculture regional office in Tunkhannock. It was there that the nature of the hullabaloo became apparent. The snow-draped mountains gleamed softly under the bright stars like sheeted forms, and the snow crunched crisply in the parking lot, where automobiles, trucks, and station wagons drew up to bear witness to the potential mobilily of the population in the event of a nuclear catastrophe.

10 / THE NUCLE; \R-PO\VER REIIELLION

So much was obvious to any ncutral observer. Coriiniittec mcm- b c n included Bryan Lee, Jr.’5 fathcr, Bryan, Sr., a dentist and county coniniissionci; Spcnccr Burr, the fornicr county treasurer; Virginia Shcret, a rttircd Unitcd Stntcs Army dietician; Francis Heisler, the mayor of nearby Factoryville; Davis R. Hobbs, an attorney; Victor Capucci, Jr., and William Ohme, busincssmcn of Mehoopany; Tom Shclburne and Gus DiStadio of UHF television station W?EP, which had dcvoted public-service programing to the reactor issue; and two well-informed and public-spirited housewives, hlrs. Angela Rinehimer and Mrs. Betty Tewksbury.

The Challenge

The discussion that evening at Tunkhannock revealed the basic confiict between a cnnc~rned citizenry and 8 tech~ica! estab!ishment. The citizens questioned the right of an establishment to impose upon them a new technology affecting their health and safety without their consent. Here was the basis of public intervention into the plans of a powerful new force-the Atomic Industrial Establishment-to install an advanced atomic-power system, based on a plutonium-fuel cycle of great potential hazard, throughout the country. Wyoming County residents had bcen alerted early to this development. pome of them reacted by asserting the right to be heard of the demos-in which the collective wisdom of a democratic society must reside. It was a challenge which the Establish- ment’s technical elite would evade or resist as long as it could.

An important issue plaguing the citizens, not only in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, but also in Maryland and Michigan, Wis- consin and California, Minnesota and Colorado, was the credibility of the Establishment. “There is so much contradictory evidence about the effects of thesc reactors among scientists at the highest level that we don’t know what to believc,” one of the housewives said. “They rattle around in their academic armor and they arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions from the same data. Scien- tists are supposed to be honest. How can they be, when they are

Anothcr Kitid of Fire I I 1 working for a company or a government ngcncy and depending on i t for a living?’’

Bryan Lee. Jr., said: “1Maybe they could opcrate the plant safely, but a whole series of such plants could be hazardous. I think the way we all feel is . . . we just don’t want to live near one.”

Gus DiStadio questioned the AECs radiation standards:

Do you think any human being has the right to set a radiation standard for me? To determine how much radiation I should get? I have to accept the natural radiation background that God gave me, but I don’t accept man-made radiation. As a species, wc have evolved with a certain radiation background. What happens to our species when more radiation is added? Can they tell us that?

Others s p k e ~f their fears ~f ~ a b ~ t a g ~ against 2 niiC!car-powei 4 plant One had written to Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird ask-

ing how vulnerable reactors are to sabotage or to a missile attack that would loose massive radiation from the reactor core over the countryside. The inquiry had received a reply: There were no measures to protect nuclear-power plants per se from a missile attack.

Discussion followed on that point. Should nuclear reactors, especially those in the East, within range of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, be built underground, like missile silos? Who in the government considered such contingencies? No one knew.

Several mothers said that “propaganda” had been distributed to school children purporting to “educate” the children, and through them their parents, about the advantages of atomic energy. One of the pamphlets brought home by the children had been prepared by the AECs Division of Technical Information, to tell all about nuclear energy and thc good things the friendly, workaday atom could do for everybody. The mothers said they feared the children were being indoctrinated to accept radiation hazards, or the AEC‘s view of them, as the natural order of things. Onc of the pamphlets prepared by an industrial firm dcscribcd radioactive nu-

s” d m

12 / T H E SUCLEAR-PO\VF.R R E R E I . I . I O N

clear waste as “goop.” Evctyhody lincw what “gcx-~p” was- nothing to worry ahuut.

l n the initial stngcs of its campaign :ipinst tlic projcct, the Citi- zens Cornmittcc found thcir statc and Conircs5ional rcprcscnta- tives attentive. But thc span of attcntioii turned out to be brief. As the coinmittce persisted in dcriianding ans\vers and action from their elected reprcscntativcs, the rcsponscs of these oficials became more formalizcd and terse. Membcrs of the committee said that utility public-rclations people who had initially catered to inquiries became incrcasingly indifferent and remote as the inquiries became more challcnging.

“They regard us as a bunch of country peoplc who are in over our heads,” said Bryan Lee, ,Jr. “It happcns to be true. We ore a

. bunch of country people, but we think that after a year of study, after a year of listening to some of the most brilliant scientists in the country on the subject, we have,learned something about nuclear technology. We’ve had some of the best nuclear scientists and engineers from Penn State over here to lecture. We know enough at least to ask questionsand to know when we’re not getting the right answers.”

The Hearing In Harrisburg

The Citizens Committee for Environmental Concern had raised the question of the consent of the electorate to exposure to the risks of nuclear-power facilities at the State Senate Select Commit- tee hearing on atomic-power plants in Pennsylvania during the summer and fall of 1970. The hearing was clcarly a political response to the concerns of citizens’ groups in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as well as in Wyoming County, and to the concerns of the state’s massive coal industry.

In its formal statcment to the Senate Sclect Committee, the Citi- zens Committec for Environmental Concern asserted:

I

We cannot condone the logic which advocates siting a rcactor of any type in a low-population area at a time when it is considered

Atlother Kitid of Fire f 13 far too great a risk if sited in a highly porulatcd arca. We further submit that the risk we would be cxpcctcd to tolcratc is an indignity upon the rights of cvery citizen of thc Unitcd States.

Lee, Jr.. raised the conscnt issuc in his testimony as a witness beforc thc Sclcct Committee:

What if the pcople don’t want . . . nuclear generators? \\‘hat if we don’t want fucl-rcproccssing plants [which also emit radioactive waste] in our state? What if the people prefer to receive thcir clcctricity from hydroelectric facilities in Canada that would have no environmental impact on anyone and which arc assets to the development of that country? What if the peoplc prefer increased research into the production and transmission of electricity from harnessing the energy of the tides and the sun? What if fusion power seems much more acceptable? If funds should be allocated for ear- nest research into the control of sulfur dioxide or for the development of magnetohydrodynamic power? We submit that the power industry needs to be washed and hung on a line. It needs to be got- ten out in the open for the public’s inspection.”

An Unfriendly Giant

The controversy over ’the Meshoppen breeder revealed to the Citizens Conmiittee the existence of an Atomic Industrial Estab- lishment which somehow had the power to invade their environment and, from their point of view, threaten their security without their consent. The Establishment had‘ first appeared in Pennsyl- vania in 1957 when the Shippingport pressurizcd-water reactor was developed as a joint demonstration project of a commercial atomic-power plant by the AEC, the Westinghouse Electric Com- pany, and the Duquesnc Light Company. A second commercial plant, built by the General Electric Company for the Common- wealth Edison Company of Chicago at Morris, Illinois, became operable in 1959. The following ycar, the Yankce Atoniic Elcctric Company’s presiurizcd-water reactor, built by Wcstinghouse, had gone on line at Rowe, Massachusetts. The Consunlers Power company startcd up a General Electric boiling-water reactor in 1962 at Big Rock, Michigan. In the same ycar Consolidated Edi-

<

I 4 ,’ ruI: SUCLEAR-POU’CR R E B E L L I O N

s o i l Company bcg:iii apcrnting its first pressiirizci~-w~~!er reactor, maniifxtured by Rnbzosk and \\’ilcox, at Indian Point near Bu- chanan, New York. In 1963 thc Pacific Gas and Elcctric Coin- pany‘s Gciieral Elcctric boiling-water rcnctor went into service in Humbolclt Bay. California.

Thc trccd toward nuclear po\vcr accclcratcd in the second 11aIf of the 1960s. By 1971 thcrc w r c 21 opcrnting light-water nuclear reactors in commercial service in the Unitcd States; 56 more were in construction, and 37 were on order-a total of 114, with an electrical-energy potential of 92,135,800 kihvatts. M’lien the new generation of fast-breeder reactors appeared on the public horizon in 11967, the nuclear industry had shown promise of beconling a giant--an unfriendly giant from the viewpoint of people concerned about its environmental impact. Privately owned investor utilities and their industrial suppliers formed the economic base of the new Establishment, with the A E C acting sometimes as its agent and at other times as its management. Eventually, the Con- gressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy became its board of directors.

The threat of the new breeder reactor to public health came early into focus in Pennsylvania where it was explored in the Senate Sclcct Committee investigation into nuclear-reactor safety at public hearings between August and October 1970. Two safety issues were discussed at these hearings: first, preventing the fuel core of the reactor from becoming so overheated that it would melt, destroy its container, and eject radioactive dcbris over the surromding area-a problem particularly menacing in the breeder reactor, which used plutonium in its fuel assembly, the most hzzardous, perhaps, of all radioactive materials; and second, the h v a r d of radioactivity released during routine opcration of the plznt or during an emergency that did not result in a meltdown.

nie likelihood of the fuel core becoming hot enough to mclt through its containment had been studicd for years. Several estimates of the magnitude of the disaster resulting from a meltdown

\

Aiiotlicr Kiirrl I ~ J I I I C / 15 had cnicrgcd, all indicating that the radiation cffcct \VI , 1 1 l f l tat analogous to the clctonation of a nuclcnr bomb ncnr an i r i l i : l l ) i fc f I area. How 1 ikely was such an accident?

Bryan Lee, Jr., recalled for the State Scnate Sclcci (‘fjriirnittee the meltdown of the Enrico Fermi cxperimcntal f n ~ t - t , i ~ - : r l ~ r rcactor, a forerunner of the larger one \r.hich the E~. i ; l l~ l i~ , t1~ent wanted to construct and demonstrate a t Mebhoppcii. I.i.rriii 1, the reactor was called, \vas a joint project of thc AEC : I r l f l tflc De- troit Edison Company. It was built in 1963 at Lagooii:l Reach, Michigan, and operated at low power for several yc;tr\. I n 1966, the liquid-sodium coolant was blocked and the corc cvdcrhcated and partially melted. There was no significant rcleatc of radioactivity, however, according to the AEC.

“It took almost a year to find out what triggered tlic :IX~&”!, but eventually it was discovered,” Lee, Jr., testified.

< Q I N 0

By inserting a specially designed periscope into the inicrior of the reactor, a piece of crumpled metal about eight inchcs Io i~g was dis-

plates, which had been fastened to the cone at thc bottoili o f the reactor to guide the sodium flow. These plates were not pllrt of the original design and had been hurriedly added at the I ~ \ I moment, ironically as an extra safety measure. Because it was a I:r..t-minute, hurry-up job, it was never shown in the plans or work drawings submitted, so that no one in the plant at the time of ihc accident even knew of their existence. A former employee who h : d retired but was still employed as a consultant finally remcrnbcrccf the incident and was able to enlighten everyone. What happcnccl was due to vibration and pressure. One of the plates had torn loow and blocked the flow of liquid-sodium coolant. Without the coc>l;lnt, part of the fuel melted down. A great concern is that when [hi \ happens in a fast reactor, the fuel can then recongeal. bcconjc ;I critical mass, and set off an explosion which could rupture thc corc of the reactor and release large amounts of radioactivity to thc air. Fonu- nately, this did not happen in this case. perhaps becauw t tic reactor was running at only a fraction of its potential powcr at rhc time of the accident.

covered. This picce of metal was part of one of thrcc iirconium

c 16 1 THE SL‘CLT:AR-PO\VER REBELLION AiiotIicr Kind of Fire 1 17

tivity outside the plant has bccn in dcvclopment for sekcral years. At this writing, none has proved acceptable to the AEC. A principal difficulty is that stcnni prcssurc building up inside an overheating reactor vcsscl prcvcnts cooling water from ruhhing in promptly enough to avcrt mclting temperature. Yet, such a system is the only cniergcncy measure that could prcvent a ineltdowa in the evcnt of a catastrophic breakdown in the cooling system. So far, no emergency core-cooling system has even bcen attempted for the fast brecdcr, which is cooled by liquid sodium.

In a report on nuclear-reactor safety in July 197 1, the Union of Concerned Scientists of Cambridgc, Massachusetts, stated that in the event a light-water reactor lost its cooling water, “the reactor core would be expected to melt down and breach all the containment structures, very likely releasing some appreciable fraction of its fission product inventory. The resulting catastrophe and loss of life might well exceed anything this nation has see* in time of peace.” This organization and other critics of the AECs re%- tor-safety efforts contended that until an emergency core-cooling system can be devised-one that will satisfy all conditions- nuclear-reactor construction should be stopped.

That proposal was made directly to the Select Committee of the Pennsylvania Senate by an A E C scientist, Dr. John W. Gofman, a nuclear chemist and a physician on the staff of the AECs Law- rence Radiation Laboratory at Liverrnore, California. A compact man in his fifties, with a predilection for sandals and an Elizabe- than beard that lent him the mien of a Renaissance savant, Gof- man stjggested at the hearing that the Pennsylvania legislature considcr a five-year moratorium on the planning, construction, and operet;on of new atomic-power plants built above ground.

Thc reasons, he said, were that nuclear electric power has been develiped “with the most gravc failurc of appreciation of the ra- d ix isn hazard to the population” and that it rcpresents “an anti- democratic disfrancliiscrnent” of citizens in several respects. It exposes thcm to hazards without thcir conscnt and also threatens them with property loss without compensation.

During his testimony, Gofman produccd a copy of his Home-

-= s” N d

Dresden II Incident

A lesser-known rlccidcnt, which was not made public at the time it happened, occurrcd June 5 , 1970, in the boiling-water reactor of Cornmonncslth Edison Company’s Drcsdcn I1 plant, sourhucst of Chicczo. Tne rcactor was bcing tcsted at 75 per cent of its power \\hen a spurious signal in the pressure-control system altered the steam flow to the turbine. A scrics of malfunctions then folloued and resulted in a massive discharge of steam and mater into the reactor dry well. Radioactive iodine, which can cause cancer of the thyroid, bccame concentrated in the well to a hundred times the maximum permissible Icvel. Radioactivity in the gas coming out of the smokestack increased from 10,000 to 25,000 microcuries per second for about thirty minutes and then subsided to the lo\ver level. Although temperatures and pressures jumped in the reactor core, plant operators were able to control them, and the reactor was shut down until August 8, 1970.

The A E C reported a year latcr that no sigiiificuni amount of radioactivity had been released to the environment.3 Subsequently, I met with engineering and public-relations personnel of Corn- monivealth Edison and asked why no public announcement of the incident had been made earlier. T h e answer was that because the unit was in a testing phase, no one thought it was necessary. How many other instances which illustrate that accidents can and d o happen in the “older” generation of nuclear plants have been withheld from the public?

The danger in this kind of incident is a rupture in the cooling sjstem allowing the water that circulates around and cools the bundles of uranium-dioxide fuel clcments to drain out. Without cooling nater, noma1 operzting temperature of about 315 degrees ccntigrade zooms to 1 SO0 dcgrces in less than a minute. This i s , the mclting point o f thc zirconium alloy in which the uranium is encased.

A backup emcrgency corecooling system for light-water reactors lo prcvent a meltdown and the dispersal of massive radioac-

18 / T H E S L ' C L E \ K - P O \ \ ' L R R E B E L L I O N

onncrs Inhurance Policy, issued by the Hartford Insurance Group. The clausc entitled "nuclcar exclusion" stated: "This policy does not insure Jgninst loss by nuclear rcnctor or nuclear radiation or mdioncti\ c cor;tamination, 11 hether controllcd o r uncontrolled or due to any nct o r condition incident to any of the foregoing. . . ."

"I urgc c\ cry Pennsj Ivanian to examine his home-owner's in- suraiice." Gofman urged, "and ask himself whether he likes the risk to his life, whether he enjoys disfranchisement for an enterprise about nhich the insurance industry is too skeptical ever to risk dollars."

In its famous report on the consequences of a reactor disaster coded \\'.i\SH-740, the AEC's Brookhaven National Laboratory estirnatcd that a serious accident in a reactor smaller than the one proposed at Aleshoppen could inflict $7 billion in losses in a pop- ulous region.

"The individual lucky enough to escape with his life from such an accident," Gofrnan said, "stands to recover a maximum of seven cents on each dollar lost"

This inadequate amount of nuclear-disaster insurance protection, he explained, is provided under the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 nhich limits total liability to $582 million for any single nuclear-plant disaster. Through three pools, private insurance companies provide the reactor licensee with $84-million worth of property insurance and $82-million worth of liability insurance for one location. For liability in excess of $82 million, the AEC would indemnify the licensee up to $500 million. In the case of a natural disaster, such as that inflicted on Louisiana and Florida by Hurricane Betsy in 1965, the maximum liability allowable under the Price-Anderson Act would not a v e r the damage. The Penn- s>lvania Insurznce Commissioner, George F. Reed, testified on thisbaint before the Selcct Committee. According to one cstimate, insurance loss from Hurricane Betsy amountcd to $71 5 million; afioiher cstimate cited losses of 51.2 billion in Louisiana alone. \

In a disaster to a nuclear-power plaint costing $500 million- the estimated cost of the Mcshoppcn breeder-the allowance of Price-Anderson insurance to the utility and the government's un-

Ariorhcr Kitid o/ Fire 19

derwriting of the utility's liability appcarcd grossly inadcquate. In citing the insurance situation, Gofman had made a telling point for the citizens' groups. Many of the meinbcrs had not been aware that private insurance companies would not assume liability for nuclear accidents without government subsidy. It confirmed their worst fears about the nuclear risk.

A Plutonium Economy

Dr. Gofman was emphatic in his tcstimony about the hazards of the breeder reactor. The individual, he said, is threatened by the plutonium fuel which the fast breeder creates.

Plutonium in the form of plutonium-oxide particlcs is one of the most powerful lungcancer producers known. Release of any p lu te nium on ihe surface of the earth irreversibly increases lung-cancer hazards for generations to come-for periods measured in hundreds of thousands of years

It was unbelievable that serious consideration was being given to an above-ground, fast-breeder reactor in Wyoming County, he continued;

T%is is not only a potential disaster for Wyoming County. but for a large part of the eastern seaboard. One millionth of a gram of plutonium is the order of the amount required to produce lung cancer. Any-just any-mishap in handling the ton quantities of plutonium associated with fast-brerdcr reactors can compromise the future of countless generations of humans.

Wave of the Future

In the fall of 1970, the Mcshoppcn brecder \vas being considered by the AEC as one of thrcc brccdcr-dcnionstration plants. A total of scventy utilities and utility groups ivcrc involved in the over-all program, divided into three groups, cnch clustcrcd around a manufacturer. Part isipnting in the Mcshoppcn brecder. with the Pennsylvania Electric Company as proposed operator and Atom- ics International as constructor, wcrc sixtccn othcr utilities and the

<

7 N N

20 / THE S U C L E A R - P O W E R REBELLION

Tcnncssce Valley Authority. A group consisting of the General Electric Company as constructor and of Consolidatcd Edison, with sis other Ne\\, York State utilities banded together as the Empire State Atomic Development Associates, as operator, was involved in a second brscdcr-demonstration project. Another twcnty-three p o w r utilities. including Swedish and Swiss interests, were participating in the dcsign study. The third group, clustered around li’estinghouse, of tacnty-nine electric utilities and the Bonneville Poncr Xdministrdtion, was considering a fast-breeder site on the AEC’s Hanford reservation near Hanford, Washington. The initial planning contemplated that the Meshoppen breeder would start operating in 1977, the other two in 1979 and 1981, but the order \vas not determined.

The XEC had determined that the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor was its highest-priority civilian power program. This made the breeder the highest-priority power device in the United States. since no other agency of government was engaged in any significant development of new sources of power. By reasons of this default, the AEC had become a self-appointed Energy Agency and its energy policy, such as it was, became the national one.

Studies of breeder-reactor construction were going on throughout the power industry as a result of this policy. The electric-utility groups involved in the three breeder-demonstration projects, reprcsented about a quarter of the installed. electrical generating capacity in the United States. These utilities looked ahead to the magic year 2000, when all of their wishful expcctations would rna- terialize. According to the Edison Electric Institute, nuclear polvcr \vould thcn be producing 57 per cent of all electrical energy in America. By the turn of the twenty-first ccntury, the nation’s energy requirenicnts would be zix times those of 1970. whcn nuclear energy was providing barcly l per ccnt of the nation’s klec- tricity. The breeder was thc only cconomical way thc industry k n e x to capturc this fabulous futurc market.

Radialion Emissions

While the radiation

Anorher Kind of Fire / 21

hazards of nuclear processes had been argued for a quarter of a ccntury, it was not until the advent of the Mcshoppen breeder proposal that the safety of this type of reactor became a public concern-in spite of the fact that the breeder had been in development for twenty years. On this issue, the Pennsylvania Senate Committee hearings provided a more extensive public forum for debate than had the hearings of the Con- gressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on the environmental effects of producing nuclear electric power the year before. The state hearings called upon scientists who were critics of the AEC‘s radiation-protection policies for expert testimony; the Con- gressional hearings ignored them

In a Joint Committee session, Senator George D. Aiken of Ver-

.

.

I

mont had inquired about “the degree of danger to people living in the vicinity” of a breeder, addressing the query to Milton Shaw,

cs’ Fo w

the AEC‘s forceful, gung-ho director of the Division of Reactor Development and Technology, who had been pushing breeder development hard in the agency’s laboratories. Radiating reassur- ance, Shaw replied: “To me, the degree of danger is such that I will live next door to any one of them with my family.” 4 Dr. Gof- man, who had another view of the radiation hazard, was not called to these hearings, although he had organized a biomedical program at the Livermore laboratory to evaluate the impact of m- dioactivity released upon man in the biosphere.

A year later, at the Pennsylvania hearings, Herman Dieckamp, president of Atomics International, echoed Shaw’s conviction:

I can sap unequivocally with rcspcct to radiation that our plant is so dcsigncd that the radiation ciposurc to thc puhlic from normd opcration is negligible. At the sitc boundary. the exposure is only a ’ fraction of that which conics with frcqucnt air fravcl, living at high altitudes, having niedical or dental X-rays. living in a stone or brick house, or even watching television. . . . Opposition to nuclear

I

22 1 THE NUCLEAR-t ’O\VER R E U E L L I O N

plants on thc grounds they prcscnt 3 radiation hazard simply is un- founded. .

Of the seventeen comnicrcinl powcr rcactors licensed for opcration in the United Statcs at that tirnc, he said, none has bcen re- sponsiblc for radiation-cxposurc injurics to the gencral public.

That contention was challcngcd by a persistent critic of the AEC, Dr:Erncst J . Sternglass, a radiologica! physicist at the Uni- versity of Pittsburgh who also testified at the Pennsylvania hearings-though not before the Joint Committee. He presented data purporting to show a correlation bctwecn a rapid rise in radioactive gases released from the Dresden 1 plant of Commonwealth Edison, southwest of Chicago, and an increase in infant mortality at the same time in the vicinity. Dr. Sternglass cited public-health records in Illinois showing that from 1964 to 1966, the period of the high gas emissions, infant mortality increased 141 per cent in Grundy County, where the reactor is located; 140 per cent in Liv- ingston County, adjacent on the south; and 43 per cent in Kan- kakee County, adjacent on the southeast. The AEC and the Illi- nois Department o f Public Health branded the Sternglass correlation preposterous. But no other explanation was advanced by either agency to account for sudden infant mortality changes in the three counties near Dresden I.

Another challenge to the AEC-industry position on radiation from nuclear reactors came from Dr. Gofman, who told the Penn- sylvania Senate Committee that the AEC‘s standards of permissible radiation could result in 32,000 cancer deaths a year in the United States. He and Arthur R. Tamplin. an associate at the Liv- ennore laboratory, had called for a tenfcld reduction in allowable radiation emissions from nuclear plants.

The AEC radiation standards were defended at the Sclect Com- mittee hcaring by Dr. Lauriston S. Taylor, president of the Na- tional Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which recommended the standards. Taylor insisted that the standards were perfectly safe. It was unlikely that the limit of permissible radiation would be reached by a reactor, he said, but in the event

.

Atiorher Kind of Fire 1 23 they were, thc most pcssirnistic cstiniatc of fatalities from thc radiation would be only cighcy-fivc psrsons.5

Pcrccptions might vary : : lxwt thc ciglity-fivc pcrsons. To statisti- cians, they wcre an abstraction of littlc conscqucncc. To critics of radiation policy, they wcrc victim o f a propitiatory human sacrifice. Thc qucstion of ratlintinn sxfct; \vas to become the most bit- terly contcstcd aspect of rcactor safety. The Atomic Industrial Es- tablishment took the position that a littlc radiation was harmless, from a clinical viewpoint. Gofman, Tarnplin, and Sternglass maintained that even a little radiation was statistically deadly.

Reducing permissible radiation cmissions from nuclear-power plants was not an cngineering problem, but an economic one. The emissions could be reduced tenfold if the utilities wanted to spend the money to do so. But according to the AEC’s official position, it wasn’t necessary. There was, admittedly, some risk in the radiation that escaped up the chimney in the exhaust gases f r~rr ! the plants, or in the water used to cool the condensers, or during peri- ads when the fuel rods were changed. But one must take risks for the benefit of cheap power. From the Establishment’s point of

< w N P

view, the benefits far outweighed the risks-except for people living immediately downwind of a big nuclear-power plant.

The Trojan Horse

In the 1970 hearings on atomic-power plants by the Pennsyl- vania Select Committee-the first public forum on the safety issues in the rising struggle between citizens and the AEC-each side was thoroughly polarized on the questions of plant safety and radiation hazards. Supported by scientist critics of the AEC, notably Gofman, Tamplin, and Sternglass, the concerned citizens regarded the proliferation of nuclear-powr plants as hazards of health and property. Suppofzd by the AEC, the Establishrrlent insisted that atomic energy was the key to the future of civilization. The numben of concerned citizens in the state were small and the organizations tended to act indcpendcntly of each other. But they were powerful because the questions they raised and the warnings

c 24 / T I I E S U C L E A R - I ’ O \ V E R REBELLION

they issued. abetted 5y the AEC’s amazingly clumsy counterpro- paganda, \wrrisd many thousands of people.

\\’hat \I as happening in Pennsylvania also was occurring spontaneously in a dozcn other statcs in the East, the Midwest, and the \\’est. Citizens in small groups were contesting atomic-power plants 211 o t t r thc coxntry. But the basis of it was opposition, not to technology per sc, but to the imposition of a new and hazardous technology \vithout consent and without an acceptable definition of its real dansers. The issue was one of consent.

Beyond the issues of plant safety and radiation hazard, there was a third. Quite apart from the State Senate hearings, it was raised by Representative Dan Flood of \Vilkes-Barre, when he attacked the siting of nuclear-power reactors on o r near the east coast as a “Trojan Horse” in national defense. They would be easy targets for missiles launched from ships or submarines off the coast. He asserted that a hit would have the effect of detonating a nuclear bomb, emitting huge doses of radiation over a wide area.

The Pennsylvania Congressman cited a section of the AECs reactor-licensing code stating that an applicant is not required to provide design features or other measures “for the specific purpose of protection against the effects of attacks and destructive acts, including sabotage, by an enemy of the United States.” Citing also a letter of Scp:ernber 23, 1970, from the Department of De- fense stating that no specific countermeasures are taken to prevent an at!zck on nuclear plants as such, he said: .

Sc*. in the face of all this. we learn that Pennsylvania has bcen selected to have an enormous, first-of-its-kind, expcriniental. fast- breeder reactor on the Susquchanna River at Slcshoppen. thirty-five milcs nortfi of my officc in \Vilkcs-Barrc. This nuclcar experiment is I O have 3s it:, fissionable core a ton and a half of Pluto- nium. If sabotaged slnd cxplosivcly comprcsscd, which I am assured cLn be accomplishcd i n a varicty of ways. this ncighborhood,gem uiII initiinrly bccomc a hugc and incomparably dirty atomic bomb.

The resulting pcrniancnt poisoning of thc Susquchanna watershed from S c w York State IO the mouth of Chesapeake Bay would probably eliminate the largc and hcavily populatcd section of the United Srates as a habitable region.

A t i o h . r Kind of Fire 1 25 The first dcinonstration Liquid Mctal Fast Brccder Rcactor did

not come to Meshoppen, after all. It was designated for another part of Appalzchia, in the forested, mountain wilderness of Ten- nessee. There, the wave of the future was destined to break late in the 1970s, far from the “madding crowd” of environmentalists.

There was a rebellion against atomic energy in the land. I t was a protest unprecedented in the history of technology.

F 03 I

Fo ul

V .8-26

on the basis of self-reliance, i.e., with minimum reference to and dependence on assistance from DC. It was felt that a study of this theme should be carried out, involving leading economists and natural scientists from East, West, North and South, to analyze the situation on the premise that little or no assistance will’ be forthcoming from the rich countries, and that the future salvation. of LIE, therefore, lies in planning together on the basis of maximum cooperation in the use of their own xe- sources and through joint undertakings in all fields.

Resources for Deuelopment. It was felt that there are no absolute shortages of human, physical and financial resources for applying science and technology to development. There is rather a need of social organization to promote the efficient utilization of existing resources.

A strong case can be made for a study in the near future to identify and suggest. measures that would remove constraints on the development and utilization of human resources.

Mechanisms of Cooperation between Developing Countries. I t was noted that there are imperative needs for LDC to enter into forms of cooperation with other &eveloping countries to further economic development, particularly the application of science and technology toward that end. Such cooperation, however, is sometimes difficult to achieve, the preponderant links still being between DC arid LDC. One of the major reasons for this is the corn- parative lack of financial resources to support cooperation between LDC. Scientists are urged to contribute ideas to bodies, such as the U.N. Develop- ment Program (UNDP), which are prepared to devote financial resources to study such cooperation between the LDC.

Professional Norms of Scientific and Technical Communities. Educational and research establisb- ments in LDC have been modeled upon those in the metropolitan countries. The new needs of development are recognized, but established traditions and attachment to DC institutions, tending to encourage pure rather than applied science, make changes difficult. The incentive and reward systems-now geared toward excellence in basic research in sciences rather than to the development and application of technology to fields of importance for development-need to be changed. Both basic and applied research have to be relevant to national requirements as identified jointly by scientists, planners and the users of research.

The prime responsibility to effect the required change remains with the scientific leadership in the LDC. But the international scientific community should lend support to actions in LDC aimed a t bringing such changes about, and help to educate and influence their colleagues in both LDC and DC in this

Role 01 Scientist# in Promoting the Sell-reliant Htflard.

Deuelopment of LDC. Parallel to the influence which the scientific community has exercised on disarma- ment questions, scientists need to exert pressure, particularly on governments, by means of person to person contacts through scientific societies, the press and parliaments, in both the DC and the LDC, for the development of the welfare and self-reliance of the latter countries. Radioactive Pollution of Environment

Need for Fission. The future needs for fission power depend on the growth of energy consumption worldwide, the distribution of that growth between rich and poor countries, the size of electricity’s role in the total energy budget, and the magnitude and. time scale for development of alternative energy sources. Growth of energy use is most badly needed in the poor countries, where nuclear power is at a disadvantage because of the small scale and dispersed character of present needs. Fusion, solar and geothermal energy are major sources potentially achievable and able to reduce reliance on fission on a time scale of 20 to 50 years, while cleaner technologies for burning fossil fuels have some promise for the interim.

I Need for Breeder Reactors. Continued reliance on non-breeder fission reactors for the next 30 to 50 years would require the use of expensive low-

\ \ grade uranium ores if fission grows as its promoters’ have projected.* However, the cost of nuclear-’ generated electricity is so insensitive to the price of uranium, even in non-breeder reactors, that no drastic increase in electricity cost aould result from the use of the expensive nnd a1)untlant ores in light water reactors or gas-coolrd Avail- able data indicate that it is not necrssnry, on the grounds of a worldwide uranium shortiIge, to deploy breeder reactors in the next 30 to 50 years. ( I t must be noted that this conclusion WAS not unani- mous.)

Routine Emissions. I t is technicnlly possible nnd desirable to reduce routine eniissions of ratlioactivi- ty from nuclear reactors and fuel reprocessing plants to levels such that the radiation exposlire to niem- bers of the public from all such sourcos is lrss than one percent of the average “nciturnl Iinckground.” The greatest technical and rrgiiliitory vigilnticc will be required to assure thnt tlw ~ d i i i i d potcntinl for such low emissions is ncliicvcd, i n prncticc-. everywhere in the world. Estrildisliiiiciit of n world-

-

80

,..I... ~. ".1 ,

' ..

1:: . l i l l r 1:eM

clean bill of I :he Atomic a-mission fol-

klahoman lcarned

J a m c ~ Donahue . a rep-

P r, P .

Q d .

Cuntiiiued l h r r P a g e Oiie pany is required to document the incir!mt. along \ v i 1 h decontamination cfforts, far review by AEC peraonnel dcring routine inspections.

Donaghuc s a i d Kerr- McGee complied with that

le. He said lrakages and

spills of radioactive materials a r e "inirly common" ni..xinri >:-n facilities a s : k ~ i;uri.-McCec p 1 a n t ~'ll: 'n coniuine:'.; rupture. -n-

Inmination is c c x c i i i r d on i l i z plant site ihcre is no I d:.r.zer." He said Donaghue the Cimarron said.

Facilitv has had several

sincc it went into opcrution in early 11365.

Al l of thc incidcn1.i a r r

docurien: .

put to rest any ienrs That the plutonium nitrate pra- duced at the Kcrr-McCcc plant could cause a nucle- a r explosion.

Hc said extra prrcaii- tions a r e taken Lo keep tils nuclear waste in small containers "so it won't go critical."

"W E 'r e satia!:zd tha t Xerr-McGee took adequate

such l iaks - or spllls - precautions in the -area said. -

v .13-28

c

for Energy Alternatives MARC.i 74 Vol. 1 No. 5

Bl0~13::C EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR POWER by J.S. ,'rsnkei, 5i.D. Depar::ndiit of ?.ir;lology, University of Kansas Medical Centw

Radiafim eifcc;s. Nuclear radiation can be compared to ex- ceiding!y smir l l machine sun bullets shooting off electrons from Jtoms tviiich are ieft char?;<d or ionized or in a very reactive state , (free radicals). \\'hen th:s xcurs within cells, the ionized chemi- cals, such as enzymes, rearrange, killing or damaging the cells. Particularly subtie is a chemical change, or mutation in chromo- somes, carriers of the genetic code, which may manifest itself by the developmen; oftancers or may lead to inherited, genetic defects in jucccdcing generations with potentially cumulative effects. De2~':ding on the radiation intensity, fewer or larger numbers of C 2 i . s are ddnaged snd killed. Cell death usually takes place 3: t . i e r x x t attempted cell division. Mutations become ap- paren, .iiar an interval of years, after the damaged cells have mul:.?..ed.

,;iiz;:im ano ssrves as a unit of meastirement. About 600R to the i>.,ia:? body ~ C J - L X . ~ ri's,:ts in serioils iilness producing prolonged sterility. A~OLI :CC.5033 rrsulis in radiation illness and premature aging. About 10-100R doubles the mutation rate leading to cancer or

yu, ."< dx:ernil raoiation. a roentgen or R defines the amount of

fatal to man and domestic animals. About

gemtic d2fec.s. 5R per year is the occupational "allowable dose," for radi-

ation workers over 18 years of age. This means that for time-consuming jobs in a radiation area, work has to be done by a SUCCI?S- sion of xople. In some repair jobs, all the available welders were exposec i o a maximum 5R. making them unavilable if a similar need a r i x in the seme year. 0.5R per year is the "maximal individilbily allowable dose," from industrial irradiation to the general puolic, including children and fetuses, and 0.17R per year i s the current legal average that may be delivered to the pOpuli1- tion average with a permissible variation up to 0.5R.

ous. However, it is not reasonable to assume a "threshold" by which, for examplz, ,493 was okay and .51R was harmful. Actually, due to the delay in mutations becoming evident, the effects of low-level irradiations are difficult to measure. As a general guideline, one can extrapolate radiation effects. If on the average a million radiation "bullets" produce cancer in 10% of animals or man, 100,000 will produce 1 cancer in 1%. 10,000 In .1%, 1,000 in .01%, etc. Radistion effects are related to "bullet" hits, and i t COGS not m ~ k e much difference whether these occur in one or i:: m:n/ ,ndividuals. There is repair of some of the radiation denas-. o a t also evidence from studies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ma1 stra.;ht extrapolation from high doses to predict effects of low doses may underestimate the incidence of cancer in a mixed huansn population. At higher doses, some of the cells that would nave bezome cancerous died; but a t low doses they survived to trensform into cancer. There IS evidence also of greater sensi-

The allowable dose is sometimes misunderstood to be innocu-

tivity of children and fetuses to a given amount of radiation. Some geneticists regard the allowable dose to increase the prevalent mutation rate by about 10% in adults, but by 25% in fetuses, as indicated by the occurrence of leukemia and cancer during childhood. Some of these estimates have been derived from studying the effects of diagnostic X-rays where a diagnostic benefit is involved; this certainly indicates that similar small doses without medical benefits should not be disregarded. Post.reproductive a- dults would not need to be concerned about genetic defects. rlnternally deposited radiation, inhaled, ingested or introduced into wounds, presents special problems due to the fact that v i t a l cells may be directly irradiated from isotopes deposited nearby. Particularly the short-range alpha and beta particles, which from the outside might cause only a skin burn, can directly affect the 'blood-forming bone marrow if deposited in the bone, or the thy- ioid i f deposited there. Their radioactivity i s expended over a short distance, producing a path of intense ionization. They probably bill most of the cells near them, and turn some into cancer cells. Recalling that there are about 30 fission product elements, these are distributed in the body in a variety of ways characteristic of the element: calcium, strontium, varium-to the bone; iodine-to the thyroid gland; and the rare earth elements-to bone marrow, liver and spleen. Inhaled uranium i s excreted by the kidneys. Characteristics of solubility and absorption, and concentration within the food chain play an important role. fo r example, insoluble plutonium, when eaten, i s largely excreted. When inhaled, it remains in the lung where it acts as one of the most tQxic materials known to man. By weight, i t is 10 times as toxic as radium. One-millionth of a gram can produce cancer, and about 10 to 100 millionth of a gram, death from hemorrhage, edema and fibrosis (scarring), all from intense radiation. Soluble pluton ium hexfluouride i s deposited in the bone, irradiating the mar-

[ (in dogs, rats). In general, bone deposition i s more effective in \ children and young animals than in adults.

The delay in onset of leukemia i s 5-10 years after accumula- \, ting the radiation exposure, and for other cancers 10-20 years. i For this reason, we cannot expect to see these effects as yet. But \we need only recall the uranium miners where in spite of what

were considered adequate precautions in the 1950's and 60's. 67 excess lung cancers were recordedup to 1968, a rate four times as high as in other metal miners; about 500 more are expected to occur. Or consider the radium dial painters who pointed their brushes with their tongues, absorbing significant amounts of radium, and some of whom developed leukemia in 5-10 yean, bone cancer in 5-1 5 years.

the U.S. nuclear program were conducted with a high degree of caution and with carefully selected personnel, a number of fatal laboratory and industrial accidents occurred. With the expanding nuclear technology, inevitably precautions will be fewer, people less highly selected, and fission products and plutonium

i

1 row cavity and producing loss of blood cells and osteosarcoma

Human aspects. Although the scientific and military aspects of

will escape. Probably therc are not enough peoplc capable of the constJnt rigorous watchfulness rcquirfd for the job. A 115,000 gJllon IcJk fronl stor.i$ ContJincrs it) Hallford. Washington Went undetected for 7 wcchs; accidentally discharged fission products in Broomfield. Colorado appeared in the minicipal water supply. a plutonium oxidc over the countryside, are just known be- ginnings. Most accidcnts are covered up a t first, then described as unimportant, or as "safe."

The first demonstration breeder, the Enrico Fermi reactor, is shut down afwr a near meltdown. And there are no published f ip ures about sabotage and theft losses. But i f we are to increase nuclear energy production 100-fold as planned, i t i s inevitable that spills, accidental releases, plutonium fires, traffic accidents in. volving nuclear materials. and clandestine thefts will occur more frequently. Wit11 the 24,000 year half-life of plutonium created in ton amounts, and its 10 millionth gram toxicity, we are headed for unprecedented trouble. Alvin Weinberg. former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory said, "We nuclear people have made a Fausrian compact with society: we offer. . .an inexhaustible energy source. . .tainted with potential sideeffects that, if uncontrolled, could spell disaster." We are changing our national commitment, therefore, from promoting "the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution, towards a commitment to greater dangers and control in support of nuclear industri- alization. Should this change in commitment not be preceded by a full Congressional hearing and a national debate? Nothing less i s worthy of the bicentennial celebration. FURTHER READING: Recent volumes of Science, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Health Physics, Radiation Research: Alice Stewart: An epidemiologist takes a look a t radiation risks. Dept. of HEW, Publ. No. 73-8024; Effects on populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. National Academy of Science, November 1972; includes glossary; The Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Union of Concerned Scientists (P.0. Box 289. MIT Branch Station), Cambridge. Mass. 02139.

G ITIid-Rrnerica' Coalition for Enoqy Flltcrnatlves

new $letter The MACEA NEWSLETTER i s published by the Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives, 4950 Cferry, Room 326, Kansas City, Missouri 641 10. Telephone - (816) 531-8711.

Co-Chairpersons - Ron Henricks & Diane Tegtmeier Secretary - Becky Burcham Treasurer. Laura Brannon Newsletter Editors ~ Kathryn & Dave Reiswig

Deadline date for Newsletter articles: 5th of each month. Graphics and Production Art by MBP GRAPHICS. - Here i s my 53 membership in MACEA

(includes MA CEA newsletter)

- 1 would like to subscribe to the newsletter alone, here i s my $3 subscription

- Please send me a packet of literature for more information on energy issues, for which I enclose $1

- Here i s my additional contribution of - to MACEA (Due to our lobbying status memberships and contributions are not tax.deductible, which means you get more action for your money.)

WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING: MACEA.K.C. members have had a very busy month. We have

delayed the publication of the newsletter because we wished to include a report on the Atomic Industrial Forum.

Several of our members have participated in energy panel discussions at area churches. A two day energy symposium at Shawnee Mission South High School involved four of us rotating with representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, Standard Oil, and Kansas City Power and Light. Ron Henricks has been talking to Kiwanis and Jaycees in St. Joseph and Clinton.

the Mid-America Regional Council to urge inclusion of methane and sludge recovery in the regional water treatment plans. They also met with Senator Symington's staff, Representative Bolling and Mayor Charles Wheeler of Kansas City.

An important activity this month was planning for, gaining admission to, and reporting on the Atomic Industrial Forem Con- ference on Nuclear Power and the Public. A press conference was held prior to the AIF Conference in which we voiced our objection to the press being excluded and presented our comments on the topics to be discussed. We also issued a press release further e l a b orating our position, and it was sent to many newspapers in our two-state area. The Kansas City Star, Sunday. March 3, carried a report on the press release.

Partly due to the coverage of our concerns in Sunday's Kansas City Star and interest expressed by others in the press, Diane Tegtmeier was allowed to cover the conference. A brief report of the proceedings appears in another article. A more detailed report and copies of several key speeches given a t the conference are available from MACEA for the cost of duplication.

Statewide meetings are being planned for Kansas and Missouri during April and May. Area groups will be receiving information

The MACEA newsletter should not be a report only from Kansas City. We would like to regularly feature articles concerning activit ies in each area we represent. Since we have not been receiving such articles we are asking that area leaders take the re sponsibility of writing or obtaining a brief article about what your groups have done, learned or will do and then send i t to the MACEA editors before the 5th of each month. David and Kay Reiswig, 4515 N.E. Kelsey Rd., K.C., Mo. 641 16 are the newsletter editors, so send them the materials. Let us know who you have talked to, what legislators you have seen and what their re sponse has been. Share your ideas and experiences with us.

-

The committee on methane digestion from waste met twice with

soon.

HELP NEEDED

MACEA needs replacements for treasurer Laura Branan who is leaving the area in April, and secretary Becky Burcham who i s leaving the area in May. I f you are interested in one of these position or know someone who might be interested, please call the MACEA office a t 531-8711 or Diane Tegtmeier a t 362-8596. Volunteers need to live in the Kansas City area.

FOR FURTHER READING: 1. "Plutonium and the 'Hot Particle Problem': Environmental

Group Proposes a Draconian Answer," Science, Vol. 183, NO. 412'

2. "Floating Nuclear Plants: Power from the Assembly Line," pp. 834-835.

Science, Vol. 183, No. 4129, pp. 1063.1065.

W.8-30 I

1

Alien L. Hnmmond PUBLIC ISSC‘ES

BREEDER REACTORS: MARVEL OR iMENACE?

The case for rethinking a national commitment that could lie a national disaster 5\P ‘

#

i o

T ONE TIME, Americans ob. A tained ample energy with a technology no more sophisticated than an ax. Now we depend increasingly on electricity generated in central power stations-most of them fueled by coal, with its side effects of air pollution and strip-mine damage. The US. also has twenty-five uranium-fueled nuclear * w a n t s ; many more are under construction. But neither coal nor uranium can supply our energy needs indefinitely. Uranium particularly is in short supply; according to the Atomic Energy Commission, reserves of this fuel will run low w i t h i n J T l p or thirty years. Ultimately w f will have to develop other fuels and still more sophisticated technologies to power our industries and light our homes. Worse, the US. demand for electric power is likely to double twice by 1990, creating a genuine energy crisis.

How we should marshal our resources to meet our energy needs is a controversial subject. Some years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission decided unilaterally that our highest priority should be the breeder reactor, a new and complex type of nuclear reactor that will bum plutonium instead of uranium. The breeder has the almost magic ability to produce, or “breed,” more nuclear fuel than it consumes, and i t will, the AEC claims, provide cheap, abundant electric power with less pollution than uranium-fueled reactors. By the year 2000, the AEC plans to have in operation more than 500 breeder reactors, representing a quarter of this country’s electrical generating capncity.

In contrast, the breeder’s critics argue that it will lead to unprecedented environmental hazards. Far from being an ideal solution to the energy dilemma, they Ijelieve, tlie breeder niay well be the worst of the alternatives at hand. Pliysicist and Nobel laureate I-lannes Alfvdn claims

~ . ______ . , __ - . Dr. i lammond, a phvricist and wri ter , i.s mi. rendy rrsrarrh news rdiror o/ Svivniv . the. journul o/ the Anir r i rnn A.\sovintron /,ir thc Aduancrntrnr u/ Scivnvr.

that with this technology, “a total poisoning of the planet is possible.” Even some thoughtful proponents of !lie breeder have pointed out that large-scale use of these reactors will pose novel diificulties arising from their production of vast amounts of radioactive plutonium, a long-lived and extremely lethal material. There is a “moral responsibility” to face up to such potential dangers, says Alvin Weintierg, director of the AEC’s Oak Ridge National Labora- tory. Given the dangers, one might reasonably ask why we do not devote more resources to cleaning up fossil fuels (coal, oil) and to developing less hazardous sources of energy, such as nuclear fusion, solar energy, or geothermal energy, instead of building breeder reactors.

T ISSUE HERE is the way in A which we as a society are to make decisions about our technological future. As in the struggle over the supersonic transport, the tradi- tional methods for making these decisions are inadequate; the conventional framework for judgment is not broad enough to encompass widely differing visions of what America should be. The rejection of the SST, in part for environmental reasons, was a healthy precedent. But it was only a skirmish; we didn’t really need that airplane. The rcal Imttle in technology aspessment lice ahead; it concerns future energy eys- tems. Here the stakes will be higher -we do need energy-and the risks of a hasty or ill-considered commitment will be far more serious.

The AEC’s program to cornmercial- ire breeder technology already licis coiisicleriible nionientuni. By 1980 tlic agency and its Congressional .sponsor, the Joint Coniniittee on Atomic Iliiergy, plnn to spend niorc Illan 82 I~illiori in fctlc~rcil funds on clevcloping the l)rcetler, more t1i;in ih Leiiig spent for rescnrcli on dl otlrcr types of energy togctlicr. In ii iiic~sagc to Coiig~ess i n J U U C 1971. I’rcsidcilt Nismon ralletl the 1)rcedt.r

“our best hope for meeting the nation’s growing demand for economical clean energy.” The utility industry has pledged niore than 9230 million to help build a demonstration power plant powered by a breeder reactor; construction is scheduled to start late nest year.

Unfortunately, none of this head- long activity was preceded by any serious study of energy resources or any open debate on tlie merits and disadvantages of various methods of generating power. In fact, the government still lacks any overall national policy for energy. Because the XEC has preempted the fielct+multa- neously developing and promoting the use of nuclenr energy for twenty- five year.+tlie AEC‘s point of view has become de /octo national policy.

Alaska‘s Scii;itor .\like Gravel has repeatedly attacked tiir tireec!rr program on the S n a t e tioor. but thus far his lonely hattle has been un- succr5sful. \\‘hat niay provc to be ;I more effective move is :I lawsuit filed against tlic AE:C !iy the Scien- tists’ Institute for l’ut~lic. Infornintion (SIPI) , a y o u p Iicatlcli Liy Liolo- gist Unrry Cominoncr a n t ! cinthro- pologist 3l: irprct .\leati. ’i’lie SIP1 la\vsuit seck> to coi:i1wl tlic AEC to file i i n tmv iron nient a1 impact i t a te- nient on tlic brccJer propr;im. ~vliicli tlie :\EC has refused to do. :\a tlic, plaintifis see- i t . the Xationnl En- vironnitmtiil Protection Act requircs n detnilecl statement ass:ePsinp not only the I)rc*cc!cr‘s long-rnngc corisc- quencee hut atso t l i r possililc riltcrna- lives to this ncv nnclear tcc!inolo;y. TIN* Af:C. w i t t i \l’hitts House 1 ~ 1 c k i r 1 ~ . rlaima t1i:it i t need only prcpzrt- suclr stntcnicnts on a pIant-by-!)l:1~1:. picce- niral hisis. \\*it11 t l i z iit*lil of :In ~ i ~ i ~ i . c n v i r o i i i n c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l i s t fcc!c.r;~l cliitrict j iiilgr in Washi n jit on. 1J.C.. I!,! i crc :!IC suit w:ia filtyl. tlir j i o v t - r ~ ~ r r : ~ - : ~ t w o n tlic firFt rountl i n h t t * J::lrc-Ii IO;?. Tlic I c y 1 1 ac:iori t11t.11 1110vt.cl to tlrc Court of App*:il+. \rliic!i \!.~i [ i y v i . oiisly o v t * r r i i l d t l i r j d ; : t - i r ! $(’\ t .r . ;~ l

~ii~ir~)iiIii[,Iit~il V ; I W ~ . ,\.< of \ t ivt%!ii .

1ic.r. :I ~I~~r is io i i ( ) II tlw C ; I . G ~ \v:!- !*[*TI,!-

Ill:,

w V.8-31

yeais. If AEC pr6jection’s for the com- niercial use of breeders prove correct, these reactors will be producing ’ ;is much os 80,000 kilograms of plutonium a year by the end of the century.

Such large quantities of plutonium, according to the AEC point of view, represent a distinct benefit to mankind. As fuel in a nuclear reactor, for example, a pound of plutonium can produce as much energy as three million pounds of coal. By using plutonium instead of fissionable uranium a s a nuclear fuel, we will extend our energy resources ancl obviate the need for costly separation facilities to process the uranium. As a result, the AEC claims, plutonium consti- tutm an almost iriexltaustible fuel.

most toxic substances known to man. Experiments have shown that trace amounts induce lung cancer in nni- mats. Federal health standards recom-

plutonium is also among the

L T clence II . E(: on IS CONFIDENT plutonium that fuel depen- will

nrescmt no irrcmetlial)lc difiiculties:

mend no iiiore than 0.6 niicrogram (about twentybillionths of an ounce) as the total nmount to wliich a Iiuman body should be exposed. Because plutonium combines readily with oxy- gen, there is a substantial fire hazard wherever this material is used. The critical mass of plutonium, the amount that could cause a nuclear explosion, is only a few kilograms, thus requiring unusual care in handling, storing, and shipping to prevent such quantities from coming together. Not the least of the problems posed by plutonium is its radioactivity; the radioactive half-life, or decay period, of plutonium is about 24,000 years, so that the contamination of an environment with plutonium by whatever means would be essentially permanent. Both the projected scope of plutonium usage- what former AEC cliairman Glenn Seaborg has optimistically described as the “plutonium economy of tlie future”-and the hazards associated with this valualile yet dangerous material make tlie clelinte over the merits of tlic Iirc-der ;I significant one.

its top oflicials are apparently un- wavi:ring in thcir liclief that the I)rwilcr is the Iicst solution to our energy proIiIi.ms. 1 h t t this conviction ant1 t l t e AKC’s GISC for t l t e Ijrceder scim to clcpencl oii the tacit assuriip-

SI

tion that some form of nuclear energy is inevitable. In essence, the AEC’s atrgumentsare threefold: ( 1 ) we must have the breeder and have i t quickly, i f we are to continue to enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy; ( 2 ) breeders will make available aLun- clant and inexpensive electric power; and ( 3 ) tlie plutonium problems notwithstanding, the AEC claims that the breeder will pollute less than other sources of energy.

The first argument is essentially a scarcity argument. AEC estimates of commercially recoverable uranium indicate a shortage of nuclear fuel before the end of the century if breeders are not built. Because it will take fifteen to twenty years to develop breeder reactors and perfect them to the point of commercial acceptabil- ity, the AEC reasons, it is urgent to move ahead rapidly if the energy crisis is to be’staved off. There is indeed no question that, in the long run, breeder reactors will be rieces- wry if we continue to use nuclear fission as a source of energy. Brit there is disagreement about wlietlier we have fifteen or fifty ye,irs before this necessity must be faced and choices made. The AEC’s estimates of uranium assume, for example, that no new discoveries of uranium ore will be made, that no more drilling ( to verify suspected deposits) will be clone, and that no uranium will be imported from Canada and Australia, where most of the free world’s reserves of this mineral are located. Independent studies of uranium reserves have questioned the AEC’s findings and have indicated that sufficient domestic supplies of Iiigli- grade ore exist to fuel the growing nuclear industry through at least the year 2020 without recourse to breeders. The point is not that breeders should never be built but that, if these independent studies are correct, there is no justification for ii crash program to dcvelop Iirccdcrs. We Iiave enoiigli time to make an inforiiied ant1 rational choice.

nology might s v e as much as $20 Iiillion in tlie nation’s power bill over ii fifty-yeor period. Several nuclear experts who Iinve looked closely at the design to which the AEC is committed are dubious that the breeder will in fact perform as economically as claimed. A recent study by Re- bources for the Future, a reputable nonprofit group in Wasliington, D.C., indicates that the breeder is likely to be a far more expensive source of electricity than present nuclear power plants. The relative attractiveness of tlie breeder will also depend in part on tlie eifort and money espencled to tlevc-lop nnd irnprow other sources of energy.-

The AtC’s third argument is an c-iivironiiiental one: breeders will eliniinnte the air pollution that fossil fuel Iilarrts would cause; tliey will reduce wnste heat ancl tliernial pollution coiiipircd to present types of nuclear power plants; ;d they will further rl-tlucc tlie release of trace anlotints of riitlionctivity into the en- virwtment. l’lic~sc are siil~st:uitial :ill- v;uitnge$. td ien one rcxctor or p o w r plant at i t tiiiic.. I)ut they do not give the entire picture. The Inrge nunibcr of breeder rexctors t l i a t the AEC en- visions will niake the i.+uci of rcactor safety. h e trarirport of nurlcnr fuel, nntl tlie tliapo~it1 of the mtlioactire waste products of re:ictors mucli more serious questions than they are at present.

Reactor safety, for t.sainple, is not sonietliing that can Le nhsolute!y guarcinteetl. KiicIear power plants arc prol)alily among the iiiort cnrefully engirrwrt*cl a r i d ri$tlly regulated structures in tlic worltl: Allowmces are made evtm for unlikely evcrits: near ;iirports. tliese pl:ults niuet be tlrsipetl to witlistand an airplane misli without releasing sibstantin1 iinioitiits of radioactivity. Eut even tltt- most conservatively t l t 4 y c d anti c:irc*fully rim intlristrinl facilities do Itnvc i~ecitlcnts.~ Tlir posihility of urtforr.wri ri:ititr;il (Iisistrrs. war. or ?;;ilwt;rgc. c:intiot lir ri i lct l ortt. JYltilc the clt;uicc*s of ii scrioiis iiuclear ocri-

Sinw J:iiiii:iry, thr znfriy of cxiqtinq i i w l w r p w t v pl;ints 1 i : i ~ I w i i rlinllr!Igrd i i i I ivar i i ip at I h - f l i c w l x . \I.iryl;iiicL !>y i i i v i i i I i w 5 [ B f t h ~ I ’ i i i c i r i t i ( G ~ i i w r i i t d Sci. twti+. ;I IListoii grtuip. aiiJ It! w i ~ i t - of

Ii:i* ; i t l i i i i t t tv l 111;it i v d i i c t i i u i < iii powr

i l i i irr. i l i i i - i . s r t ; i l -iicIi ~ ~ l . i i ! t < . l h x i i v of tlivir g r v . i t t ~ iw i i I I I cx i fv . I ~ i t w l c r rwctors iii;i\ I I : I \ C - f i l l I I I~BIC. ~ I i l l i ~ ~ t i I : 1 \ i c ~ l i l t ~ l i l s .

t i l l . AI.:(:*^ tls\.ll .:lrc*t, l.Kllf.l t5. m, AEC

l l ~ ~ t l ~ ~ ~ t d 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 20 W,~I~III I I K I Y LIP rc-

34

V . 8-32 n

r

PUDLIC 1sS~;Es- heat below the earth’s surface. The process of nuclear fusion, in which isotopes of hydrogen combine to form helium and release large amounts of energy, also lias high potential, but it has not yet been shown that controlled fusion can be made to work, let alone that it can Le economically competitive. Given the problems associated with large numbers of breeder reactors, hmv- ever, we might be well advised as a society to find out more about these options, \vhicli are currently being investigated on a meager scale compared to breeder development.

Thanks to the AEC’s yFirs of effort, the breeder reactor IS now the most advanced of our alternatives for a future source of energy. Other countries, including the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, Gerninny, and Japan, Iiavr also coiiiiiiittc.d tlieinsclvcs to 1)iiiMiiig I ir lwlvr rciictors. A h y 1111- clrar t.xprrts agree wi t l i l’rcsitlcnt Nison’s view that tlie U.S. slioultl not lag behind in exploiting this new technology. But the energy tlilemma is a novel probleiii for inmkintl. Tlie human race I im never liefore liad to make long-range decisions about its future of compnrnble m a p i t u d e to those we now face. It is not easy to dismiss the view that, among our energy options. the hreeder ou$t to be “the last choice of a desperate nation,” as some critics believe. Un- der the circumstances, it would bc irresponsible IO rush ahrnd withorit :awful study and prilJic cIc1i:ite: we ~voultl be unwise to bnrter our long- :erm futurc for short-term Fain, ivhether political, economic. or environmental.

It may be that breeder reactors are :he best or even the only feasible Zource of energy for mankind. It may ,e that the complexities associated ,sitti large invcntorie5 of plutonium ire part of the price of living in n echological society. But i: \vould Le vel1 to be sure bcfore the enterprise J too far adv;incctl and the cost of ‘rror too high. We iiirist free oiirwlvcs roiii the narrow vision of t!ic past tnc l ;irk for ;I rc:rsscssnicnt of tm.r;y w o l h i i s i n a forurii. :irrcssibie i o :I vitlcr rnriTc. of iiitcrests than cvrr icfore. Tlie rcill for :I roiiiprc.licns;ivt* tation;rl poliey on cric*rFy is now :isliion:iliIv. I i r i t we Iinvt. riot yt-t hc- : i i n IO rt~:illoe:itc t1w n w i i r e z s :uid c y i w ! l i t% iiiforiii:ilicvi tll:it rolilil wovittc :I I u G i s for srIc.11 ;I p\licv. t is loiig 11;i.t t i i i i c t l i a t \W t l i t l . [3

n

V.8-33

a I I I E DREEDEII ciiiothzr irresponsi- I Illc high adventure i n technology ; t h g tlie lines of tlie SST? Or is it, :I* ttic AEC clniiiis, tlie only feasible ;il[tmi;itive \YL: h v e ? Before we es- :iiiiine tlie iirguiiimth for these con- flirting points of view, we need to Lnow sonietliing about how breeder rciictors work and Iiow they differ f r o i i i the type of riuclear power plant t l iot is now being built around the country.

Nuclear reactors exploit the process of nuclcar fis4on-tlie splitting of the atoiii. The heat produced in iliis process is in turn used to gcner- :ite elcctricity in nuclear power plants. OiiIy ii few natural substances rcntlily undergo fission, however, and tlie most coiiimon of these, uranium- 235, constitutes less than I percent of the uriiniuni found in nature. Com- riiercially recoverable reserves of fissionable iiiciterials are limited; hence nuclear reactor fuel will eventually lie in short supply-exactly when depends on the extent of the‘ deposits of Iiigh-grade uranium ore. A pos- &le solution to this impending shortage is to have nuclear reactors artifi- cially breed new fuel for themselves by convertinn “fertile” materials, such as tlie more plentiful u&u_m; 238 and the element )thorium, into fissionable materials G i i i I i G l plutonium; for this reason the breeding process has been of interest since the early days of nuclear energy.

Suclear reactors of the kind now Iwing installed in power plants brccd >mnll amounts of new fuel, but the conversion process is relatively in- c’fficicmt, producing only about sixty atoms of plutonium for every 100 a101ii~ of uranium consumccl. Breeder rc;ictori. ;is tlicir name implies, are niorc t4icicnt at the conversion process iiiid produce more nuclear fuel than ihry consume. The resulting pltrlonium can be used as a fission- nlile fuel in a breeder to produce still more plutonium, thus doubling the plutoniuni on hand about every ten

10

V.8-

li;ut Ill.i! h- twtvtliiiply m ; i I l at a ,.ll pI.ltit. tlic iirt probability will

I,,. l*,~i~~iJvr.ilily iiicrcabctl wlicn sev- ,.r.ll lfil>ii.inti brtwlrr reactors are in tqwr.itioti.

.it rqul . ir intervals, nuclear reac- tl)r3 liiiizt lit. rt*fucld and the fission ,,.I>Ic proJucts m d plutonium re- 111,1~ ,d .ixd AippeJ to a fuel‘repro- ccZziiig phnt. The riidioactive waste i.- tIit*n to bc shipped to a depository ic,r ~oiig-tmii storage, while the plu- loiliuiii is refabricated into reactor fd aiit l Jiipped back to a nuclear p n t er plaint. Transportation accidents occur with predictable frequency; r.iiIwJy cars, for example, are de- r.iiled JLIOU~ once every million miles. By the year 2000, there will be as 111a1iy as 600 shipments of highly ratlioactive fuel per week, so that we ran expect a certain number of acci- tlrnts in whicli radiation is released. This number will probably be very mall , but that is not the point- there will be some accidents. One is forced, as with the possibility of reactor accidents, to make unpleasant decisions about what risk, in terms of liuiiian exposure to radiation and contamination of the environment, we are prepared to tolerate as the price for power from the breeder.

Long-term storage of radioactive wastes is a problem the AEC: has still not adequately solved. According to current projections, more than ten niillion gallons (or their solid equivalent) of such wastes will have accumulated by the end of the century. Tlieoe tosic materials must be cared for over many thousands of years. W‘e shall have to build or find repositories that, like the pyramids, will outlast our present culture as monu- ments to our use of nuclear energy.

o BE SURE, technological problems T are amenable to solution, a t least in theory. But the same cannot be $.lid’ for the social problems created 11). technology and human nature. :\iriilnne hijacking is one example. The diversion of plutonium to illegal purposes may well be another. Plu- toniuiii is extremely valuable as nuclear fuel and is worth about $10,000 pcr kilogram-comparable to the diolt*ssle price of heroin and about t1.n tiniea the value of gold. Given this incentive and the relative ease of truck hijacking or of stealing in ~ i i i ~ l l amounts from industrial stockpiles, it seems likely that J black

-34

iii;iikt*t for plutoniuin will tlevelop, . in .i*wlc.iiicrit I\ i h wliicli the AEC’s ON II experts nprcc. Moreover, i t takes only a fcw kilograms of plutonium I

lor an atomic I)onil), and the know- Iiow to construct sucli a bomb is ,rtwlily iivoilolle. One can imagine, without too niucli tlifiiculty, an ex- trt-niist group of the future demand- ing ;in enormous price in return for not Mowing up New York City. Even without bombs, the public health and national security hazards of a clandestine plutonium market will be considera ble.

Despite a distinct resemblance to science fiction, these are not hypo- tlietical problems. The AEC is aware of the difficulties that a “plutonium economy” will bring and is seeking ways to avoid or ameliorate them, altliougli the agency has not always been candid with the American public about these problems and their consequences for the future. It is also fair to say that, while AEC spokesmen often talk about including the environmental and social costs of fossil fuels in their price tag, they have not seen fit to apply the same reasoning to the breeder.

Hence our central dilemma: the future of nuclear energy depends on breeders, yet the widespread use of this technology may pose unacceptable costs in environmental damage, health hazards, and social chaos.

HAT ALTERNATIVES to the W breeder do we h a v e - o r might we have if we committed as many ’ resources to their development as to the breeder? In the short run it would be to our, advantage as a society to decrease bur use of electric e n e t p if we can, but there is no easy way to legislate the ever-rising demand for power. Improvements in the way we

.use fossil fuels are possible and may represent a good social investment for the immediate future, but fossil- fuel reserves will run out eventually, ’ probably within a few centuries.

On a longer time scale the only sources of energy for mankind will he nuclear fission (i.e., the breeder), nuclear fusion, solar energy, and geo- tliermal energy. Methods of captur- ing sunlight and converting this I

energ?. to heat or electricity look promising, but it is uncertain how much these methods will cost. Similar statements can be made about the prospects of tapping the geothermal

V. 8-35

AMORYB. LOVINS

.- ,)sL>d liquid metal fast breeder reactor ..-..;idn plant a t Oak Ridge, Tenn., looks :. :>:.d bargain for the taxpayer. The mem- . i,: under'standing already executed by the

c Atomic Energy Commission,, the Ten- b y Authority, the Commonwealth Edison

.: :,T,(! two corporations representing the :;~s:ry (Breeder Reactor Corporation and

.'.::,n:ig,rc'ment Corporation) -lays these ob- . <:; !he AEC:

. , . .'; s:? million outright, and to bear the sole - . .::sibiiity for trying to raise the money to ..-:.: :my cost overruns, !:::; b x k (and, if desired, to dismantle and ... n:nission) the plant if the TVA doesn't

. ..:.: it aitcr five years, and ; ;.-.&mniiy the other four parties against all '....::s snd iiabilities.

..;z:ions of Commonwealth Edison and of T'.'.;, on the other hand, are limited to their

::; s m d l uti!ity contributions plus $2 mil- -f:c iv'nich they can subtract their prepara-

and the value of any services they

: rcsdent's Energy Message to Congress, ;. i571, specified: "Industry should play the

- r . :> in [demonstration projects] . . . but -. ::: .T t can help by providing technical lead-

. . ; ~ 7 . i by sharing a portion of the risk for costly - -..:rstion p!ants." Yet this plan has been aban-

i. !or the government, through the AEC, is .. ; .:::to assume three-fifths or more of the cost e ' . .... I.. ,..e risk. The utilities' contribution of a

r.c L,! 2 biilion dollars (the limit of their lia-

I n o m that the investor-owned electric h-ve a total valuation of $105 billion (1971),

8 ' . LX s!re~dy committed themselves (in orders . ..-:tis:x a i the start of 1972) to $31 billion for

. a

. . .

' 3 : .', ' . f ::. ' - the project) sounds like a lot of money

. .

In the opinion of the Friends of the Earth and some other environmental organizations. the most critical environmental problem facing the nation is nuclear power-especially the pmlifemtion of it through fast breederreactors. In this article, the author, a physicist. gives a detailed and documented account of FOE'S opposition to breeder technology. The article is based on the FOE statement presented to the Joint Commit- tee qn Atomic Energy at apublic hearing Sept. 8, 1972.

new light-water reactors and to $127 billion for the fuel and operating budgets t o run them. Compared with these staggering investments, the utilities' token contribution of 5250-odd million for a supposedly revolutionary project of "proven feasibility" bespeaks a reluctance that should give this committee (JCAE) pause.

The AEC is trying to accept on the taxpayers' behalf an open-ended commitment to escalating costs and unlimited indemnities, while the utilities are buttering their bread on all six sides. Ap- proving such a lopsided arrangement would not meet this committee's duty of safeguarding the public interest. No other body can perform this duty instead.

Under the proposed contract, the public will have no way of knowing what the five participants are doing, and the detailed management of the project, funded mainly by the Treasury, will pass forever out of public control. Annual or even weekly hearings before this committee could not repair the public damage wrought by a defective contract. Principles of sound management demand, therefore, that the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy insure that the Congress

either increase the directness of public control over the project or lessen Treasury funding of it, so that commercial participation in its support and in its administration are made commensurate;

erequire that all board meetings of the Project Management Corporation (PMC) and the Breeder Reactor Corporation (BRC) be minuted, other administrative actions be properly recorded, and all these records be made currentiy available to the public:

e appoint a nonexecutive watchdog committee of both technical and lay members of the public, free of connection with the nuclear community and required to relay continuously to the public all in- March 1979 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 29

formation about the progress of the project. Such a function can not be reliably performed by the AEC as now constituted. An Intolerable Threat

There are major defects from which a demonstration plant would suffer which, if multiplied by the more than 2,600 commercial fast breeders the AEC proposes to build by the year 2020, would produce an intolerable threat to the health, safety and security of this or any other nation.

It is important to bear clearly in mind some of the differences in design between liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBRs) and the lizht- water reactors (LWRs) now in commercial service. The power density of the proposed demonstration breeder (roughly one-third commercial size) is to be 400 kilowatts per liter-some 12 times that of large commercial LWRs going on line in the past few years. This immense heat flux is to be removed by molten sodium metal flowing through the core (roughly two cubic meters) at a rate of at least five cubic meters per second. The sodium, which is violently reactive with air or water, io t o emerge intensely radioactive and heated to about 1000 degrees F. I t is opaque (so that all adjustments and maintenance must rely on hard-to-develop in- struments [ 1, p. 11731 rather than on direct inspection), and it freezes unless kept at nearly the boiling point 6f water.

The core of the reactor contains not 100-odd kilograms (as in a LWR) but roughly a ton of plutonium-239-a radiological poison so toxic that if properly reduced and dispersed, a ton of it would far more than suffice to give lung cancer to everyone on earth. “[Tlhe quantitative relationship between plutonium dose and cancer induction a t low dose levels,” says the AEC, “has not been determined” [2, p. E11261.

The plutonium inventory in fast breeders is not dilute but concentrated, and constitutes several hundred times the critical mass. Meltdown or local compression of the core could cause accidental re- assembly into critical configurations, and thus a violent explosion. Furthermore, any fast breeder reactor is inherently less stable and harder t o control than a thermal reactor [2, p. E11191. The AEC notes: “Among the more severe hypothetical accidents [3] are reactivity insertions . . , leading to events which could damage the core before the . . . inherent shutdown phenomena or normal control actions take effect” [ 2, p. E8681 and possibly “resulting in the release of fission products from the reactor [2, p. E8201. Somewhat less severe accidents “may lead to various degrees of core melting and disruption, and corresponding releases of fission products and plutonium from the fuel” 1:2, p. E8681. Such effects can be mitigated if “safety features operate . . . as designed” 12, p. E8711- yet “malfunction of the automatic control systems can reasonably be expected to occur within the lifetime of the demonstration plant” [2, p. E8GGl. 30

The AEC’s projected breeder economy for 1 entails 100 railway cars daily loaded w i t h :: metal-cooled casks of spent fuel on the K T . ~ . from reprocessing plants. The high ccpitai C : .. holding up the contained plutonium v.ny IC:.,: . AEC to shorten the usual pre-shipment COO;:-.. period from the present 150 days to SO &.YS-. ing the activity from the fuel of one IO(Y breeder at some half-a-billion curies [2, 3 . ::; Shipping casks designed to withstand a 31)-i or a 30-minute fire may not do so well w i t h 2 fall or a 31-minute fire: and the consequenc . ruptured fuel cask could be immense. A 1 9 ~ 3 study [4] states that “it is virtually irn;~~;. to design a package to survive any possible :: dent.”

The AEC’s attitude toward fast-breeder is that these problems-containing sodium T. sion products, preventing flow blockage or s”,i - voiding, inhibiting fuel-pin failure propny::.:i:- . criticality accidents, controlling reactivity L’: .. . sions, removing post-accident decay heat, prt.. . , - ing fuel-transport and fuel-loading accide:!t.s - - . I

all “amendable to engineering solution“ [?, 2. I:-. We think this view reflects a basic error-:’.:.: confusing the way things are with the way onc .:. like them to be. This distinction is c!ex!y ?:. . by Hannes Alfven, the Swedish Kobe1 Incr. physics 151:

The reactor constructors clnirn that they have d I..\

by pointing to all the efforts made to solve i t .

their blueprints will work in the real world and CO! in a “technological paradise.”

Neither the Joint Committee nor m y other h.:.. .

Accidmt Potentid

institution is able, or will ever be ab!e, t o I - all acts of God. The needed gunrmtees not be given, not because it is not tcchn ble but became it is not humanly posib dozen major contractors now perforxi;: tasks and subtasks for the breeder E.2 are doubtless very competent, but they a r t ::::” Human error is inevitable and with r i sk i-’ mngnitude-intolerable. Professor r l l f v i ~ ~ cludes:

It is difficult to sce how a sntisfnctory nnslvrr c. ” ’ given. But if it cnnnot. we hnve to cnnch:(!c !!::.: i .. energy does not represent nn ncccptnSlc so energy problem. . . . In pxcrn l . the brccdcr.: ::x’ ..’ more dnngerous [thnn present rcictors!, :!nJ c::: . plnns to dcvclop breeders should be r w k e d I r.1. The nccidcnt potcntinl of fnst b:.c-AXr~

unprecedented scope for thc sort of 1

,i,.t)rttd only by good luck in such accidents ;is the :\[roit fnst rcnctor meltdown in 1966. The les- , , , n ~ of that r m r cscnpc seem not to have bccn ‘,5,;rilLlcj, In 1971 a t the snme reactor, for cx- ,.n:plc, seven pints of pump lubricant were accidcnt- ,:i!.pnired into primary sodium [ l , p. 11091; on May :)j, 1:)70 a t the s:inic: reactor, 2cO pounds of radio- *I . .;iyc sodium Icnltcd out and reacted with water. .\s for othcr rc’nct.ors, :in indust.rial sgstcnl in which .,::int drinking fount:tins c;m be accidentally coil- ~ , ~ ~ t c d to a radioactive waste tank [GI, in which !bl> core of a hrge boiiing-water reactor can be !:+e uncovered during an uncontrolled oscillation 31 coolant level 171, in which common-mode failure ( i n prevent the shutdown of a reactor during an 2Z;ergency (SCRAM) [SI, or in which 63 out oi 191 &es can fail to operate on test [9] is plainly not yrfec t .

Vithout needing to multiply all-too-plentiful ex- zmples, we should go further than saying mistakes ),zve been made. As the AEC staff wrote to this committee [l, p. 1071:

. . . the utilities. reactor plant suppliers, architect engi. ncrrs. constructors, and equipment vendors. . . must Jernonst?ate their capabilities to bring into operation the light water reactors prior to undertaking a more complex and difficult breeder reactor program.

v.3-37

[CCS Hcarings The AEC’s Bethesda hearings on emergency core-

cooling systems provide ample evidence that the nuclear community has not performed this task. .\!oreover, the Bethesda hearings must reveal to any disinterested observer a dangerous bankruptcy of the regulatory process that has not only continued to license hazardous reactors, but has tried to conceal news of the hazards from t h e public. An Atomic Energy Commission that can not produce safe light-water reactors has no business trying to produce fast breeder reactors, just as people who can not build safe cars should not t ry to build aircraft.

Largely because the AEC has not been candid about present reactor safety problems, we a re unable to trust t he AEC’s assessment of breeder sdety, even were it not t o depend on human falli- oility in every stage of design, construction, operation and maintenance. “Safety” rests on little em- piricism. The director of the AEC’s Division of Re- actor Development and Technology, Milton Shaw, recently told this committee that “It is important to recognize that the information obtained from semiscale tests (and from other principal parts of the Nuclear Safety program) is not directly appli- cable to larger systems except through analytical models intended to describe the course of hypothetical accidents” [l, p. 12211. The Bethesda record shows how flawed such models can be. “The analysis of postulated accidents,” says the AEC, “involves numerous assumptions which are difficult to quantify” (2, p. E10261.

I . .

The AEC’s piiblic v:~cillations Rive little cause for confidence in sztfety estimates. Shaw assured this committee in February 1972 in the stronzest terms that the Lyons, Kansas, salt mine proposed for high-level waste. storaKe would be “completely safe” and proof against all intrusion by water [ I , p. 12331. Yet in the March-April issue of Technology Review, the director of the Kansas Geological Sur- vey pointcd out that the salt beds a rc “a bit like a picce of Swiss chccse, and the possibility for en- trance and circulation of fluids is great”--a fact known since 180,000 gallons of water mysteriously disappeared down a hole the previous summer.

Elaslic Stendards Recently, the AEC h a s decided that rupture

of reactor pressure vessels is not, after all, incredible. Radiation exposure standards long held to be safe have been suddenly reduced by as much as two orders of magnitude. As reactor sizes have quadrupled in less than a decade [I, p. 11331, supposedly impossible types of fuel-rod failure have just been discovered in several working reactors, to the con- sternation of the industry. The AEC’s notions of the safe and standards of the credible seem too elas- tic to be infallible.

Jus t a s human e r ro r will always make it impossible to prevent serious accidents as fast breeders proliferate-and as necessarily less-skilled operators take over from their unsuccessful teachers- human fallibility will make it forever impossible to prevent t h e plutonium economy from posing a grave threat to national security and world peace. The inventory of fissile plutonium recovered from light-water reactors, if the AEC has i ts way, will increase in the United States from less than 1 metric ton now to 45 in 1980 [l, p. 12301, 170 in 1985 [l. p. 12341, and - with the advent of the breeder economy -to thousands of tons early in the next century. (The present price is about $10 million per ton.) Thus within a generation we should see the basic raw material for thousands of Nagasaki-sized bombs being shipped around the country every day.

We find this a chilling prospect. We cannot comprehend how the AEC can be so naive as to rely on any system of safeguards to prevent the diversion, sometime, somewhere, of a few kilograms of plutonium to a private. bomb factory [lo]. Safeguards administered by mightier bodies than the AEC have failed to halt bank robberies, aircraft hijackings and the black market in heroin. The incentive to steal and sell fissile plutonium will be much higher, and so will t he stakes ill].

No amount of electricity is worth the risk tha t some criminal maniac will be afforded dozens of chances daily to acquire the only thing he now lacks to make his own atomic bomb. This problem, like that of operating safety, has no practical solution: it may be soluble on paper, but i t is not soluble by fallible men.

March 1979 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31

The third main problem in this category of “fallibility problems” restricts t he development not only of breeder reactors but also of all fission technology. Unlike safety and plutonium security, however, it is first a moral problem, and is likely to be deferred because its consequences a re felt less by us than by the unborn, who do not vote or own shares. We refer to the unsolved problem of high-level waste isolation - how to deal with some 150 billion curies of long-lived breeder waste three decades hence [121.

Wasfe Storage The AEC’s waste policy provides that wastes be

solidified and placed in a federal repository, but these repositories a re no more satisfactory in the long run than any other temporary solution yet proposed. As the director of the AEC’s Division of Waste Management and Transportation has said: “[Nlone of the suggested long-term solutions to the problem of permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste is technically or economically feasible today” I131.

No amount of careful supervision of the burial of wastes will help if there is no place to bury them. Many thoughtful scientists now question the wisdom of creating wastes genetically dangerous on a time-scale on which human institutions are fragile. Nor will fallible men ever be able to guarantee that a given method of storage is absolutely safe for the needed millennia. The problem is one of which we have had no experience, and no responsible geologist, however expert, will ever be able to give the sort of guarantee required.

Even the low-plutonium wastes from light-water reactors a re intractable if one operates enough reactors. In 30 years, the inventory of cesium-137 from such reactors will, on AEC projections, be about 15 billion curies. The International Commis- sion on Radiological Protection limiting body burden for this isotope is 0.3 millionths of a curie (for the general population). Thus if only one part in 100 million of the accumulated cesium-137 escaped arid were evenly distributed, it would suffice to meet the limiting body burden for an entire US. population of 300 million. In 100 years, the cesium-137’s activi- t y would have lessened by only a factor of ten.

h8ccepfeble Risks

If any of the three concerns we have voiced is valid-and we think there is a widespread feeling in the independent scientific community that all three are valid-then it follows that the social risks of the breeder economy are unacceptable and cannot be incurred. The AEC has evaded honest discu!;- sion of these three problems, assuriny: us instead that all a rc or will be solvcd-k)ut providing no cvi- dence of it. We can no IonKcr take such bland assurances on faith, and this cornmittec should not

32

V . 8-38 n

do so either. We a re sure that if this committee’s faith in the AEC proves stronger than its desire to protect the public interest, its statements and vot- ing record will be very critically exzmined when the faults of the AEC’s schizophrenic regulatory-cum- promotional process lead to their logical conclusion.

Breeder Economics The economic justification for committing the

United States to this program-to a capital investment of several billion dollars now and some half a trillion dollars over the next three decades-appears to rest in the two secalled “cost-benefit analyses” prepared by the AEC [14]. Cost-benefit anal- .ysis is a complex and often useful science whose rip- orous criteria, unfortunately, these studies do not satisfy. They seem, as the Council on Environmental Quality said of NEPA’s impact statements, to hnve been “written to justify decisions already made, rather than to provide a mechanism for critical review. Consideration of alternatives often is inadequate.”

We urge this committee to subject the AEC calculations to critical independent examination before relying on documents that a re a waste of the taxpayers’ money and the reader’s time. The more glaring deficiencies of the AEC “anilyses” include the use of a 7 per cent discount rate rather t h a n the standard 10 per cent, thus infloting the “benefits” by a factor of four (indeed, an interest rate well over 10 per cent would be more appropriate for a speculative project): ignoring most environmental and some safety costs: ignoring accidents: and underestimating capital costs. Sensitivity analysis is grossly inadequate.

More generally, i t is an abuse of economics to pre- tend to do a cost-benefit analysis for any technology 50 years ahead, even a well-known technology; with a technology that does not yet exist, the exer- cise can only be called fraudulent.

Fuel Shoff8ge

A reason commonly given for a crash proq-am to develop fast breeder reactors is an imminent shortage of sufficiently cheap uranium. But the price of electricity from light-water reactors would rise only about 0.075 mills per kilowatt hour :or each W l b rise in the price of yellowcake. This cf- fect is so small, especially in the light of uncertainties about capital costs, for example, that iitilitics could tolerate a very considernblc rise in the iir- anium price, perhaps a factor of thwc to ten. If this is not true-if nuclcnr utilitics will KO out of hllsi- ness (due to the compctition of co:iI) i f thcy h : t \ r c t o pay mow than 810/1b for tlic.ir y c I I o \ v ~ : i k ~ ~ - tllc.y will also go out of busincss if they cvcr h:ivi. t o bear any of the cxtcrn:d (Le., li~rct~i1ous) costs th:i t society now covcrs for thcni, SUCII :IS the cost of uranium miners’ 1unK c:incw, of (1isposinK of inill or reprocessing wilstes, of isohtiiig high-lcwl

‘ \yastes, of somatic damage, of insurance against nuclear accidents, o r of paying for thcir own R 8 D jr capital support. So hcavy are these hidden and seemingly pcrpctunl subsidies that it is a t best dis- ingenuous of the AEC to suggest that “development of nuclear power has taken place in the high- ]!* conipctitive utility ninrket place” [ l , p. 10941. Eut for its many estraordinary privileges, nuclear power would never have got off the ground-a fact of which those who pay the bills should be more aware.

Uranim Scare The AEC’s uranium scare does not appear to be

ivholchearted nor of long standing, and is contra- jictcd by optimism in the uranium industry. As former AEC chairman Glenn T. Seaborg pointed out [151:

The full extent of our uranium resources is not yet well known. Explorntion has been under wny for only about 25 years, and resources are increasing as exploration continues. It is unfortunate that most AEC estimates of re-

serves merely extrapolate past production rather th3n using the estimation techniques standard in economicgeology. The results of this error are especially misleading because the domestic uranium market is so soft that producers a re seldom bother- ing to prove suspected reserves. Elementary calculations tend not to support the AEC’s claims that we need breeders now to avoid “the economic pen- sky of utilizing our lower grade uranium ores in the LWR fuel cycle” [2, p. E11211-or at least they suggest that i t is far cheaper to live with the “penalty.”

Perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the AEC‘s cost-benefit analyses, if not in its entire program “to maximize exploitation of the energy latent in nuclear sources” [l6], is its naive acceptance of projections showing continued rapid exponential growth in electric demand. As far as we can determine, the AEC has not made much of an effort t o study critically who is supposed to use all this electricity for what purposes. The AEC’s defense [2, p. E11171 to this charge is:

Increased usage of electricity has been projected in studies not only by the electric utility industry but also by industry associations [i.e.,the same sources] and government agencies [viz. the FPC. a breeder-booster which essentially collated utility forecasts]. . . .The AEC accepts ns authoritative the consensus of the independent [sic] power projections developed by Federal agencies having that responsibility. The AEC, by developing technical options, is helping to meet these projected power requiremen ts.

This buck-passing is lazy and unsatisfactory. \\‘e should like to propose to this committee the thesis-commonplace to physicists, though perhaps heretical to utilities-that our use of energy in this Nation is profligate; that such an energy crisis a s we may have is one not of undersupply but of mis- direction; that we certainly do not need 4 or 8 times as much energy (or electricity); and that if we had the political will to use our present technical know-

V .8-39

ledge, we could do a great deal more with less ener- €CY*

This is not the occasion to propose all the elements of a rational power policy. Yet we are dis- mayed to note that the AEC seems unable to supply a single reference to any study describing how to use less energy [2, p. E11091, even though at least two excellent papers [17] on the subject from Oak Ridge National Laboratory have appeared. The AEC does sympathetically admit [2, p. E9041, however, that other agencies are now studying the subject in accordance with the thinking of “concerned citizens.”

Each of the ORNL papers proposes workable ways to reduce our national energy budget substantially without reducing our standard of living. We hope such research will lessen the tendency of this committee to accept endless projected dou- blings with such facile remarks El, p. 12091 as:

. . . the tremendous increase in the consumption of electrical energy relates t o our total economy and to jobs in that economy. . . .

Or with the demonstrably false remark that the extra energy will be needed for recycling and various anti-pollution measures.

We propose instead a more careful attention to the distinction between demand and need, to the impact of promotional rates and practices, and to the logic of two remarks made recently to this committee by Shaw [l, pp. 1070, 12121:

People have to think twice before they commit themselves to rapid electrical power growth. The resolution of an imbalance between supply and demand requires either an increase in supply or a reduction in demand.

An Insane Yiew We believe that most projections of electrical

growth, including those used by the AEC, reflect a fundamentally insane view of the role of energy in society, and cannot be met either in supply or in demand. This committee may wish to study the British example: the new chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) astounded the Select Committee on Science and Technology in August 1972 by stating that the CEGB now expects U.K. electric demand to rise by only 3.5 to 5.0 per cent per year over the next decade, several percentage points lower than previously forecast. This change, mainly reflecting unexpected saturations, naturally upsets ‘all sensitive cost- benefit studies.

We have suggested that nuclear fission is a dead- end technology in which we should cut our losses. It is a fair question what we should do instead, bearing in mind “the many unknowns concerning both the needs of this country. . . and the various options for best fulfilling those needs” [2, p. E7541. Other Energy Sources

Shaw has testified to this committee that “the scientific community is split” over alternative energy sources E 1, p. 11061. We think most of the split is between the AEC’s employees and clients and others concerned with energy problems. March 1973 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ss

v. 8-40

Here is the consensus as it looks from outside the AEC;

0 We should devote a t least as much effort t o finding ways of using and wasting less energy as we should to finding more.

0 Centralized electrification is inherently inef- ficient and should be discouraged wherever it is not essential.

*Nuclear fusion is worth an urgent close look. If activation products and tritium do not prove insuperable problems, fusion would probably be far preferable to fission. At least one of the several approaches now being made to controlled fusion will very probably succeed if we spend enough money on it. As Seaborg notes [15]:

As a result of successes of the past few years, scientists a r e now quite confident about their ability to achieve adequate confinement . . . and . . . temperatures. . . . [Rlecent progress in this program suggests tha t the scientific feasibility of [fusion]. . . may be demonstrated in the 1970s. The potential advantages of fusion power in terms of fuel reserves, compatibility with environmental quality, and technological applications a re so impressive that t h e . . . Program should proceed as rapidly as technological progress permits. We have, however, two reservations about fusion:

First, one cannot guess, very convincingly, a t its environmental impact until it is reduced to practice. Second, if fysion turns out to be fairly clean, i t would certainly not teach us a needed discipline in the use of energy. The political problems inherent in trying not to discover global heat-limits empiri- cally might prove insuperable. That said, if fusion is used, it is conceivable technically (though perhaps not politically) that its technology might be widely disseminated; and that the availability of the fuel to all nations equally, assuming they are given deuterium-extraction plants too, could help to remove a major source of tension in the world. Whether the rich countries would want to do that is another matter.

Solar power is already exploitable on a small scale -and there are advantages to decentralized energy conversion - but large-scale photothermal conversion is still in the engineering stage. It can certainly be done; the question is how much it will cost. High capital cost may be offset in large part by free fuel, wr t ly free distribution, and very low running and environmental costs. The AEC staff has told this committee [ 1, pp. 1089, 1093, 11003 :

There are a number of identified developmental areas that could be worked on if a sufficient priority were established. . . , [Plossible improvements in solar cell performance and production techniques appear to be worthy of investigation. . . .Study of the economic trade- offs for [modular solar heat collectors] . . . appear[s] worthwhile. . , . [Such collectors, hooked to the steam cycle of a coal plant, could under reasonable engineering assumptions] produce power on a par with a coal plnnt.

In view of the apparently legitimate protests of most solar energy researchers that they are being starved for funds, the AEC position cited above is hard to reconcile with this statement [ 1, p. 14111 : . . . in our opinion the [proposed] authorization of $15

million for solar energy research and development is premature. We believe that priorities for energy research

34

and development programs should first be evaluated by the Commission, and by other interested agencies within the executive branch; and that the amounts authorized for such programs should Renerally accord with the views of these agencies as to the nature and ]ere: of effort of such work as they consider could be advan. tageously undertaken.

The land requirements of large-scale solar conve:. sion are not excessive when compared with those of prolonged strip-mining. We should like to se9 a far heavier commitment to solar energy R&D- a technology we know will work, and to which rve need to apply the ingenuity (and skill in liquid. metal engineering) now being wasted on fas: breeders.

Even if solar power turned out to have a high capital cost reflected in higher energy prices, en. ergy is now very inexpensive and should be fzr more costly. We could absorb a very substantiz: increase in energy price with little impact on the total economy.

* Geothermal power, carefully extracted, appears to be useful in certain regions, although it is no: a general panacea. Much research remains to be done and should be well funded.

Winds are locally useful on a small scale; tides and ocean currents are probably too expensive t o harness: and hydropower has little room to expand.

0 To get over any short-term problems, we UT^ the intelligent use of coal, with intensive effort t c develop SO2 and related control technologies. ic refine and require reclamation techniqqves, 2nd x improve underground mine safety. Strip minicr should be prohibited wherever restoration is ir: possible: this includes most hilly areas.

There is no reason a t all, save inertia, why c o i should not substitute for nuclear power, which ii presently only providing 3 per cent of U.S. elec trical capacity. The AEC says [ 2, p. E3061 :

Coal supplies appear to be sufficiently plentiful to provide for our electrical generation needs well beyond the next century, so that the choice between nuclear and fossii power generation will be made on economic considerations taking all costs . . . into account. Our first line of defense against both depleticn

and pollution from energy conversion must be t o use to the fullest what energy we have, and no: to use it as wastefully as we now do. Many ph+ cists estimate that a national energy savinz oi cn-. third or more should be attainable relatively pnin- lessly within about a decade.

An unexpected benefit may flow from abnndc-. ing fission technology. We are not aware of nny evi. dence that this technology, viewed 2s a whoie xi including all its capital and R&D inputs, is a rc: producer of energy; some evidence suggests tb: contrary. It is interesting that through 1970 (t'r last year for which we have data) there w s no ye::: in which the total electric production of 211 L.S. civilian nuclear power reactors exceeded the to:::: electric consumption of the U.S. p.scous tiiiicsi.: plants used to enrich uranium (both c.iviii.:n :& military). What kind of energy crisis is t!i::t'!

We deplore a circularity thnt seems to s:over:

V.8-41

thc AEC‘s choirc of rcsenrch prioritics. The AEC nnnts to spcnd money on “promising nuclear technologics” cvcn thoui:h its “role is not to promote one form of cncrm USC over another” [2, p. E90-11; the technologics funded most lavishly a re those ilrcady furthest ndvnnccd because they have been funded best in the past; other (i.e., nonnuclear) technologies then become less well-advanced and are quietly abandoned, for

Actual deployment of any of the new energy options demonstrated and brought to the point of commercial usefulness will depend on the relative merits of each vis-a-vis o t h e r a l te rna t ives avai lable a t t h e t ime [2,.p. E i561. It is hard to see how, for example, solar tech-

nology can ever break into this sort of vicious circle unless this committee reverses its stated position on the overwhelming priority of the fast breeder. If this committee assumes, on the scantiest and least disinterested of evidence, that only fast breeders and fossil fuel can possibly be of use in this century, and if this committee then uses i ts considerable p o w r to try to make that prophesy come true, then this Nation will have been deprived of fruitful options that may in the long run have en- sured i ts survival. The public deserves a far wider choice over how their energy R&D money is to be spent than they can have from a committee that will give them, any energy source as long as it is full of plutonium. A “limited, radioactive vision” is no longer good enough.

This committee’s decision on fast breeders is as much a turning point for the nation as were the hearings on the two Atomic Energy Acts and on the 1965 renewal of Price-Anderson. In view of the gravity of the decision on breeders, today’s hearings a re premature-not only because we should not be talking about fast breeders until the 18- year-old structure of the AEC is overhauled, bu t also because, for no good reason we can see, this committee is participating in a needless stampede that effectively excludes public discussion of the most important issue ever to come before you.

Witnesses in this hearing should have had several months to prepare their testimony-not 16 days, which is a disservice and a discourtesy to the . Nation. Notice of these hearings should have been ‘publicized with all the machinery a t this committee’s disposal, not buried in a pile of press releases that very few people ever heard about. In this age of modern communication there are better ways to announce vital public hearings than relying on word of mouth.

These hearings should be recessed and reopened under conditions that the importance of their topic demands, with not token and hastily organized but very full and searching participation by a wide range of experts both within and outside the nuclear community. There seems to be an enormous rush to start building breeders a t once, as though we had t o be on the moon by next Wednesday; the AEC apparently thought it necesSary to speed this “moonshot” on its way with a farcical and insulting

“environmcntal statement” that is under deserved attack today in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

But such blind haste is a silly and dangerous way to run any program. I t does no credit to the promoters. We urge this committee to proceed instead with the wisdom, calm and balanced deliberation which the people of this Nation expect.

NOTES 1. Jo in t Commit tee on Atomic Energy Hearings, AEC

Authorizinrr Lenislation. FY 1973, Feb. 22-23, 1972 (Par t 2. pp. 1063-14‘i2).

2. Joint Committeeon Atomic Energy Hearings, AEC Author- izinn Lenislation. FY 1973. Environmental Statements 1-8 (Part 5, &I. 1;pp. El-El143).

3. This discussion is concerned with designpl-basis accidents which the AEC is obliged to consider but which it considers unlikely. The hypothetical effects, however, a re somewhat a t variance with blanket assurances given elsewhere; for example, “[Ilt is concluded tha t . . . the health and safety of the public would be protected from all potential radiation hazards” [ 2. p. E7861.

4. ‘The Accident Experience of the USAEC in the Shipment of Radioactive Material,” Proceedings of the Second I n t e r n - tional Symposium on the Packoping and f inspor ta t ion of Radi- oactive Material (Washington, D.C.: AEC. 1968), p. 204.

5. Hannes Alfven, “Energy and Environment,” Bulletin. 28 (May 1972). 6. Atomic Energy Commission. Reactor Operating Expen’-

encea (ROE), 69-10. 7. ROE 71-2; compare Nuclear Safe@. 12 ( S e p t d c t . 1971). 5. 8. ROE. 71-3. 9. ROE. 71-22. 10. AEC Division of Construction, “Directory of Shipping

Containers for Radioactive Materials” (WASH-1145). October 1969; AEC Office of Safeguards and Materials Management, “Safeguards Systems Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Cycles” (WASH- 1140). October 1, 1969. These reports assess the difficulty of the problem.

11. “Proceedings of AEC Symposium on Safeguards Research and Development, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.” sponsored by AEC Office of Safeguards and Materials Management

12. “Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Waste Manage- ment Facilities.” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, report 4451,

13. Frank K. Pittman. “Management of Commercial High- Level Radioactive Waste,’’ paper presented a t MIT course on Nuclear Fuel and Power Management, July 25. 1972.

14. AEC Division of Reactor Development and Technology, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of the U.S. Breeder Reactor Program.” WASH-1126 (April 1969) and WASH-1184 (Jan. 1972). The Cochran report referred to is entitled “An Economic and En- vironmental Analysis of an Early U.S. Commitment to the Liq- uid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor.” which is to be published by Resources for the Future. A good digest of the review draf t appears in Science. 176 (April 28. 1972), 391.

15. Glenn T. Seaborg. Statement to U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, June 15,1971 (serial 92-1. p. 1101.

16. “Goals and Objectives of Federal Agencies in Fuels and Energy.” Statement presented to U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 1971 (serial 92-9. p. 14).

17. John C. Moyers. “The Value of Thermal Insulation in Resi- dential Construction: Economics and the Conservation of En- ergy” fORNL-NSF-EP-9). Dec. 1971; Eric Hirst. ”Energy Con- sumption for Transportation in the U.S.” (ORNL-NSF-EP-15). March 1972; Hirst. “Electric Utility Advertising and the En- vironment” (ORNL-NSF-EP-18). April 1972. See also the Hirst- Moyers summary paper on both transportation and space heating and cooling- testimony presented to U.S. House Subcom- mittee on Science, Research and Development. pursunnt t o hearings on enerKy research and development. June 1972. Hnrry Perry has prepnred an excellent summary of many such sources: “Conservation of Energy.” serial 92-18 for the U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. AuKust 1972.

(WASH-1147). Oct. 27-29. 1969. p. 179.

UC-70 (1970). p. 3-58/9.

March 1973 Diillctin of the Alanric Srirntista 36

V .8-42 Q -.- ISatural Resou rccs L'e!crise Council, Iiic.

l i d ? f c r 'L'hn-sday, February 1 4 , 1974.

A r t h x R. TarIipl.i_n Thorias E. C:ocl;ran Gus Spetl-.

2! 7.2-5713

P7ASHISG!rON, D.C. A r e p o r t released todcq7 by t h e N a t u z ~ l Resourccs . . Defc::st C o u n c i l c c n c l u d e s thizt e x i s t i n g r z d i a t i o n p r o t e c t i o n s t a n d a r d s are q r o s s l y inz i i equa te te p r o t e c t the p b l i c f r o x .:!:e his5 ca>cc?: r i s k posed by t h e r e f e a s a of p iu ton ium from. the n u c l e e r power and weapons industries. The r e p o r t recormends t!int c u r r e n t ocandz-rds be lowered by

f a c t c r o f i15,OOO.

PiJLoniLn, perha7.s tSe most Poten t r c s b i r n t o r y z z z c i x ~ ~ e ~ k!:c;wn, is ~L'C<..;L.; 13 :.iicloa:~: reactors . . il:c.r,ic Eqer-qy C o x a : s s i G r A plC:1S c a l l f o r the i::c.reasing u s e o f p1u ton i .m i n tne n e a r futr:rc as reactcr f u e l , sup- pkrnerlzinq u r a x i m . or . i t ed States is e x p e c t e d t o reocr, 10 m i l l i o n pounds j. t.he year 2000. ' E. wlnu to and u m c c o u n t a b l e f r a c t i o n of t h i s I n v e : ~ t c r y , ar. o:iilce. and a half of p l u t o n i t i n , i s t h e equiva!.ent.of 300 mil- l i6n lung c a n c e r dqses .

- .

T o t a l .cc)mnercial p r o d u c t i o n of p l u t o x i u n i n t h e ".

As A r e s u l t 05 t h e r e p o x t , tl;e Xacurn l Rescurccs Dcfensc C o u i i c i l ' (NFDC) t oday f o r m a l l y p c t i t i o n e d w e A X i t rd ' the Eiivi~roiimei?ta1 P r o t e c t i o n .Agency tc ec.'; new r z . d i a t i o n p r o t c c t i o z s i x n d a r d s fo r pl.utonJ.un t h a t are more s t y t c t chan p r c s c n t s t a n d a r d s by i: f a c t o r of 125,CJGO. a::d A??> ;re r e s p o n s i b l e fox s e t t i n g sr.i;ndards vi~ich pro tec t t h c p u b i i c Era;.: r a ? i a t i o n hazards.

E o t i i t h e mC

v .8-43

The 50 page r e p o r t , e n t i t l c d " R a d i a t i o n P r o t e c t i o n f o r Hot P a r t i c l e s ," was p r c p a r e d by D r s . A r t h u r R. T m p l i n and Thomas B. Cochran. I n re- l e a s i n g t h e i r r e p o r t , Tamplin end Cochran made t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t :

"Our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g b i o l o g i c a l e v i d c n c e l e a d s u s t o b e l i e v e t h a t c x p o s u r e t o a i r b o r n e p a r t i c l e s of p l u t o n i u m a t t h e l e v e l s p e r m i t t e d by e x i s t i n g g u i d e l i n e s i s e x t r e m e l y l i k e l y , i n d e e d a l m o s t c e r t a i n , t o lead t o lung c a n c e r i n t h e exposed i n d i v i d u a l s . Such e x p o s u r e s have oc- c u r r e d a t t h e AEC's plutoni.um f a c i l i t y a t Rocky F l a t s , Colorado . Moreover, it h a s been shown t h a t t h e env i ronmen t a round t h e Rocky F l a t s f a c i l i t y h a s a l s o been con tamina ted w i t h p l u t o n i u m from t h e f a c i l i t y . As a consequence menbers of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c have a l so been exposed t o t h i s mater ia l .

"These e i p o s u r e s i n v o l v e d minute par t ic les o f p l u t oniui i o x i d e (PuO2) . These p a r t i c l e s can beconc lodqed i n the. deep r e s p i r a t o r y t i s s u e where , b e c a u s e t h e y are i n s o l u b l e , t h e y . remaia f i x e d f o r a y e a r or l o n g e r . Dur ing t h i s t i m e , t h e y s u b j e c t t h e s u r r o u n d i n g lung ' t i s s u e t o an i n t e n s e , r r a d i a t i o n dQse. F o r t h i s r e a s o n t h e y are ca l l ed h o t p a r t i c l e s -- t h a t is, r a d i o l c g i c a l l y i n t e n s e . . ' Whi le a s i n g l e v i r u s - s i z e d p a r - t i c l e of Pu-239 o x i d e i n t h e lung o f . a n ave rage man w i l l 2e- - l i v e r a dose o f o n l y 0 . 3 m i l l i r e m > p e r y e a r when ave raged o v e r t h e e n t i r e l ung , t h e dosage t o t h e t i s s u e a c t u a l l y i r r a d i a t e d is 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 m i l l i r e m p e r y e a r . By compar ison t h e sane t i s s u e would r e c e i v e a dose o f o n l y 90 m i l l i r e m due t o n a t u r a l background r a d i a t i o n . We b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s h i g h l y non-uniform !lot pa r t i c l e i r r a d i a t i o n p o s e s a un ique c a n c e r r i s k -- t h a t , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of e s t a b l i s h i n g r a d i a t i o n e x p o s u r e s t a n d a r d s for hot par t ic les , t h e r i s k of c a n c e r f rom a s i n g l e h o t p a r t i c l e in the lung should be c o n s i d e r e d equzl t o one c h a n c e . i n 2 , 0 0 0 . As a r e s u l t , we are p r o ? o s i n a t h z t , when h o t p a r t i c l e s are i n - volved, t h e e x i s t i n g r a a i a t i c n stanc!ards c o v e r n i n n p lu toniu in e x p o s u r e s h o u l a be reciuced by a f a c t o r of 1 1 5 , 0 0 0 .

"Since 1 9 6 7 , two .employees of t h e A E C , Donald P . Geesaman* and A r t h u r R. Tamplin have been t r y i n g t h r o u g h b u r c a u c r a k i c c h a n n e l s t o p e r s u a d e t h e REC t o modify t h e i r r a d i n t i o n s t a n d a r d s for p l u t o n i t m exposures when hot ;?&rticles were i n v o l v e d . They a r g u e d , based upon an a n a l y s i s o f t h e e x i s t i n g b i o l o g i c a l d a t a by Geesaman, t h a t p r e s e n t s t a n d a r d s were p o t e n t i a l l y v e r y dzn- g c r o u s . s c i e n t i f i c a l l y v a l i d r e f u t a t i o n o f . t h e Geesaman a n a l y s i s d u r i n g ' t he . i n t e r v e n i n g s e v e n y e a r s , t h e agency h a s n o t moved t o change its r a d i a t i o n ' s t a n d a r d s . I t would seem t h a t t h e agency h a s been motivated l a r g e l y by t h e hope t h a t Geesaman was wrong - hope i n - ' c i d e n t l y , t h a t i s s h a r e d by us b e c a u s e o f t h e s e r i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s for a l r e a d y exposed i n d i v i d u a l s .

Al though t h e AEC h a s - n e v e r been a b l e t o p r e s e n t a

*Geesman i s now .Associate P r o f e s s o r , S c h o o l of P u b l i c . A f f a i r s , U n i v e r s i t y of Minneso ta , X i n n e a p o l i s , Flinnesota .

U .8-44

-3-

" N c v c r t h c l e s s , s even years seems long enough. S i n c e p lu tonium e x p o s u r e i s e x t a n t and s i n c e t h e n u c l e a r poller i n d u s t r y j s p r e s e n t l y expanding i n t o p lu tonium recycle and promoting t h e f a s t b r e e d e r reac tor , which b r e e d s p lu toniuni , we feel t h e time h a s l o n g s i n c e p a s s e d when t h i s h o t p a r t i - cle problem c a n remain an u n r e s o l v e d i s s u e i n r a d i a t i o n s t a n d a r d s .

Gus S p e t h , a spokesman f o r NRDC, s a i d t h a t h i s o rgan iza . t i on s t r o n g l y opposes c o n t i n u i n g w i t h government p l a n s t o use p lu ton ium as f u e l i n ex - i s t i n g r e a c t o r s and t o develo:, t h e f a s t b r e e d e r reactor u n t i l t h e plutoi l iur , s t a n d a r s s i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e r e p o r t i s s a t i s f a c t o r i l y r e s o l v e d . "tle c a n ' t l e t t h e e n e r g y crisis b l i n d u s t o t h e f a c t t h a t p lu ton ium poses unprccc- d e n t e d h e a l t h r i s k s . substance known. The AEC h a s been aware of t h e h o t p a r t i c l e problem f o r severa l y e a r s , b u t h a s t a k e n n o a c t i o n . And t h e economic i m p x t o f ade- q u a t e p lu tonium s t a n d a r d s h a s yet t o be addressed. Despite these conditions, federal e n e r g y p o l i c i e s c a l l f o r p lu ton ium becoming a major ene rgy resource i n t h e near f u t u r e . In l i g h t o f t h e u n r e s o l v e d i s s u e s , c u r r e n t federal p r o g r a n s to commercialize p lu ton ium are e x t r e m e l y premature . I'

Dr. Tamplin is a b i o p h y s i c L s t p r e s e n t l y on .a one y e a r l e a v e of absence from t h e AZC's Lawrence R a d i a t i o n L a b o r a t o r y (LRL) i n L i v e m o r e , C a l i f o r n i a . I n 1969, he along w i t h h i s c o l l e a g u e a t LlU, D r . John P I . Gofman, s t r o n - J l y criticized t h e AEC r a d i a t i o n exposure s t a n d a r d s , s a y i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e a t l e a s t 1 0 t i i ae s t o o h i g h . T h e i r c r i t i a u e p r e c i p i t 6 t e d a n a t i o n w i d e c o n t r o v e r s y and a two-year s t u d y by t h e N a t i o n a l Academy of S c i e n c e s . The AEC s u h e q u e n t l y reduced i t s exposure s t a n d a r d f o r l i g h t water reactors by a f a c t o r of 100 , and t h e N a t i o n a l Academy r e p o r t , p u b l i s h e d i n Nove*er, 1972, concluded t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g exposure s t a n - dards w e r e u n n e c e s s a r i l y h i g h . D r . T a n p l i n h a s l e c t u r e d a n a p u b l i s h e d wide ly on n u c l e a r power and r a d i a t i o n q u e s t i o n s .

S i n p l y p u t , p lu ton ium is p robab ly t h e n o s t dange rous

Dr. Cochran is a n u c l e a r p h y s i c i s t who was f o r m e r l y an AEC H e a l t h P h y s i c s Fe l low. B e f o r e j o i n i n g NRDC h e s p e n t two y e a r s 2s a i iesearch Associate a t Resources f o r t h e F u t u r e (RfF) i n t h e Q u a l i t y of t h e En- v i ronment Program. Reactcr: An Economic and Envi ronmen ta l C r i t i q u e , t o b e p u b l i s h e d by ktF n e x t month.

H e i s t h e a u t h o r of The L i a u i d Netal F a s t Breeder --

. NRDC is represented i n i t s p e t i t i o r i t o t h e AEC and EPA by Anthony 2. Roisman, a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l a t t o r n e y who h a s r e p r e s e n t e d c i t i z e n groups in several major n u c l e a r power c o n t r o v e r s i e s .

in Washington, 3.C., Mew York, and P a l o A l t o , Ca l i fo rn ia . NRDC i s a n a t i o n a l env i ronmen ta l - membership o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h o f f i c e s

C o p i e s of Repor t Avai l .2b le

for Hot P a r t i c l e s , " are a v a i l a b l e from NR3C's Wasli-ington o f f i c e f o r $3.00 each .

P r i n t e d c o p i e s of t h e Tammpl.in-Cochran r e p o r t , " R a d i a t i o n S t a n e a r d s

V .8-45

ment of the atomic bomb, said some of Taylor's estimates are exaggerated. ,,. :"W it's that simple (to

?,build 'a, nuclear bomb) then the g o v e r n m e n t

0 TERRORIST THREAT SEEN

L 4 v

WASHIKGTON (AP) - One terrorist with a soft- ball-size supply of plutonium could build a nuclrar bomb small enough to he transported in a car hut deadly enough to kill tens of thousands of persons, a Senate panel was told Tuesday.

Dr. Theodore B. Taylor, a nuclear physicist, used the example to plead for tighter government safeguards on fissionable materials, especially as the United States increases production of nuclear power because of the energy shortage.

' Taylor, chairman of the board of International Re- s e a r c% and Technology ' Corp., said there is no evidence that plutonium has been stolen, although ihere have been unexplained dis- appearances of the material essential for a nuclear explosion. I )

Dr. Ralph Lapp, who was involved in the Man- \-

should do something about it," Lnpp said.

The testimony was presented t o a Senate Govern- ment Operations subcommittee which is considering a bill to reorganize the Atomic Energy Commis- sion by transferring its developmental functions to a new Energy Research and Development Administra- tion.

Sen. Abraham A. Ribi- coff, D-Conn., subcommittee chairman, suggested it might bc wise for the AEC to commission Taylor or some other expert to build such a crude atomic bomb, just to prove that it could be done.

Dr. Edward Radford of the Johns Hopkins Univer- sity School of Hygiene said there is little doubt that the technology needed to build such a bomb is available in libraries.

Taylor said the information, nonnuclear materials

W and equipment required to ' design the bomb arc rendi- ly available. The explosive device could be built in a matter of weeks, he added.

Such a bomb could wipe out the U.S. Capitol o r the World Trade Center in New York, he said.

The physicist said even smaller quantities of plutonium or u r a n i u m-233 could be used to kill thou-

sands simply by placing highly conccntraled particlcs in ii building's cooling system.

"The use of nuclcar energy to generate elcctric power a t rates now projected by the AEC would result in very largc domestic and foreign flows of materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons,'' Taylor said.

0

r

There was 3 f;iniiliar ring to the fire alarm that sounded at 2:29 p.ni. on May 1 I . 1963 at the Atomic Energy Comniission (AEC) Rocky Flats plant, 16 miles upuind of central Dcnvcr. It. signaled the latest iii a series of over 200 fires that h a c occurred since the plant opened in 1353. But to hear tlic AEC tell it, Rocky Flats. which has the dmgerous assignment of fabriuting plutonium into nuclear triggers for hydrogen bombs and warheads. has built up an envhblc safety record. Denverites who expressed conccrn about this latest accident were given a soothing, if soincwli;it evasive. official reply: "Kock;; Fiats r;iiiks first in AEC facilities lor salety and holds the fourth best .ill-tirrie nark in Americaii iiidustry- 2122 consxutive days (21,295,542 miin-hours) without a disahling injury."

B u t all thc prcss releases and National Sarcty Council plaques in Colorzdo didn't prevent plutonium from igniting spontmeously in the main prvduction area on Miiy 1 1 . The fl;imcs leapt up inside the maze of c,lcve bows where plutonium is fabricatcd icrc parts for 'nuclear wenpoiis. Tons of cellulosc laminate shielding in thc glove

' broLeht the firc under controi. boxcs fed the b lue . and it was nearly three 'hours bcforc f i - tCtTlC17

Days idler Daw Cttcinical Co.. vvhich opcr;rre\tlt.4c ,pliirll hi lifk - AEC: rc;wnrd that :he firc h:ul done jJ) n\lIliitn ei~rih~il!,d.itaup= pluiim:~m.i<luwph Itd.kui;2 ;+afl and % u r n 4 S 20 m;i;lit)fi worth.

77 Nagasaki-size atom bombs. But Dow and the AEC reassured increasingly nervous Colorado residcnts [hat no radiation had esc;~pcd from thc safcgu;irded and spccially c6nst:ucted plant. Brandishing data co'apilcd Iiy the Colorado Department of Pdblic Health and the US. I'uh!ic Health Service. ALC spokesmen declared: "No apprcciablc amount of plutonium escaped from the building and no oftsitc contarninstion resulted from the fire."

This was supposed to be .the last word. Biit for the over one niiIIion rcsitlcnt:; of I)aivcr, il \viis thc bcKiiiniiiI! ( I ! ' niciiiiir r..tiili i n tlir o l t ~ i t ~ i i d A I ' ( ' I',iii y 1 ; 1 1 i ~ l ~ I I I * I ( * i i t . t , i i l i * i \ t \ iiir i i i I ' iqi i (* i i i , I . I*. IL;I~-

L I C S iiiiii:,ii;il. Iiolliiiitiii ,I 1 1 1 1 I:itltIiii \ \ 1 t i t 1 , :tiiil i l i t b ; ~ I . I V ~ ~ . I I I ; : ~ :+ I ,lit- fully hiddcii froin public view.

Yiiicc 1944 tlicrc h ; i w hccn I41 rccordcd a twi ic sciciicc f:i::ili-

ties. and cautiocs pulilic health officials prcdict ;:rtrithcr 400 ::i 900 victinis within t h c next 20 ycars. Tlic conservatiwi in this c4tiii1Gtc

is clear when the facts arc considered. I n western t o w s , lcir ic- stance. hundreds 4 tlious;intls of tons o f radioxtii'c uraniiiiit inill w:istes have beer. ttscd as fii i for construction sitcs and the ra8ii;ltion ICWIS in some of t h ~ I I I I U S C S bit11i on top o f t t i ; h \v:I:.~c ait: s i ) high

<

4" P 01 that residents are iio..v hcing cvncuatcd. AEC-s:inctionca nilclcar

enterprises have cmtaiiiina;cd thc Colorado River, Lakc hlc:ttl and the Great Salt I.iike with radium; they have (!sn:pcd radio-iodine into the Columbia River and rclcascd fission p ~ s in Puerto Rico. They hzve seriot:sly t'lcvatcJ iodine I31 I~*vels in IJtah niilk and killcd off deer rid Tis!! ne:ir Buffiilo. . + \ r i d now t\bo top cxpcrts predict that what thc 1iF.C rcgiirds as "allo\vablc It'-:& of radiation" C O U ! ~ lead io as m a n y :IS 32.0<J0 cx:r;: citncer victinis a ye:ir.

There arc m x i y r c s o o s Cor this criminal irrcsponsihility. l v lost obvious is the faci tii:,t t l ic AFC :ind its allies in indu5try have ~oial- itarianircd tlicir Itold over iiuclear po\vei. They'prob:,bl) ha\ e nlcre freedom to pollule that mi) cthcr power structi:rc ia the cou:;!ry. The .t\EC: I'inilcc::s, licenwr, rcgalatcs and po!iccs itse!f. Ciher governmental :igwcies ifivolvcd in tkc sanlplin? s r moniioring of radixtion pollution are ofien forced to rely on iiindcqu3tt: AEC data, or are theniselvcs funded (and coritrolled) by the AEC. Coil- sullms for thc atomic e;icrpy indusiry W!IO ivo;k un&r :iEC r w a r c ' n granrs crop up tirrx and I&: + p r i m congrcssional ' '4lncsscs prochii,iing radial ion is virtually hiirniless if kept bslow

57 Catch 24.400 (or. Pluronirotr 5 My Favorirr Elenrenr J . Roger Rapopori

Photograph hy Carl lwaski i he so-called "safe-threshold." And although atomic. Ilower reactors re so dangerous tha! insurance companies will not cover them (the

iuhlic, through Congress. pays for SSOO million worth of insurance ,:iI each plant). when a state agency tries to set tough riidiation 'tmdards for proposed nuclear power plants in its area, it is imme- ,,iatcly sued by the A F K .

' tonik power, it also determines which information aliout its activi- es reaches the public. I t covers u p mistakes with national security lankets, and suppresses reports, scientists and employees critical f its f;iilures. Most Americans believe that there is no such thing as rldidtion pollution. In fact, many of the new environmentalists are ttle more than vaguely aware of this, the ultimate pollution. Look ' t the official Handbook for the Environmental Teach-In: more :;in 50 articles, over 360 pages, ar,d not a sin&& study of radiation .azards.

A catalcgue of the environmental crises w; face is daiigsrously ncomplcte wiihout inclusion of the AEC and radiation pl lu l ion. u o m i c energy. in fact. is thc conserva:ion isaue s t r i p p d b m of the xekaatturc .optimism somc pcoplc now fccl 3 h v t our rhili;) to %tfip

Not only does the AEC control the scientific talent involved in'

ecological damage. I n the closed society that the AEC rules with an iron hand, there is no pretense of outside control.

Under the AEC's system of self-scrutiny, nuclear install,ations are free to contaminate both their workers and the public. The expericncc at Rocky Flats makes this clear. During thc years the Colorado nuclear weapons production complex was being hailed as the safest of AEC plants, many workers there were being overex- posed to plutonium. Plant officials refuse to say how m m y have

' dicd of cancer. but iiicdical journal articles written by scientists employed at Rocky ITxts atlniit that 325 workmen hirve heen con- taniin;iled by radiation over the years. Between June 14. 1957 and October 28. 1958, there were 24 explosions, fires. plulonium' spills and contaniination incitlcnts nt the plant. Accordin: to congrcssional testimony. radioactive contamination has bccn found in the cafeteria, drinking fountains. sinks, laundered caps. shoes. drums, flasks, carts. lifts and saws-all these in the supposcdiy "cold"

As in the case of the Santa Barbara oil disaster, tcc!inology to deal with accidents is almost non-existent. The AEC's solutions to the pollution it creates are alniost pathetically inept. Iri 1968, for instance, a qwntity of oil that tiad been contaminated by plutoniunl was scooped up, placed i n a drum and trucked off from Rocky F1:its t o the official AEC burial grounds. En route; Iiowevcr, the drum began 110' Icak, contaminating over a mile of highway. The AEC's solhtionl was to repave the ro;id. Unfortun:itely. plutoniuni's half- life of 24.400 years is a good d c d longer than the ful l - I ik ol' asphslt. and many years from now, when the roadbed w a r s aw;!y, the hot plutonium \ \ i l l bc cxposcd. to containinate unborn genzntidns.

ated wi ih ihc Colo- rado Comniittcc for Environmental 1nforni;ition (CCLI) b c p ta bc skeptichl of the Dow and AEC scientists. This indepcndcnt group of college professors ant1 privately-employed scientisis asked the AEC to monitor Denver area soil for possible plutonium contamination from the fire.

In August 1969, Dow-AEC refused to make the plutonium soil samples. I t explained to' the CCEI. that technical, difl-icultics would make such a, stud9 intoriclusive. So in. the fall! the CCEI's. Dr. Bdivclrd~ Manell: ai nuclear' chemist' with. the National Centet for

(non-riidioactive) areas of the plant. <

4; ' P

. '

. After the May I I fire. local scientists a1

t < .:

Catch 24.400 (or. Pluronirim Is My Fovorire Elentenf) s9 S8 Roger Rapoport

Atmospheric Research in Boulder, began conducting his own soil samples for plutonium. This former Pentagon specialist in nuclear weapons tcsting concludcd his work in Deccmbcr 1969 and announccd that highly lethal plutonium oxide from Rocky Flats had dcfinitcly sprcad out into metropolitan Dcnvrr during the May 11 holocaust. Martcll found the highcst plutonium contamination in areas east and southeast of the plant toward the Denver suburbs of Broomficld, Westminster and Arvada. High levels of plutonium were also found in Great Western Reservoir. part of the Broomfield water supply. The contamination of Denver ranged from 10 to 200 times higher than plutonium fallout deposited by all atomic bomb testing. And it was nearly 1000 times higher t h w the amount plant spokcsmcn said wa5 being emitted.

The AEC and Dow sprang into action to try to counter Mar- tell’s facts. Bearing a cloak-and-dagger air, this counter-offensive ‘ began in early Dccenibcr when Gcneral Edward B. Giller, assistant A13C geiicral managcr for military application. learned !ha! .Mark!! was making independent soil samples and ordered the Rocky Flats staff to initiate similar work. Stanley Hammond, a chemist at Rock;! Flats. even contacted Martell and asked lor technical advice on how to make good soil samples for plutoniuni. Martell not only told him how to do it but sent some of his own soil samples over to Rocky Flats. The ALC study essentially corroborated Martell’s ddta. As Gcncral Giller puts it: “So far we find his results arc accu- rate, we don’t disagree with his new data. As far as mcasuremcnts, sampling techniques and knowledge of science wc think Martell is a very competent scientist. Of course we question his interpretation of the new information. While it is true that some plutonium is escaping from the plant we don’t believe it presents a significant health ha-lard to Denver.” The AEC elqborated in a later press release: “Rocky Flats . . . has released trace amounts of plutonium.. . . However. these quantities have never shown a lwel of radioactivity in excess of the natural background radiation.”

Background radiation is a favorite AEC game. Because the plutonium oxide particles from Rocky Flats emit dangerous alpha radiation, the agency tries to compare them with naturally occurring (background) particles that also emit alpha radiation. Dr.

Arthur R. Tamplin, an expert on the physiological crrccts of radiation and one of the few indcpendcrit AEC scientists w h o have dared publicly t o question the organization’s dangerous nuclear mytholo- gy, explains what this means for Denver: “The Martell study shows about one trillion pure plutonium oxide particles [plutonium oxi- dizes in a fire] have’escaped from Rocky Flats.Thcse arc very hot particles. y o u may only have to inhale 300 of thcni to double your risk of lung cancer. Inhaled plutonium oxide produces very intense alpha radiation dosage to lung tissue, thousands of timcs higher than the intensity fur radioactive fallout particlcs and millions of timcs more intense than the dose from natural alpha radioactivity. An inhaled plutonium oxide particle stays in your lungs for an average of two years, eniitting radiation that can destroy lung tissue. I f the plutonium from :lie May I I fire is being redistributcd as hlartell suggests, thcn it could increase the lung cancer rate for Denver by as much as I O per cent. This could lead to as many as 2000 additional !ung rnnrers i!! ne”Yt‘r.” <

Although Dr. hlartcll has already found a tcrrirying quantity 4” of plutonium in Dcnver, he believes far more remains to be dis- P aJ covered. The Bouldlx scicntist briscd his report on about 90 s3iI samplcs but belicvcs hundrcds niore are necessary for a coniprehcn- sive insight into ,the extent of‘the contarnination. t i c has urged that the fedcral govcrnnicnt, indepcndent of the AEC, launch a ccmpre- hensive soil sampling program in the Dcnvzr area.

Both federal and state agencies finally heeded Martell’s call for .

a review of Rocky Flats. but their studies are neitlicr comprehensive nor independent. President Nixon’s top scicntiric advisory grol;p, the Office of Science and Technology (OX). says i: is now making an “independent ;tr.alysis” of Rocky Flats con::imination. Two AEC scientists from the agency’s health and sofcty ‘lahoratory in New York have be:n taking 25 soil samples Crorn sites in ar.d around the plant. Results of these saniples will be submitted to Dr. Hubert Heffner, deputy director of thc OST, who says, “We have been assured [by the AEC] that this will be a comprehensive [s-31- pling] program.” Dr. Heffner plans to compare the AEC data with Martell’s report and decide who is ‘‘more nearly right” in his measurements of contamination. While stating that he will not judge the

DO Roger Rapoporr

case un t i l all the data is in, Dr. Hcffner dcclares, “My supposition is that the health consequences crcated by the plant are not sevcre.”

A second independent study of Rocky Flats contamination is being conductcd by the Colorado State’ Department of Health. The agency collected soil samples at 25 locations around Rocky Flats and sent them to the U S ’ P u b l i c Health Service (USPtIS) South- western Radiological Health Laboratory for analysis. The Las Vrgas-bscd lab monitors the AEC’s Nevada lest site and is funded by the AEC.

Rocky Flats is not an isolated example of’AEC totalitarianism. Thcre has bcen bad news before, and it is always euphclnized by AEC publicists cnpablc of first-rate fiction. In the official agency haoklct “USAEC--What It I S . Whiit I t Does.” for example, it is claimed that. “The AEC has an inipressivc safety record. For example. since the beginning of the atomic ericrgy program in 1932 there have bcen only scvcn deaths from nuclear causes among atomic encrgy workers in tlic United States.” Bui U.S. Public Health Scrvicc studies show that 142 uranium miners have already died because of radiation overdoses ranging ;IS much as 500 times over the sare level. And Charles C. Johnson, Jr., head of the U.S. Consumer I’rotcction an’d Environmental Health Service, says, “Of the 6000 men who have been uranium miners, an estimated’600 to 1100 will die of lung cancer within the next 20 years bccause of radiation exposure on the job.”

AEC ncgiigcnce has spread the hazards of uranium niines into homes in wcstern mill towns, allowing more than 300,000 tons of uraniuin mill tailings (which emit the same radon gas that has led to high incidence o f lung cancer in uranium mincs) to be used as construction fil l in little towns like Grand Junction, Colorado. And about 60 miles northcast of Grand Junction the AEC is showcasing Project Rulison, one of its latest schemes for the peaceful use of atomic energy. I n September 1969, the AEC dctonatcd a 40-kibton undergound nuclear explosion to free natural gas deposits. But now Project Rulison is a topic of debate among Colorado citizens becairse when the gas is flared, tritium apd other radionuclides pollute the air. However, the A E C and its ally in the project, Austral Oil Co.. have even more grandiose plans: thcy want. to dilute the

61 Catch 24.400 (or..Plutoniurn Is My Favorite Element)

radioactive gas that was freed (but contaminated) by the Mast by mixing it with uncontaminated gas; then they want to pump it into customers’ homes.

The citizens around Kulison have gone into court to stop radiation pollution in their area. But even i f the AEC should lose this batt!e, i t still has the wider war to t h i n k of. For i t is hoping to elec- trify homes and busincsses with nuclear p o w r . At the moment. about 75 American atomic power placts are planned’br under construction. It is thcre tiuclear power plants that ccmprise the largest hazard of radiation for the future. The 15 plan:s already built don’t give much cause for optimism. since those in hliihigan. New Jersey and Minneapolis are currently shut down duc to malfunction. AS far back as 135?, onc of the AEC’s own studies sugzcsted that a reactor built 30 niilcs from thc.nesrest city could ki l l 3-100 people, injure 43,000 and ciiuse S7 hillion damage in a b:id accident.

The AEC has a flock of experts dcvoted tu studying radiation hazards. One of them is Dr. Wright Langhan;, a ranking ALC plu- <

tonium expert at Los Alamos, New Mexico. When Ame;icsn 4” bombers accidentally dropped nuclear weapons on Palornares, UY

P

Spain, it was Dr. Langham who rushed in to nioniior plutonium contamination; he was su,bsequently awardcd the Pentagon‘s Dis- tinguished Scrvicc Medal in 1967 for his work. I n a paper written for the Department of Health, Education and We:fare in 136s on “Thc Problem of Large Area Plutonium Contamination.‘” Dr. Langhani says, “Plutonium is my favorite e le rxnt . . . . The repota- tion of plutonium as a toxic material pcrhaps !ias contributed more than any other thing to m y being supported i n the modest though’ comfortable manncr to which I have grown accustomed.”

Scientists who formulate radiatim prctcction standards say that safety is not the only consideration. For esan?ple, the Interna-

. tional Commission on Radiological Protection ieported: “At thc present time, risk [health] considerations can at Lest play only 2 very general role in specific recommendations.. . and opsrational and administrative convenience must of ncccssity be of equal importance.”

Despite the pressures to conform, two experts have started a crusade to stop the agency’s radiation pollution. Charging that

* 62 . - . . -

32,000 extra cancer deaths each year, they are calling for a ten-fold reduction in present radiation exposure limits.

The insurgent scientists, Drs. John Golman and Arthur Tam- plin of the Biomedical Division of the AEC's Lawrence Radiation

Roger Ropoprt 63 Cotch 24.400 (or. Plutonium I s My Fovorlte Element j

to quell growing public concern about nuclear fallout. but after the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed, the concern diminished and financial support for the lab waned.

As head of the Livermore Biomedical Lab ar.d an associate director of the Lawreice Radiation Lab. Gofman hired biophysicist Tamplin. The tall, soft-spoken scientist pioneered the standard 'technique for measuring nuclear test fallout patterns. and with Gofman began to qucstioli the conventional AEC wisdom. At various symposiums the two men pointed out that AEC pet projects like nuclear excavation pose a grave health risk to the public. They also countered the official AEC theory of "acceptable levels of radiation" with tllc linear theory of radiation exposure which says that any radiation, no matter how slight, poses risks.

Indirectly, Gofman and Tamptin's crusade received a slight lift in .early 1969 froin Unitrersity of Pittsburgh scicritist Ernest Stern&- lass. In 3 widely quated report, Sternglass charged that nuclcar lest iaiiout has caused 4O(i,OOO prcnain'l and ifirsi>t mc;::a!i:ies. The AEC immediately asked Tamplin and several of his colleagues to do a critique or Stcrnglass' report. Tamplin agreed and presented a paper before an AEC Livermore symposium in April 1969 that declared Sternglass had overestimated the effects of fallout. Tam- plin calculated that the fallout had caused o d y -1000 i n f m t and prenatal'mortalities, just one per cent of Sternglass' figure.

Taniplin proceeded to wsrite up his report as an AEC tcchriical paper. I n August :969 Tamptin's boss. Dr. John Totter. head of the AEC's Division of Biology ;ind Medicine, tried to peisuadc Tani- plin to delete ;I section from the paper. I n :I phone call on August 13, Totter and Spol'forcl English, an assistant XEC general-nianag- er, tried to persuadc Tamplin to criticize Sternglass but delete his risk estimate of 4000 infant and prenatal ni0rt:ilitics. Even though this was a mere fraction of the Sternglass estimatc, the AEC exccu- lives did not want 1.3 lend any credence whatsoever to the Pittsburgh scientist's report. When Tamplin refused to accede to the telcphonc pressures from Washington, Totter wrote two letters reiterating his demand.

Tamplin ignored his AEC superiors and published the coin- plcte paper as a technical document. As AEC pressure on them built up, Gofman and Tamplin decided to fight back. In a San

<

Y

64 Roger Rapoport

Photograph by Baron Wolman Francisco speech in late October 1969, the two scientists publicly announced their call for a ten-fold cut in allowable radiation levels. 'Then in mid-November they reiterated their demand before the

6S Corrh 24,100 (or. Plutonium Is My Fovorirr Eentent

U.S. Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu- tion.

,In December the AEC staff in Washington issued a nine-page critiquc of thc California scicntists' call for tougher radiation standards. and said there was nothing ncw in the Gofnian-Tamplin paper, that the data was inconclusive and the report should hkivr: been published in a respectable, rcfcrecd scientific journal hcfore it was released to Congress (this is the line the AEC has uscd unsucccss- fully to t r y to persuade Tamplin to delete his risk cstimate in the Sternglass critique). On this basis thc AEC concludcd there was no need for an official review of radiation protection standards.

But the Federal I?;idi;ition Council. which sets the nation's radiLition protection staiid:irds. disagreed with the ALC. On Janu- ary 28, 1970 the Council revealed 11131 i t was initiating a n unprecr- dented review of radiation standards, as called for bg Ciofriim and Tamplin. Instead of honoring Gofman and Tariiplin, how~'vcr, thc

Abclson, editor of inf l t i int ia l Science magazine. co-dibcoverer of

rejected a Gofnian-Tainplin papcr on the need for tishter radiation standards. Then in e x l y February, Science publislictl ;1 three-page critique of the Gofman-'l',iniplin work:

Thus we scc what is required to get the nuclear power structure finally dragged into position for a bit of public scrutiny. B u t therc is no cause for immediate optimism. Those like Gofman and Tamp!in fighting within the scientific establishment. and thosc on the outsidc who believe the AEC can no longer he allowed to p l q judge, jixy and nuclear hangman. Lice a long. long fight. The totalitarian pol- luter, despite all the xiverse publicity, is still far more powrful than public opinion.

I f you have any doubts about how these n:~Iioh~ of nuclear power work, you should check out the current swnc in Denver. While a few independenl,s~isntists wait on the fringes o f the disaster to count extra lung cancers produced by the plutonium catastrophe at Rocky Flats, the AEC is 011 the scene with millions to spend o!i cleanup and publicity, piping in Muzak for the men scraping plutonium off the scorched floors and reminding all that thc plant is o bulwark of national defease. Over 3000 employees are glad to have

scientific establishment snuhbcd them. On January -10, 1970 Phillip

.. neptunium and a chartcr member of the nuclear power fan club,

4

03 ' I

'f

_ I

I

66' Roger Rapopori

their jobs and some of them write letters to local newspapers suggesting all the talk about plutonium contamination in Denver is actually a Bolshevik scare tactic. Press releases handed out by Dow Chemical's public relations man Mike Carroll (a former FBI agent) try to soothe the public. Meanwhile, the security system (the AEC spent over $ 7 million for security investigations on its employees rluring 1969) is uscd to intimidate malcontents. After a newspaper articlc quoted a Rocky Flats worker complainicg that he had leukemia and could not get workmen's compensation from the AEC, for instance, meetings were called throughout the plant. Management spokesmen castigated the man for talking to the prcss, and the plant manager wrote a letter to the editor noting that the workman's brother also had cancer. a fact that made it all a problem of hered- ity.

Its $ 4 5 million cleanup operation continues, and the AEC is also spending another S75 million to double Rocky Fiats production facilities.,There is one thing that is clear: there will surely be a fire next time. And another after that, and still others. There are only two ways for it to end: Either the AEC's power is shut otf, ox the Rocky Flats area becomes a plutonium mine.

~

Roger Rapoport i s a jee-lance jourrrafirt crnd eo-author with 4 . J. Kirshbauq. ox 1s the Ci,bqary Burning?, (Ran&& H0us.e. 1969.. $4.951. . . .

M. C. Esche

< cn v1 N

IIOW RADIATION FROXI ATO\lIC FVC9GY PXCCR.\>lS GETS TO YOU POISOSED POWER

nrcf n‘orsc pcr rad ahsorbcd in tissuc tlian any of the radiations discusscd above, possibly several times ‘ \verse.

,\.filch confusion has been gencratcd by some so- called authoritics (in AEC) concerning alpha particle radiztion. These “nutliori!ies” have stated repeatedly thzt, since 21pha particles transfer so much of their cncrgy in such a short distance and are then stopped, it iol?ows that alplin particles are not serious. This assumption is false. It is true that a radionuclide (emitting alpha particles) lodged on the skin cannot irradiate internal tissues, simply because no alpha particles get any dcepcr than the skin. But they can provoke skin cancer.

Much much worse is the iithnlatiori of nuclides which. emit a!p!ia particles. Once inhaled, the radionuclide can he distributed along the lining of the respiratory tract and thcre irradiate those cells especially prone to dcvelop cancer. Tndced, this is the source of lung canccr induccd by radioactive exposure of uranium miners, one of. the truly iinncccssary tragcdics that has already occurred in’ thc nuclear clcctricity industry. ’

“I!o:” particlcs are vcry small dust-likc particles that arc made up of alpha-cinitting substnnccs. One of t!x proriiiicnt oiics, pliitmiu~n-239, is widely hcrn!c!r,d 1s tlic “nucIcar fuel of the future.” Fine particl-s of p r c plutoniiim-233 oxide (formcd when pl11tciiii:in B u ~ ~ I s ) arc vcry iiilcnsc sourccs of alpha particlcs.

1

60

I Gccsnman and Taniplin h a w chown that such fine particlcs, referred to as “hot” particles bccausc oE thcir cxtrcmcly high alpha pnrticlc emission in a locd- izcd rcgion may be 10 to 1000 times iiiorc effcctive in producing canccr than would be expcctcd if the same number of rads were delivcrcd in a more diffuse manncr to an organ, such 3s the lung.

plutonium-239 that makcs the contemplated, future, widespread use of this radionuclide as a fuel in the nuclcar-clcctricity-gcncration plants such an unmitigated nightmare for mankind. Not only may the hot particlcs of plutonium oxide be super<anccr producers, but’with a half-life for pltitonium-239 of 24,000 years, such plutonium oxide can be spread nbout the carth. re-suspendcd in air, and produce lung canccrs in generations of huinans for 100,000 to 200,000 years.

use in iirrclear electric power niny repieserit man’s most iinnioral act.

Aside from the alpha-emitting radionuclides and the “hot” particle problcrn, the vast majority of orhcr radionuclides can bc considered to lnve cquivalent cffccts, provided one coiisidcrs silliply tilt rnrls delivered to a particular tissue.

These points are strcsstd t’c‘c;~iisc ct) :!-.:c?i con- f i s h has b x n gciicratcd i n t l x !)u:>:‘<*s mind :nriccrning possible specin! il1~~o[-t.li1s~< .:i ~ I X or .?m:ilcr pnrticular rnciionuclidc. Th,: qw>~i.;,i is coin- monly asked, “\\’hicl.i radionuzlidc, 3- :<--<-in:cci with

‘

- It is tllis “hot” pnrticle

<

1\4n11ufnctitre of

. .

. . 61

I

134 PERILS OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

loaded with a 1000-kilowatt reactor. Forty-seven three. hundrcd-mile flights, bctwcen Fort Worth, Texas, and Roswell, Ncw hlcxico, were cariied out. Thc react(: was not uscd to power the plane, but just to find out some things about radiation behavior under airborne conditions.

ad about radiation be- hnvior under crash conditioii, too, but luckily rio such tliiog occurrcd. Liter on, tlic cra5hcs of nuclear wcap ons-bearing military aircraft in Spain and Grwnland providcd aniplc data to fill our information gap on tlie bchavior of radioactive material-and of humans- whcn nuclcar pay loads fall from the sky.

An ill-considcrcd and ill-fated expcrinicnt occurred on April 21, 1964, when thc AEC “lost” 2.2 pounds of plutonium 238, dcscribcd as a “ficndichly toxic” ito- topc, nxlien a transit navigational satcllitc failctl to go into orbit. Thc plutonium’s function was to ruq the sn!cllite’s clectrical systems, but b e c u m someone: forgot to throw a switch, thc rockct wcrit awry. For sonic t{me nobodv kncw auitc whc:e it had cone. Somc cxc~crts

A lot rniglit havc bccii le

I

of 2T2 pounds of plutonium. . \

- said [tic rocket had rc-cntcrcd the otmospherc and burned up along with its nuclcar pay load. But nobody actually saw thc rockct rc-cntcr, and, thc Commission acknowlcdgcd,’ “anomalies” can somctimcs occur in nhich mctal parts rcach thc earth without burning up. Thc max imum permissible dose of plutonium 238 in thz bodies of atomic workers is two billionths of a &ra i l . For all anyonc knew, enough of the stuff to rcvcrsc thc Afro-Asian population explosion was muck- ing about the Eastern Hcmisphere. Evcntually, unusu- ally strong traccs of thc elcmcnt were dctcctcd in the u p p x atmosphcrc, indicating that the pay load h d indccd vaporizcd. Some scicntists hailcd the discovCV as a Good Thing because it afforded them an extraordi- ’ nary opportunity to track mctcorological conditions. At thc same time, humanity’s radiation budget, already uronessing toward exhaustion. was rcduced to the lune

DON’T BOTHER RIJNNING 135 m i l e equipping of plancs and cars with nuclear

~~;Ictors is still thankf?llly low on man’s agciii1.i for (!stcmatic sclf-dcstruction, thc outfitting of occa I VZS- & with thein is sonicthing else again. Here, ne:ir-total disrcgxd for thc rcsourccs of the sc3 and the :vclfare of thc pcople on its shores prcsents a wholc ncw diliiciision to tlie issues bcfore US.

:\ltIiough military applications of nuclear ninterial arcn’t strictly gcrinanc to this book, a brief look at naval cxpericncc with atomic reactors can shcd much !i$t on the dangers of a scaborne nriclear technology.

The spccial fuiictions of warships dcrnand spccial rcactor considcratons, and thcsc in tiirn prcscnt spccial problcms, problcnis of containment and cooling, prob- tenis of ratlioactivc wastc control, and of course prob- 1:ms of shiclding against military action. A powcr rcactor operating in a ship docs not possess the marpin of m exclusion distance, the safc zone between it and the pxsonncl opcrating it. Thercfore adcquatc shielding of tlic containincnt vcsscl is a must. Yet excessive shiclding adds weight, a distinct disadvantage either in a ncrchant or a military vcsscl. Leakage ratcs of radioactivity must be scvcrcly rcsfrictcd, yet bccause the struc- turn is subjcct to movement, tlicre will bc difficulty maintaining tightncss of joints, pipes, nnd cablcs. Vcnti- htion control, cspccially in a nuclcar submarinc, is a most important matter. The facts that naval reactors commonly usc a niore conccntratcd form of uranium f u c l and that thc cooling system functions by mcans of prcssurizcd water present unique cliallcngcs to technol- agisfs. These facts take on ncw significance whcn we cmsidcr the potcntial tally of victims sliuuld a scrious rc:ictor cruption occur in a large port city. Rccognizing []lis threat, some foreign Governments havc closcd their harbors to nuclear ships, or strongly protcstcd their m y despite the most vigorous reassurances on the Part of the Navy and AEC.

These reassuranccs have been undercut, however, by alleged instances of radiation leaks by our nuclear ships

V.8-55

I

Under intensive investigation at ktonlic Energy Commission facilities near Hanford. Wash., is leakage of 115,000 gallons of liiglily radioactive waste from a huge storage tank.

Dixy Lee Ray. chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. has de. scribed the incident as “not only re. grettable. but disgraceful.“

The Environmental Protection Agen. cy has sent investigators to Hanford to determine the extent of the danger -if any-to people, livestock and wildlife in the area.

The Atonic Energy Commission has issued a preliminary 129-page report on the radioactive leak. The report and other aspects of the accident are discussed in the Aug. 24, 1973, issue of “Science,” the official publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Excerpts f;om the article in “Sci. ence,” by Robert Gillette. follow:

No one knew how long tank 106.T had been leaking, or how much of its caustic, boiling contents had seeped into :he sandy soil near the center of the reservation. As a matter of fact. no one was certain how much liquid

For 51 days thereafter, rocchly 2,500 gallons of liquid waste had dribbled out of the steel and concrete tank each day. . . .

The AEE has methodically and de. libcrately disposed of far larger amounts of radioactivity in Hanford’s soil over the past 25 years, and quite safely, it insists. Other higli4evcl waste tanks have also leaked. . . . But the leak in 106.T was something different. It was the largest single accidental re. lease of radioactive waste in the Coni. mission’s history. . . ,

Whether anyone is actually im. periled is a matter of dispute. AEC Commissioner Clarence E. larson says that he’s ”distressed at implications that large masses of people are en. dangered.” As evidence to the con. trary, he notes that radioactivity in the Columbia River downstream from Han. ford is less than half that in the P o tomac River.

Nemzek [Thomas A. Nemzek. &en. era1 manager of the AEC facility] con, tends that no high4evel waste has ever reached groundwater at Han. ford. and he adds that, even if all the waste stored at Hanford did somehow escape and reach groundwater, radioactivity in the Columbia River would

still remain within drinking. water standards. . . .

More to the point is what the incident reveals about the keenness of the AEC’s vigilance over the nation’s vast and expanding store of nuclear.processing wastes, 75 per cent of which are stored at Hanford. Is the AEC really prepared to man. age thousands of pounds of nuclear wastes that ci. vilian nuclear power plants will be generating in the years ahead?

And how, exactly, could it lose the equivalent of a

had been in the tank in the first place. . . .

It was only around noon on Satur. day, 9 June, that federal authorities and ARHCO technicians began to grasp the magnitude of the problem. [ARHCO is the Atlantic Richfield Han. ford Company. AEC contractor for storage facilities at Hanlord.]

Picking through whet recent records they could find of the baking tank‘s contents . . . teclinicians calculated. tha: the seepage had begun “on or about” 20 April.

Tanks under construction at Hanlord. Wash. railroad tank car full Of radioactive liauid hot enough -

to boil itself for years on end and knock a Geiger counter off scale at a hundred paces’

Atlantic Richfield Company has made this statement:

Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company has taken appropriate steps to prevent reoccurrence of such an incident. . . . Procedures and poIicies have been given critical review and revised. . . . Disciplinary action has been taken where warranted.

[continued from preceding page]

~ I I I I S C h c s1iir;igc tanks :iw 00 I? 30 y r w s old. Corriisinii w . i s c i t (d as tlic prii1i;:hlr ci inw of llir inmL rccriit \pill\.

Otlicr spi l ls .of rntIiri;ictivc w:i\tc h:i\.c taken pl;icc 21 I l i c hloni ic Eiicrgy Coni- in iss i i i i i ’ s iiistall.itioii i i i ’ar S;ivnnnali I l iv - c’r, s. c.

Lo\v-luvc4 rndiiitioii w;istcs h i v e 1c;iktd froin ~IIIIIIH ;it llic Natioiiii l Ilc- a c ~ w Tcsiiiig Stiltion i i ~ ~ Itlal in Falls, Itla., ;id rat1io;ictivity lins I)ccn tlc- t w t ( * t l i n gr i i i i i idw~it~~r iii tli;it ;ircii.

1 1 1 addition to slrilagc ;it t l i c tlirce (:overiiincnt iiist;iII:itir,iis, r;irlionctive inatisrials arc 1)cing licltl nt six privately owned sites. Thcsc are s i tw i t cd at Ricli- land, Wash.; l h i t t y , Nev.: \\’c.;t Valley, N. Y.; Slidfield, 111.; hlr~rc.lic;itl. Ky., and R;irnwell. S. C.

I\iilcs of the Atomic Eiicrgy Conmiis- sion provide that radioactive waste m i s t IIC retlucctl to a solid within five years iiftcr last use and be delivcred to the Commission for perinanent storage in 10 years.

Reprocessing 1 nietric ton of spent fuel froin a n atoinic power plant produces about 400 gallons of h igh - le \d waste. This wi l l reduce to 2 cubic feet of solid ii-attcr, weigliii ig about. 200 pouiids.

Government experts prcdirt that all high-radiation waste accumulated in the U. S. I)y tlie year 2010-when reduced to solid form-could be stored safely on a IO-acre surface plot. I t is proving difficult, however, to find ni l underground storage area where the waste niaterial can be safely lield for the centuries i t reinains radioactive.

Salt mines near Lyons. h i i s . , were considered. but the discovery of vent holes and the p)>sibi l i ty of Ilootling froin adjacent niiiies caused the project to I)e abandoned. Now aiitliorities are studying sillt bcds

iiear Carlsbad, N. M., for posti1)lc long- term storage. Also uiidcr study i s the AEC’s Nevada test site. Tlir ciirlicst tlnte any new holcliiig f x i l i t y r a n lie r t w l v is 1981. according to the Atomic Ei i r rgy Coinmissioii.

Atomic l i m e bomb. AIL*wwII~IP. tl ic growing inass of r;itlio;ictivc \v;i.;tc- iii tlie U. S. is being likened to ;I sort nf tiine Iminb-not one that \vonld csplotlo like the first A-boinl) tlroppctl on 1iiiiisIiiiii;i i i i 1945, bnt oiie Illat Iiolds iiniiic.iisc po- tentiid for serious ~roiiIiIc i i s i t i s shipped awl stored across tile iintioii.

h’ ihody argiics with tlic tlicorctical Iiaz;ird prtwiitctl I iy tlic i i s c d iilrclcar tn:iteri;il.

1 I IC disqwx*i i ic i i t I)ct \vvc>i i t 1 ir At nin- ic Encrgy Coinniission a i d i t s Tril ics rrii- tcrs on ji irt I iow ~iiiidi r . c d tl.iirjyr rsisfs r igl i t now-and \vli;it IO (io ; i h t i t .

..

U. 5. NEWS 6 WORlO REPORT. Sopi. 10, I973

V.8-56

... I . -YE, COLORADO 1 * Tile result is the nation’s Iiigliest level.

of carbon-nionoxide pollution. of tile triggers owing in making thein tlie Illant -

keeps experiencing plutonium fires. According to Dr. Peter Metzgc:r, a Boultlcr citizen-activist who recounts their history in his book TIM Atomic Eskllislrrneni, there have been over 200 spontaneously ignited fires at the Rocky Flats plant in recent years. The biggest one, in May 1969, was the most expensive accident in Amer- ican industrial history, destroying more than 850 million worth of $deli- cate equipment. Over a year later, Gen. E. B. Giller, director of the AEC’s Division of Military Applica- tions, adinitted tlie fire had heen “a near catastroplie.” Had it burned through the plant roof, Giller testified (i t very nearly did) , “liundreds of square miles could be involved in radiation exposure and involve clean-

Denvcr has other potential dangers, too, such as tlie Pentagon’s Rocky Mouiit;iin Arsenal, wliicli covers twenty-five squarc miles on tlie city’s nortlicast side imnedintely adjacent to Stapleton International Airport. As IVBC News pointed out last spring, niore than 2,000 GB nerve-gas bonlbs are stored there nlouegrour~d , near tlie airport’s north-soutli flight pattern. Since tlic NBC rcport, it 1x1s hem disclosed h a t 1)uIk tanks of GB are a150 stored nl)ovc.giouiid at the arsenal, and ruinors persist that an even more powerful nerve gas, called CX, is stored there, too.

Denver is also graced with the presrnce of the Atoinic Energy Coni- niission in wliat is possi1)Iy its most

I W ,Flcl~,,Th,Pi,r TO,~TIA,, States IS fuelcd wit11 u f~n! l~~ ' I abora ro r i cc in uncontrolled re-

nnd coolcd by water. Stlll In aIactiDns in ' the presence of the

move with major implica- graql of the commission Is tilcihcat "nd ~"cs su re r.rneratcd by tion, for enera prop,ram, tiie National /COO: :d uranium reactors t!latlPlosion. Resources

t iny Particles Inhaled in- lungs emit l l c a v ~ radla-

WASHISGTON, Feb. 1 G I n ~5.1-oillion devclopmcnt pro-'

nation's nuclear nrs! jieneration, liquid-sodium-1"' aton'ic-bonib LriLXcrlng

Council llaS,arc designed to "brced' plut0-1 l n i l l r n Ivell as generate elec-lto the

v .8-57

radiation hazards should .llS,OOO timer more strinzent, t he public interest law group has recommended in petitions to the commission and the En- vironmental Protection Agency. . A commission spokesman raid that the reporter would be @en "fUll and VeCf careful consideration." There was no immediate comment from the cneironmeutal agency.

Plutonium, which spontaneously catches fire " not proper- lypresen.ed*has been described *s "fiendishly toxic" by '01" scientists. One of its co-dis- coverers, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg. former chairman of the commission, has said he does not disagree with that description.

1 16 L

Law Group Calls for Far Stricter Safe

be':&bs. rile hydrogen bomblsources council's peLition W a s nuclew fusion,lbased described p l u t o n i ~ l 8 5 efject. - - ~ - - --- -

I

'HE N E W YORK TIMES, SUNDAY: FEBRUARY 17, 1974

"one of the most potent cancer! "It's time they stopped Producing agents known to ting bait and started fishing on operating ule breeders, man:' I[ was prepared by for- this p:ojlern,*- he mer A.E.C. biophysicist, ~ 1 . . Ar- hope they will seriously address was not to ,.price reactors thur R. Tamplin. and a nuclear

ran.

increase costs of building end

.oWe Dr, Tamplin said that the aim ~ I I physicist. Dr. Thomas B. Co+- lhis problem and see if they cdn Of health. busf?css but protect public

He added, "We would hope we would not get into POlcniiC

handle it."

tions for radiation levels The study on which the re- Led Successful Fight

raid, "At this time, outside the national defense program, tliere

I New Gcncrallon Thr prt icnt ,yne:ation of

-. ..- -.,

V.8-58

PLUTONIUM AND THE ENERGY DECISION

In our social climate of aggressive change, technology has evolved t o a special station. As a catalyst of change. technolop has become 3 bnsic implement of econoniic and political power. As a consequencr, technological decisions are made on the limited social and physical scslcs dictated tiy specific economic and political responsibilities. This

.decoupling of decision from the complete world is the iiidulgcncc of a society that is socially diffu:ie and physicdly unconiincd. I t is a n indulgence.that Con no lori,oer be sustained.

T h e premium value placed by our society on growth and innovation manifests itself in a promotional attitude towards technology. \Vithin this bias, benefits arc regarded with intlclicatc. optimism,' s n d clctrirnents ns the hobrohlins of m a l l minds. In the alscncc oi iuiy ciicctive institution of. contrary bias. the prornotrr's inilticncc has bccome the dominant and hcncc thc characteristic inilucnce in our society's attitude toward technology. This situation drprives society of an owrail appreciation Of a1ternntivc.i niid iniplicniiotis, and hcncc, in the largest sense, is not bi*neiicial. , Technolo3 has conicrrcd upon our society n way of life. Society i s now vngueIy coming tn rrniize

DONALD Pi GEESAMAN

' "In the linal analysis the oresent Generalion 01 lighl water reactors is a tzchnologicsl cul de sac, wilh lillle relevance to a solution 01 :he ultima!e energy problem. This technology is probably no more than a linal of:ering zr ice altar ol exponential growth ol eleclr'c paver . 7he lulure and fhe substance ot lhe lission pro- 918171 is the breeder reactor. and the repiesenta- tive fuel ol the breeder is plutonium." Donald P. Geesaman is J physicist who has bcen associated with John W. Golnian and Arlhur R. femplin lor the last lour years.

that something must be done to assure that this way of life is acceptable and sustainable. If these espcctations are to be realizeci. then decisional decoupling and promotional bias must be rccoznized as defects in the present relationship b s w c n society and technology. The energy crisis, the reactor controversy and, more specifically. the proposed plutonium economy of the future are representative of this problem. It is in this context that they will be considered.

T h e present energy crisis in this country is largely confined to the electrical sector of thc rncrqy market. During this century the electric utility industry has enjoyed an uninhibited growth through orders of magnitude. The dilcninia in which this industry prosciitly finds it.:cli is a consequence of the intrusion oi r.ew proivtli limitin: fncrws on its fornit-r tx*ivwr.~ic iwlntion. F~.c i t i~ - of t I - + inr ru- si611 the indcstry has begun to fecogiiiic the distinction between niarkets and nccds. I t is ccrtainly true that the markets for electric p o w r arc' not saturated. and I O the estcnt. thnr they nrc tlecou- plcd from the social nnd physical wrlcl, lie ninrkets could be expected to grow esponentia1;y ior some t i n y to.ccxe. But it is nsive to bc!i:.vc that .c,?!z:i.

September 1971 Bulldin 01 the Atomic Scitnlislr 33

n

n

V . 8-59 f \

tion of Ow mnrkcts !vi11 pninle.sly plncc tlic ullimate limit on the groivtli of (lie electric p o w r industry. I n fact. uhat the present crisis tlcmonqtratrs. is that physical limitations such ns fuel availal)ility, bio1or:ical limitatioris such as air quality. and social limitatiotis such as siting criteria arc factors that intercede long before market saturntion.

Recognition of this fact \vould I>c ividcr sprcad if a licavily subsidized nuclear technology had not matcrializcrl in the 1 9 6 0 ~ ~ and offcrctl the possibility of bypassing these Fronth limiting factors. The Atomic Energy Commission and thc rcactor vendors promised clean, safe, cheap, abundant clectrical power; and the utility industry acceptcd the nuclcar solution to their restricted rcsponsibilitics, and in the years 196-1-67, GO reactors wcre purchased for some SI0 billion in a n unprecedented economic conimitmcnt to a new tcchnology. As a result of promotional bias and isolation of dccision, the determination to implement this major technology was easy for soviety. Too easy in fact, for now when the reactor arguments are belatedly raised . in a larger forum, society is faced with its own fait accompli, and technological judgement is further distorted by deep economic involvement.

Fijsion Cul Ds Snc It has been eight years since the sale of the

Oyster Creek reactor precipitated the rush to nuclear power. Somc 110 commercial reactors are now completed or on order, and only now are the sirn- plest implications of the commitment being \videly appreciated. Radiation standaids are being con- tested because of the potential increase in low level radiation exposure. T h e threat of major reactor accident has become aggravated as reactors have accuniulated more rapidly tnan operating esperi- ence. T h e disposal .of high level radioactive v x t e is a n unsolved problem; no disposal site has been finally approved: and the practicalit?. of large scale solidification of wastes is still unclcmonstrated. But reassessment of !he reactor decision is awkward with so niuch committed, with s o q e tens of rhou- cant13 employed by the indus tn , with billions of' dollars of kactor-funding utility bonds held by pension funds, insurance companies and founda- tions, and \vitli thc Federal Power Act's tradition of "greatest possible economy" as an added constraint on the production of electrical power.

In the final analysis the prescnt generation of light water rcactors is a technological cul dc S U C . with little rclcvancc to a solution of the ultimate energy problcm. This technology is probably no more thati a iinal oiicring at the altar of espoticntial growth of electric power. The future and thc suh- stance of the fission program is the breeder reactor, and tlie representative fuel of the breeder is plu-

PIuton'ium is a n element virtually nonesistcnt in

At is of man's doing. It has several long-lived iso- c"niu"* #he earth's natural crust: for all practical purposes

\

"There arc many fhings abouf r J d k i i O n cxposurc wc do nof undersfand. and fhcrc wil l confinuc lo bc unccrfainfrcs unli l heallh physics can providc a cohcrcnf fhcory 01 radiJf fon damage. This is why some 01 fhc basfc rcscarch sfudics 01 fhe AEC are so imporfanf. D. P. Geessrnirri an0 Tamplin nave pornfed ouf re- ccnfly fhe problems o/ plufonium-239 parficlcs and fhe uncer:ainfy ol fhe risk l o J man who carries such a parficle of high specific acfivily in his lungs." (K . 2. Morgan, Tesfimony pre- senfed a f Hearings belore Joinf Cornmilfee on Alornic Energy, 9 ls f Cong., 1970.)

topcs, the most significant bcing plutonium-239, xvliich because of its fissionable properties and ease of production is potentially the best of the three fission fuels. Plutonium-239 is an alpha emitter \vith a half-life of 24,000 ycars, hence its activity is undiminished \vithin human time scales. I t is 30 years since plutonium \vas first produced and isolated Glenn T. Scaborg, now chairman of the AEC, and his colleagues. Until recently it v a s significant only as a nuclcar explosive. Sotv, the Atomic Energy Conimission is promoting it as the energy source of the not too distant futurc. How is this new technology to bc assessed and appreciated by society? From Chairman Scaborg's "child-in- the-manger" descriptions of plutonium's origin; from romanticizations of the future, reniinisccnt of Jules Vcrne; from spcculativc projections of energy needs and markets to the ycar 2020? The more favorable side of the picture will assuredly be there;

judge by rcsponsibly when considering the conjectured priniary energy source of the future.

If the liquid metal fast breeder reactor is developed and implemented according to AEC projcc- tions, thcn b y the year lOS0 commercial plutonium production will be 30 tons annually, and in excess of 100 tons by the year 2000.

Plutonium is a fuel that is toxic beyond human espenence. I t is deinonstrably carcinogenic to animals in micrograni quantities. (Pure plutorlium- 239 in this amount would be roughly the size of a pollen grain.) One niillionth of a gram injected intrademially in mice has caused local cancer. A similar amount injcctcd into the blood systeni of clogs has induccd a sulistantial incidcncc of bone cancer because of the cletiicnt's affinity for bone tissue. I t is fortunate that ttic body maintains a rclativcly cffective barrier against the entry of plutoniuni into the blood system.

Under n tiunilier of probable conditions plutonium forms aerowls of micron-sized pnrticulstcs. \\:hen lost into uncotitrollcd air thcse particulates can remain s ~ ~ s ~ ~ c n c l c c l for a significant timc, and i f inhalcd they are prcfcrentially deposited in the deep lung tissue, where their long rcsidcncc time and high alpha activity can result in a locally in-

but is that enough for societ:.. or even utili" 115s to

V. 8-60

* tense tissue exposure. T h e lung cancer risk asso- \ ciated with these radiologically unique aerosols is ! unknown to ordcrs of magnitude. Present pluto-

nium standards are certainly irrelevant and probably not conservative. Even so, the fact t ha t under present standards, the permissible a i r conccntra- tions are about one par t per million billion is a commentary on plutonium’s potential as a pollu- / tant . Its insolubility and long half-life make the continuing resuspension of particulate cmtamina - tion another unresolved concern of serious proportions.

Nor is plutonium contamination an academic

! fire in history occurred in Colorado at Rocky Flats, \ the weapons-making plant operated for the Atomic ‘.. Energy Commission by Dow Chemical. This major

.plutonium handling facility lies 10 miles west of Denver. i\ subsequent environmental s tudy by a.n independi n t party, E. A. AIartell, revealed t h a t off s i te Pluto: ium contamination was two to three or-

gnitude greater than would have been om measured plutonium losses in the

heavily 5.: ?red air effluent of the plant. After- the-fact ,c-.:.)lanations geemcd to fix the source of this a n o r . ous contamination a5 wind blown plutonium E;: had leaked from openly stored barrels of contanil ated oil. T h e plutonium involved in the fire TVZ largely conrained and apparently WIS not impli?at-d in the off-site contamination. Sever- theless, *t i s ; hardly reassuring that consequent to this fire i“oi.:,oress voted a special appropriation of $25.5 rniilionl (of a projected S118 million) for th.e upgrading of “fire protection, safety and operating conditions” at Rocky Flats and similar facilities. And there is little comfort ro be found in the ir- . responsible nastq disposal practices which were revealed by the investigation after the fire. T h e leakage of pluti niiim from the contaminated oil led to an uncon t r - Jed source of plutonium which was some orders of magnitude larger than the integrated effluent loss during the 17 years of plant operation. As a result of this source. tens to hundreds of grains of plutonium a c n t off site. 10 miles upwind from a metropolitan area. T h e loss was internally UTI- noticed, the ultimate deposition is now speculativc, 89 is i ts human significance.

Is present society so psychically stable, so civillv \docile t ha t i t can have its mer:): addiction hased

on R material whose ratlioloqicnl tosicity is such tha t a few ounces might cause a million undetected and hemcd iab lc fotnl injuries? :\ comp!es and sophisticated socicty must bear the burtlcns of vulnerabilitv a n d constraint that are inherent in i ts tcchnalogics.

implicit in the prcscnt nuclear industry is the production of fissiona\>lc ninteria1. Our transition to plutoniuni as a iiiajor enerCy source will incx- tn’cably involve our socicty u i t h the large scale ~omincrcial production of a substance that is ;a suitable nuclear explosive. A mystique of scientific acconiplishnient surrounded the development of nu-

< ‘

- ?’ question. In May 1969 the most costly industrial

clear weapons during World War 11. T h a t mysti- q u e has bccome illusory. T h e main practical im- passe to iiuclcar weapon manufacture was perfect- ing and implementing the expensive technologies for manufacture of fissionable material. Gaseous diffusion enrichment of uranium and reactor !)reeding of plutonium were major industrial projects in their own rights, bu t they are now implicit in t he nuclear power industry. A reactor of even the presen t generation will produce some 250 kilograms of plutonium per year, and since the amount necessary for an explosive device is described by Thco- dore Taylor a s “a few kilograms,” the substantial weapon capability of one commercial reactor can be inferred.

By the year 2000 plutonium-is conjectured to be a major energy source with a n annual production in excess of 100 tons. Can these quantities be handled without internal subversion? Underworld . involvement in the transportation industry is legendary, and theft in the industry is epidemic. University unrest is ubiquitous, radical activism is a reality. So far as accountability experience is concerned, Nuclear .\laterials and Equipment Cor- poration ( S L X E C ) , over several years of operation, was unable to account for sis per cent (100 kilograms) of the highly enriched uranium tha t passed through its piant: and a t a recent s a i e g a r d s symposium the director of the AEC’s Office of Safeguards and Materials Management observed tha t “we have a long way to go to get into tha t happy land where one can measure scrap effluents, products, inputs and discards to a one per cent accuracy.”

7

[A number o/ “misroutings” of special nuclear ma- tekinls has occurred ond these hace pointed clearly to the need /o r enhanced sofepuards IO prevent loss b y theft o j hijacking. On March 5 , 1369, a container o j highly enriched

LiF-6 (uranium hesajluoride) u a s shipped from Ports- rnourh. Ohio, to Hema/i/e, ,Ilissouri. I t did not reach its tlrstination in Missovri . The .f EC, the Federal Eurrau o j Inccstipotions and many indiridunls searched in- tensirc1.v. Finally, on March 19 , :ire shipment was jound in Boston.

I n the same nionth o/ 1960, a shipment of hichry en- richcd uranium destined / o r de l i tery nt Franklurt, Ger- many. tcorrnd up in London. In April 1970. n drum of waste contoinins same 70 per cent enriched uranium which was beinF shipped locnlly from one f i rm to another i n the same California c i ty ended rrp in Tiajrtona. Slerica. I7.S. licpresentn/ire Crni; flozrncr o j Cnli,ior- nia. a merri bcr 01 the ConSrcsJinnol Joint Cornmittre on .f/ornic En,*r*:y rr.ho drcrribcd rhcse incidcnrs in n talk lira1 ? m r . r~ -co i i c i thnt the report on /he Tiajrrnna diversion was entitled: “ lmdver t cn t esporl o j special nuclenr materials.” Ed. iYote ]

\\‘hen plutonium commonly esists, t he possiliilitv of theft will esist, and accountability will be diffi-

Seplember 1971 Dullelin 01 the Atomic Scirnlkts 35

V .8-61

,&It, atid thc I r c h n o l o ~ nccdcd to niakc nn cx- p]o-.ivc device !vi11 bc available in tcxttJooks, as it 1s olrently. Finally tlic social price for dealing ivith the prolilcin cffcctivc.l?* niny bc pait1 for dcarly by tile loss of sonic pooIly sccm freedom.,

Quite aside froin tliis, i f the plutonium cconomy is implciiwitcd i n the L : n i t 4 S!ntcr. : ! , ~ i i by syin- metry it \vi11 incvitab!y bc iriiplcmc.ntcd' I,? other naajor powrs, and thc tcclinolri~y ~voultl Le mar- keted in all the small and underdcvclopcd countrics that arc struzgling for stability. IVilh reactor fuel plutonium, fission m a p o n capabilitics are only days away. This capability makes nuclcar disarmamcnt seem remote, and is part of the responsibility of accepting the nuclear economy.

Since the Eisenhower administration the exchange of pcaceful nuclcar technology has been a componcnt of our forcign policy. The peaceful atom has bccn internztionally promoted \vith enough effect.that a c r e s to thc technology is a sisnificant factor in obtaining signatories to the Nonprolifera- tion Treaty. U'ithout criticizing the Treaty or its i-ntcntions, it must be recognized that the line dram between peaceful and nonpeaceful nuclear technology niay effectively define, no mote than an irony.

Unlcss fusion rcnctor Icasibility is dcrnonstratcd in ttic near Iuturc, the commitmcnt \vi11 tic made to liquid met nl fast brcctlrr rcactors fuclcd tiy plutonium. Sincc fusion rcactors arc presently spcculativc, the decision lor liquid metal fast brccdcr re-

.actors should tie nnticipatE,!. CozsiiIciiiiE the cnorinouj ccoiiornic inertia involvctl in thc commit- .nent, i t is irnpcrativc that thc signifirancc of the decision bc symnictricslly csamincd prior to active' promotion of tlic industry.

In our prcscnt socicty, it is doubtful that this will ' be done. Promotional bias and isolation of decisions

u i l l preclude it. The Atomic Energy Commission, in its posture of promoter, will be functionzlly unable to serve ako as a critical advocate for socicty in general. This responsibility \vi11 be outside the re- strictcd economic sphere of utility and vendor. In this unbalanced situation unccrtaintics will be un- noticed and shortcomings degraded. Public, industry and govcrnincnt will be effcctively uninformed. Unlcss some ncw institution of asscssmcnt inter- cedes the consideration affecting the dccision will be defcctive. Technology is too dominant and society too restricted for such defccts to be tolerable. A flawed judgement involving plutonium, and all other decisions could be irrelevant.

-~ FISSION AND FUSION REACTORS: The Ailven Memorandum

In the long run fossil fuels cannot satisfy the rising energy demand in the world. There are Only three sources of eneroy known which are sufficiently pov:erful: (a) solar energy, (b) fusion

.

I

energy. and (c) fission energy. The first one is corrple:ely pollution-free, the second one almost pollution-free. The third one is -necessarily combined with production of large quantities of radio- actbe poisonous elements.

In my opinion, the danoers associated with fission energy have not received necessary atten- lion. Whether the pollution caused by fission reactors in normal operation is below a safe level Of not is a controversial matier. If a reactor goes out of control. the consequences may be terrible. Even if extreme saiety precautions are taken, the large quantities of radioactive material in them constitute 8 permanent danger. For example, in periods of political or social unrest, sabotage against reactors may cause catastrophes. Furthermore. in a ful l scale fission program, t h e radioactive waste will soon become so enormous that a total poisoning of c u r planet is possible. Under such conditions safety margins. which are acceptable in other fields. are inadequate. It is not evident whether the waste problem can be solved in a satisfactory way.

If solar energy or fusion energy were available now at comparable cost no one would use (ission energy (for peaceful purposes). Un!ortunately this is not the case. Solar energy is available but at prohibitive cost. However, there are new interesting solar energy projects which should b s examined carefully.

Concerning fusion energy, there is a general agreement that no fundemenfa! obstacle is likely lo prevent the construction of a fusion reactor. but there are a number of difficult scientific and technical problems which musl be solved. There is much speculation about how much lime is

,needed to solve these problems, but i t is just a s much a questicn of how much ellorf has to be spent.

In my opinion a solution of the fusion problem is less distant today than the Moon was when the Apollo project started. This means that i f a national effort of the sane kind a s the Apollo program were made, fusion energy would be available in a comparable time. If this is achieved. the fission reactor, especially the breeder, will be of interest only as a danger which must bc eliminated as soon as possible.

Tho views expressed here are shared by many competent physicists. They are basically different from those on which present policy is based. A n importan: decision about the fu turo energy p o k y Of (he United 'States - and of the whole world - should not be made unlil a thorough dis-

,Cussion has taken place involving advocates for all the lhrce different altcrnativcs for solving tho energy problem. (Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel laureate in physics, in a memorandum to Senator Mike Gravel, April 2, 1971.)

36

i.tuit will Iic t.ikiiig t l i c i r sli.irc [ i f t v h t ieluilCs fronr a colitiniioris qwr.iii<tii tli;it I n i l is twci i ty-four h i m a ‘1;iy. \ \ ’ i t l i i i i 91ch a fr.qii ic\vork9 i t \vtiuIil I*. vasily inore t l iAi~ . i i I t t t i kecii accur;itc h k s t u i

thc flowing j i l i i t w i l i i i i . “It’s a scri<ws inrttcr,” J i i J s t i i i siiil. “l‘lic utilities arc not iiircrcstctl iri atom idciitificatioli. Tlicy’rc iiitt.rcstctl iii iiioiic!’. L V e arc in- crcstcd, thtiiigli. Once yoii’vc gralilicd

wmctliing likc this, yoti can’t let go. You’re ccuiiiiiittcd to a big rcslimisiiiil-

fnr a Iring tiiiic.” 1 , John Van iioomissrll was at the j3lorrk plant wlicn wc wcrc there. H e C based in Califnrliin a n d is in ciiargc !of nrtcicar-matcrinIs mniiagcnieiit for b11 nf General Elcctric. Tlircc people i’iindcr him work at hlorrk, counting moms. Judson is not their boss. So if Judson, or snnicone undcr Iiim, . \~’crc to start siphoning off sonic plutoriiuln, Van Hnnmisscn’s men would not fccl- would. he .ICM likcly to fccl-inhiliitctl about rrporting it. A hcavysct inan with an appraiser’s cyc, Van Hooniisscn wemrd to takc cvrr)onc prescnr-Jutl- ‘on, Fine, mc, Taylor-with a grain , i f doubt. “All s-impling hcre is ccn- ,n l izcd in one g; lcry,” hc said. “Tliis mfcguards agail. . t ~omeonc blecding .he simpling :in.. T h a t could never :iappcn hcre at Morris, but I’ll show rou other placcs wherc it could Iinlipcii, x c a u x funny littlc wmpling lirics arc iun in hcre and there, and on a gitcn night wmconc could run a funny lit- dc rwnpling line off to a clandcstine )lace. T h e thief wouldn’t have to worry niucli about radiation. Tl ic most iulncrahle place is the nitrrtc point, ’

where tlic plutonium comes out of the pigot. li’c know this. W e arc aware d- it. A reprocessing plant used to hc hmifht o f only as the place wlierc pu got your uranium back and your durtiniiim crcdits. Now it’s seen as norc thari h a t . I t is not a n unattcnded rohlc m . ”

T h e solution, as Van Hooniissen sees i k for tlic plutonium to be moved apidly out of the reproccssirig plant nd hack iiitri a powcr reactor, wiicre i.codtl hc hiirncd as fuel. Plutonium t more fi&nnhlc than uraniiim, after 11. li’iih n single exception, no plu- miiini i c iisul in prcscnt conimcrcial raci!m. dtlioiigli the companies that “11 it I i : iw ;I great deal of it in rcscrvc. llis rc:i.‘ui for this is that pliitonilim i nnc iiic m i s t toxic siibstances rcr k i i ~ j w i i iii the world. Cobra vcn- in i s niiivii~~rv near as toxic as 11111- iniirni w y i ( . i i i l e d in an aerosol. You BIIIO l l ~ ~ i d :iii ingot of plutoniuln ncxt . I your iicart or hr;iin, fcaririg no con-

’

,,

V.8-62

of Iioiirs, or nt most a few tlnys. ICvcn a iiiillioiitli of ;I iyaiii is likely, cvciitii- ally, to caiisc lung o r h e caiiccr. 1’111- to i i i i i i i i i l l a t riitcrs t l i c Iihiot1strc;iiii f i l l -

lows tlic pat11 of calciiiiii. Scttliiifi in I H I I I C S , ir gives’ off short-range alldin ix~rtitlcs, a foriii of rntlirrnctivity, a i d tlicsc cffcctivclp dcstroy tlic aliility of boiic iiiarrow to pimlucc white b l i i o t l

cclls. Plutonium is rciidcrctl gciicr;illy in otic of thrcc forins: metal, nitixtc, nxitlc. T l ic owiclc is a fluffy yellow- green powder. It can he fine enough to he inlialcd. T l ic oxidc is the form in which pliitoniirm would be used as rc- m o r fucl. Therefore, it is hoth cliflicult ind danp;crous to innkc plutoniiim-urn- iiiiim-nxif:le fuel pcllcts and slip tlicm i i t i i zirconium-nl!oy fuel rn&-tlic iroccss iicccssary for usc of pliitoniuin II pnwer rcactors. Spccial fucl-fnhri- :ating p1.7nts would liave to be built, *qiiipi)c(l with .03-niicron nhsolutc fil- wrs, continuous air monitors, glove )IISCS (workers put tlieir hands into :loves that arc in effect segments of :he walls of glass hoxcs, and Iiantlle )Iutoniuni within), and other costly :quipincnt, nearly all of wliicii is un- iccesiry in a plant that fabricates iranium fuel. So the plutonium piles ip-good. fuel, but uncconomical. Plu- onium is wortli about ten dollars a ;mm, and is many times as valuable as ;old. As time goes hy, tlic utilities arc iuiltling l ip millions of clollnrs’ wortli of ilutoniiim. in tlicir stockpilcs. iMcan- while, with ever-higher extraction costs nd increasing clcmand, tlic price of iraniuni irises. I n a present-day power cactor, only three per cent of the lira- iium fucl is used, because the uranium- 135 fissions with unprofitable efficiency ftcr that point. Aftcr uranium itself is cproccsscd, it is supposedly cnriclied gain and tlien refabricnted as fucl and ettirncd to the reactors, completing

closed circuit known ns tlie nil- lex-powcr fuel cyclc. Actually, the ,otol)cs U-232 and U-236 prcscnt i used reactor fiicl are unwelcoliic i tlie enrichment cascades. As Wil- a m Higiiibntlinm, of Brookliavcn, 11.1s ut it, tlie U-232 and U-236 woultl crap tip” the uranium there. So the uclear-power fuel cyclc, much atl- ertiscd for its conscrvntionnl nlilical, is ot closed,, and has ncvcr bccn closed. .lie rcpro’ccssctl iiraiiiiini is sct aside. ’he uraiiiiim that gcics into powcr rc- c t o r ~ is ncw tiraniurn. Tl ic rcsult of all l is is that two economic lines a re mov-

’

,

*

’

,

gct i i i t l i IIIC tirigiii:iI cIi:iiii, r,.;tctit rwdy 1 1 1 rr1ir;It tlic IirIIccrc Alll l p r , (I i icc wri i iiiorc i i l i itoiiii i i i i. ] i ( . c 2 , . t l i i . fiwitiiiiiig Iiliitwiiiiiii p i i s o i i t In,,! rs t ra i iei itr(1ns ; i n t i l ~ ~ ~ ; i i i s c tIicrc ic

liigli p r ~ i p i r t i ~ ~ i i of frriiic u - 2 3 ~ the rrnctor ctirc, tlic Iirccilcr m;l: i r w c j i l i i t o n i i i i i i iliac it IISCS tip. Ti::, rrtic:ilIy, t i i c hrcrdcr can m a k c f o r ti i i irs Iicttcr iisc of iirariiiiin tIi,ln p rc e i i t -d~y rrnctors. Morcovcr, it cot. iisr as fertile iiiatrrial t l ic two Iibini!

~ J i o u ~ n i i t l toiis or so of lcftovcr U-2: that 1ias hccn scparatctl from U-2: since thc military wcapniis program i. gall. I~rcctlcrs i r c vai-iciusly cooled : salt, sodiiiiii, Iicliuin ; a n d t i icy h v c fiiic set of nnmcs: the Molten-S: 13 rcctlc r I< cnct or, t lie Lit1 i i id- Li c : Fast Mrectlcr licactor, tlic Gas-Coo; Fast Ilrcctlcr Rc;ictor. T l i c Gcrn:. have one c~l lc t l SKEAK. T l i c Frcr, liave one callccl I<apsodic. T i i c y arc r .carcli rcactors. I n Jiily, tlic !%v: Union nnnouncctl t1i;it i t liad bc;., :nmmcrcial pnwcr Iiriitluctilin with m e d c r n t Slicvclicnko, on the CA . ;ca. llrccdcrs as n working gcner., ire still soinc tinic away, but w;iL heir t i inc comes tlic figcircs for wor low of plutoiiiiiiii will hc not so mui ncrcrscd as multiplied. So will I; ~rohabilities of the clanrlcstine nini! hcture of atoiiiic honihs.

Whcrc is plutonium now-(lint : ~lutoniuin owncd hy private coiiipnicr: ’n greatly varying aniniints, i t is in Ha: ord, Washington; \Vest Valley, Se fork ; Pawliiig, h’cw York; Xlorr: Iliiiois; Erwin, Tcnncsscc; I’lcnsnr on, California; Crcsccnt, Oklahnni: :hcswick, Pcnnsylvnnia; Lecclthiir ’cniisylvania; and in transit anicir Ihcsc placcs. It l ias ritltlcn around t i ountry soiiictinies with ordinary tri:. rciglit-Iinolcwn, Congolciiin, p; miiim. Ncw rrgulatitiiis forbid this. :n-litrc bottlc of plutoniuni-nitra )hilion in a hircicagc--two_md a 11:

ilograms of plutoniiini-was slii7;:r :om Hnnfortl to Crcsccnt not l o r : ..

; ago at tlie rear of a flatherl truck. 0:; . y. c r cargo fillet1 up tlic hcd space, and t i

I ;:; plutoniiiiii, tile last thing on, w a s IIC..

< . ‘

by a singlc chain. It w a s clrarly lahcll< ’

, “DAZ\‘G~I(-PI.LITOSIU~I.’! GcIicrn: i ~ the matcrial goes by itsclf, i n siii; ‘I ments of about fifty kilograms. l ’ i i . toniuni-uranium fucl pe l l e t s are ma,

at Crcsccnt by Kcrr-blcGcc, a i d n , piit insitlc metal rods niitl scnt ha, , to Hanfonl, to tlic ‘:\.E.C.’s F-

1;lus Tcst Facility-an cwpc6men: :, brccdcr reactor. Kcrr-iMcGcc Itand;

about a tlioiisnntl kilograms a ) clocs N U ~ I E C (Nuclcar Matcri Equipment Corporation), in

V .t3-63 u

We ch l l e n z e any s c i e n t i s t , independent o r governzent employed, any a?poin tcd o r e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l , f e d e r a l , s t a t e o r l o c a l , any employee of a u t i l i t , y , o r any l a y n a n t o produce a s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l z n a t i o n as t o how t h i s n a t i o n can a c c e p t a f a s t -b reede r , plutoniym based economy when t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s aboo t p lu ton iun have been o f f i c i a l l y at tested t o .

1. The a l ?ha r a 2 i a t i o n g iven o f f by p lu tonium is e s p e c i a l l y damaging t o t h e blood-:torrning orgerrs of t h e bones and can produce bone d i s e a s e s many yeaTs l a t e r . 1

2. Plutonium may e n t e r the body t h r o u m c u t s o r a b r a s i o n s - o f t h e s k i n , by b e i n g :;wallowed o r n o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , by

1 i n h a l a t i o n .

t h a t as much as 80;4 of any amount t a k e n i n w i l l s t i l l 3. Once i n t h e body, plutonium is e l i m i n a t e d s o s lowly

~ be there 50 y e a r s l a t e r , 1 -4. The maximum p e r m i s s i b l e body burden, or t h e t o t a l amount

of plutonium t h a t can be accumulated i n an adul t wi thout producing undue r i s k t o h e a l t h , h a s been s e t a t 0.5f&/,;1..'cXZ microgram ( A microgram is one -mi l l i on th of a grarnt$motuncl -

5. According t o t h e Atomic Energy Comnlission t h e r e w i l l be

6. The t o n s of plutonium t o be produced by f a s t - b r e e d e r an unavoidable l o s s ra te of 130 25 i n hand l ing plutoniuin. 2

r e a c t o r s w i l l be t r a n s p o r t e d a c r o s s t h e n a t i o n t o supp ly l i G h t water r e a c t o r s w i t h new f u e l . be s u b j e c t t o highway a c c i d e n t s and h i j a c k i n g s 2 and

7. Plutonium has a ha l f - l i f e of 24,360 y e a r s and w i l l t a k e

8. The c u r r e n t plutonium inven to ry of 600 k i l o g r a m s is

These shipments will

d i v e r s i c n r'o? hex-made bombs. 3

500,000 y e a r s t o decay t o a n innocuous l e v e l . 1

2000.2 p r o j e c t e d t o i n c r e a s e t o 720,000 k i l o c r a m s by t h e y e a r

1. "F lu ton iun , " a n A.3.C. publ . ica t ion . 2 . "Science ," (L'L:!!j), A p r i l 9, 1971, pp 143-146 3. "fhe kew Yor'ker," P r o f i l e , Dec. 3 , 10, Rc 17, 1973

THE TASK FORCE Against Nuclear P o l l d t i o n

Moorestovm, N. J. 08057 . 305 1ii.Zh S t r k e t

V.8-65

'. I

E'rJE'RGY 4 fourth in a series by Jack Shcphcrd -- . d

b w IT NUCttus

In 1970 [)I John W Cnlmon t o o k on the Atomic Fnrf!Jy Commission owr nuclear power He ond Dr Aithur R. Toniplm. o collmgue ot the lowrenre Uod~otion loborotory in Ltmmore.

. blifornio. choigcd the ACC with risking "gene cide" by opbvoving do,ngcrous levels of rodio ocftwty from ~wcelu l nuclmr uses. Golmon ond Tompltn orgued thot 11 Americons received the permssiirle d e " dose of rodlotion set by the

. kderol Rodiation Council ond endorsed by the AEC. there mlght be 32.000 odditionol concer deoths o vmr

0. &fmon hod waked on the entrre Mon hotlon Prctect from its lnceptton untfl 1944. He holds Ph D. ond M D degrees ond hos done spxd wcrk tn coronory h w t disease. In 1965. kwmo mopr o w r d lrom the American Heort &sxlotwn for reseorch in cominting head dts. axe.. ond in 1972. he shored o SK).000 oward from rhe Stouffer Foundotton with three others

' for work In tne held "As I see the radiotion- hozord questlon todoy." Or Gofmon sop. "cor-. diovosculor dnseose not concer. is the biggest donger. . How did Dr. Golmon get entangled with the

'. AEC?ln 1961. alter the Russlons broke the moro- kwiumm nucleor testing, the Untted Stoles begon o cmsh program of Pocific and Nevodo atom bomb t&s. And lollwing tests above ground

.

'

'

in Uwcxki In I%? th. milk ~4ini;dwuI n c t w d ShL>Wtyf 11h11 UhIll IIhlk \ W S IX'lml os I3 Cxdrinn 1n11, I I wilh rndt<wrlliic (tom loll wt It woso put~ltc hmlth xor l ( ld Utoh dls~ol, w n t d to imlxiund llw mllk Tlic Fnlcrol Rodto. lion Council ond thc AtC freltd

"This w t of thing wos w r y hod lor their imoge. ' so* Or. & l m n "Thc F d v o l Rodlo- tton Councd in 115 own tnlmncol woy. got out 01 i t by JUSI roisng the toleiante levcls for rodio- d inc . which sGddmly trtome solcr by o foclor 01 truce Thcir lustificotion wos tho1 i f they rorsed thc tolcronce, lhcn thcy could my this milk lhot was cnritominolcd wos octeptoble.'

The AEC oskcd Dr. Golmon to help set up o long.ronge reseorch prolect 01 the Lowrence lob on the lmpoct of rodionuclide relmse upon the biosphere

In 1969. the AEC oskcd his os5ociote 01 the lob. Arthur Tomplm. In olnlyre Dr Ernest Stern. gloss' published colculoiions tho, atmospheric nvcleor tests in Neboh hod causcd 400.000 inlont deolhs from lollout. While Dr. Tomplin ogreed thot Dr Sterngloss hod roised on impor. tont qucslion. his own colciilolions indicoled thot probably 4.030 infonlb d i d AEC wonted Dr Tomplin to puhli5h hi.. I nticlsrn d Dr. Sterngloss but to tuck t t y t 4.000 ~s l~molc In some other publicoton Dr Tomplin r c l u d , and lighting broke out belween Livcrmorc ond Woshington

Or. Golmun's persoool light wrth the AEC begon when he wps scheduled to give o tolk before the Institute for Electrical ond Electronic Engineers. As he tells i t . "My personol resmrch In the lob wos on low-dose rodiotion. chromosome inpry ond concer I begon bringing up to dote my own thinkmg on the mognitude of this concer problem. And I rmlized thot it hod to be 20 ttmes as big os onybody hod thought. So I gove o very low-key, ertremely conciliotory p- per. suggesting that we ol the AEC should r e consider the rodlotion stondords with o view to tightening them ot leost tenlold k o u s e 01 the possibility of increosed concers m d leukemios

"As o result d thot paper. the AEC immedi- otely lounched o vitriolic ottock both on me per- SCnOlly ond on my credibility."

Dr. Golmon begon expanding his reseorch and speoking o u t on rodiotron hozords. He ond Dr. Tomplin wrote two books together. Now. Dr. Gofmon hos shifted from the Lowrence lob bock to reseorch ond teaching in hrkeley. He :ontlnu.s to speok out 01 public hmrings. and here, on'nucleor power...

' c l ~ ~ l ~ R . * l W ~ .

Gofmin: Yes. And we illso considered the anic)unts thc AEC is Icg;illy ;illowed t o give us iind h u n d th;it the d;ini;igc wciuld be bad. Now they say they never plan to give us the amount they're lcgnlly allowed 10 give. But if thcy really hclieved whxt they're saying. they would lower the legal amount by a great factor. Q: Aren't we getting some natural back-

ground radiation all the time? Cofnion: T h e rough figure around the

country for hackground radiation from natural suurces is as high iis 200 millirads in Colorado from the rocks and the high- e r clev;ition. down to 100 millirads. Nut-

probably rcspinsihle each year for ahout

Did your

calcul;itions on r;tdio;ictivity levels indi- C B ~ C that there could he radiation deniage oral radixticin in the United States is . down t i i irlmost zero dos;ige'!

W20.MN) c;iirccrs. lhc i1iily thing we don't I n o w is Iicrw IO cliniiiiate 11. So we arc forced t o live with i t .

Q: Whit1 ahiiut the cut1iul;llivc effects of radiatiun frcitii tii;in.ni;idc >ourcc\'!

Gofnian: All o f our \ludic> arc o n the cutiiul;itivc cffccts o f ritdi:ition. And that cuniulaiive issue represents the higgest uncertainty in the size of our estimate.

It works this way. We kncrw that if you irradiiite now. you don't have any cffccts in terms of lcukcmi;i o r ciincer f o r about five o r ten ycars. Then the effects build up. and you get so m m y cases per 1oO.ooO people per year from the irradiatton. We do not know whether [ h i t radiation will lirst the rest o l the lifc o f th;it population. whether i t will 1;tst for 30 years o r 20 years o r whatever. And that's the essence of the cuniulativeeffect. I f the radiation you get now li ists the rest of your life. then it . plus everything d t e r i t , accuniulittes.

Q: I f that's so. then the danger from lowdose r;rdi:tt ion.. .

Golmon: ... Getseven worse. If i t should turn out that the effect 1;tsts the whole liletinie rather than the .XI years we estimated originally. then o u r numbers would 60 up. The 32.000 we published could reach 104,ooO deaths from cancer per year for the allowable amount of radiation because of some of the unknowns in duration of effect.

When we started reporting this stuff, in October 1969, there weren't as many animal studies available. Now all those available point to a straight-line relationship between size of dose and cancer incidence. The animal data that have become available in the last two years Kave pushed way down into the low-dose region. and the linearity is holding up very well in every animal study. Q: What does "pushed down" mean? Gofrnan: Well. the Iirst set of experi-

nients ;tv;iilahlc years ; i p i cmip t r ed r d s t11;tt hail no rdiaticin with rats th;il I d SO r d s . S o yciii cotrlil say'lrow m m y ciiii- ccrs you'd get when you hat1 iiii incrciiicnt of .SO rads. Since then. in ;iililition t i i having t h e zero rads and 50. they've dime a series at 40 rads and 30 rx l s :mil 20 rads. and now there are sood enough numhers to show cancer at even 10 rads. And the line on the chart is straight.

T h e Atom Bomh C;tsunlry Commission has published. within the last two years. evidcnce on the Hir~ i sh in i~r -N~tg~ts~ lk i people that provcd lineiirity down to as low ;IS 20 r;ids, which is live tiilics lower than their other studies. In other words. i t was proptirt iond.

... . .: , .-.+

99-8'11

V.8-67

uerc ping 111) for tl ic salt Ixds i n Lyons. k i i i \ ; i \ . a s ;I diiii ipiiig grtiuiid. nut the American S;ilt C~mili.iiiy \vxh niiiiirig at one end of i t and during one operation t o flush s;ilt up from the mine. they lost J7S.OLW)p;rlhriis of w t e r . AEC g:;ive up o n Lyons. hut no t OII s:ilt stor;igc.

They h w e few ;iltcrn;itires. Aliovc- ground rtnr;igc t;iiihs h;rw le;ihed. The ider of burying \v;istec ill tlic licdrock a t the Savannah River Lahiratory i n South Carolina - \vliich the Niit ioii;il Aciidcniy of Sciences report said nor to even think ahout-continues. It's attractive because it's cheqier than anything else.

In ninny respects I consider the nuclenr-fuel-rcpr~~cssing plunts a niajor prohleni. I W . One p h i gets the waste- fuel rods from alsiut.50 power plants. Its storage t;inks hiivc even more astronomical invenlorics th;in do the nuclear power plants. I recently testified hcfore the South Carolinii 1egisl;iture ahout the reprocessing plant in Darnwcll. B;irnwell w i l l process five metr ic tons of spent nuclear,fuel per day. The long-lived radioactive \.'asre. after processing. will remain at Bari,u.ell hctwcen five and ten years. assumkg optimistically that some federal repository can he developed. which is very much in douht. This radioactivity in Barnwell i s about 15 times as much as a// the Iission-product radioactivity produced in a// atmospheric weapons tests in o l l t ime hy the combined testing of the U.S. and USSR. What might happen i f only 1 percent of this radioactivity inventory got released to the atmosphere?

If we assume a wind of about 20 miles an hour. in 24 hours the radioactivity would reach Washington. D.C. People in the way of this radioiictivity would get their yearly "allowence" i n one day. I n a year. they would get roughly .W times as much. or ahout SO r;ids. I t is ohvious that such exposure is unthinkiible. S o is evncu- ation of the affected areas-Washington, D.C.. most of Maryland. Delaware, Vir- ginia and West Virginia.

If the wind were hlowing a l ittle faster before the radioactivity encountered a rainstorm. i t could center o n Trenton. New Jersey. Then Philndelphia. New York City, most of New Jersey. e;isrern Penn- sylvania and a fair part of southern New York State would have to he evacuated.

In any event. whichever way the wind was hlowing. sonic 33.003 square miles of the U.S. would heconic uninhahitnlile.

Children drinking milk would receive ' 58.4 rads. more than IM times the yearly

"a1lowable"dose. Such a dose would causc

22

a s h x p iiicrc;i\e in L':iIiccrs ; i i i d 1ciilenii;is. Slilh frolii tlicse 3.UKN)squ;ire iiiilcs would hc iiiii/i;iih~il,l[,f,~r ilrii ihiiiy i i u rpwh . T h e kiss t o ~igricul i i i re Ironi t t i i s ;ind cnip con- tanliil;ition wciuld hc phcntin~cn;tl.

Alter I testificd. the vice president of Allied-Gulf Nuclear Services. which will operate the Barnwell pliint. got up and said. "We would m>t dis;igrce with Dr. Gofiii;in ;it a11 thxc such ;I release would he c;it;istrophic iind would have terrihlc effects o n Washington."

Q : Why go ;ihe;id with such a dangerous thing'!

Calnian: Severill reason\. The AEC and the nuclear industry like to consider what they ciill cnginecring prohlcnis: you po with this nozzle or valve. and whiit's the failure raic'! They don't ctinaider hu- niiin fAIihility. psychotics. sahotiige- they put these in the reiilni of incredihle hecauw thcy throw engincering calcula. lions into a cockcd hat. They argue that with more money they'll dcsign a technological fix for these problems. After all. Rome wasn't burnt i n a day.

Q: Bur aren't they asking the American people to accept ii scientific program today based o n future technology?

Cofmnn: Precisely. And. with issues like the emergency-core-cooling system. plutonium. r;idio;tctive waue storage. asking us to bet on future engineering is. I consider. an ininiornlity. The consequences of accidents in any of these areas are huge-a million people dead or homeless. To ask someone to bet on future engineering when these could be the consequences now i s immoral. Q: Shifting from nuclear power to

something else would he difficult. we don't have ;iltern;ttives now. and the nuclear progriini hiis monientuni.

Gofman: Right. There's ii treiiicndous momentum Iwc;iuse 1111 the energy research mid development went into fission. They consider that they ;ire ready to go. I don't. But they have tremendous push. There is S40 billion i n private money sunk i n the nuclear-fission npproach right now. You don't gel a SJC-billion industry criinked up and then say. let's turn i t off. A l o t of men have put their reputa- tions on the line i n developing nuclear fission iis the ideal power source. Q: \%'hat altern;itives d o you see? Cofnian: I think we ought to explore

sevcrd options: schr power. geothcrnid. m;ignet~ihytirc~lyn;In,ics. Synthetic gas could ex tend our coiil supply. In the I m t two years. the nurrilicr o f concrete. hard- nosed propos;ils with engineering and

scieiiliric 1i;icLiip for stiliir po\\cr hiive matured \o rsipiilly r1i;it wc nwy gct 513 niill ion- ;I piti;incc coiiip;ircd I < I nucIe;ir - ftir variotn \oh r prolcct\.

The h;i\ic prtihlcni i\ replacin,!! ;I working. h u t iiittder;ihIe. \ourcc of power with ;in cxpcrimcnt:il. hut eilvircmnlcnt;illy sound. source <if pciwcr. 11's going to take pulilicity. ;I shift of prioritws i i n d nioncy.

A nunihcr of cngiiiccrs now iiyrcc that we could have clcniciii\tration \oh r pliints in live years and shift most of our economy over to solar i n I O t o 20 yciirs.

Q : David Freeman. in "Energy I " [ID. Deceniher 19721. said that AEC scientists inside really want t o work o n other energy fornis,

Gofnian: That's true. I know Liver- more wtruld Icive t o unlea\h sonic of i t s scientists o n s o l x power. But the unleashing would have t o l ie done in a way thac re;illy niahcs them feel lhey aren't under a hureaucracy thnt's going to tram- ple them i f they work frcely.

Q: Unti l then we've got nuclear power. 1s anyone now studying nuclewpower- plant workers and radiation'!

Cofnian: It's a t i l l early. But scientists a t the University of Pirtshurgh ;ire pulling together the vital st;itistics on workers and dose. I f thcy do i t right. I think it's going to he an iihysmal story. I think it 's going to he lihe the uranium miners.

In ternis of the uranium niiners it's heen ahout a 15-year Ing herween radiation dose and disease. Nuhody warned the uraniuni miners in the 1940s or '50s about lung cancer. Only hy July 1967 was any d e t y standard enforced for them.

People find i t hard to relate t o ;I danger that doesn't show up for 1 0 t o 15 years. They say. look i t doesn't hurt nic. I don't have n rash o r anything. I feci fine. Thxt's why it's hard t i i yct n l m y people exer. cised iihout rxliati<in.

In the Iatc IW!k we ;ippreci;ited the fact that we'd created an epidenlic k i f lung cancer in the uriiniuiii niiner. More than 125 ;ire now d e d . and another 500 t o h00 will die no ni;itier what is done for iheni. That's ii hntastic epidemic.

And the siinie thing ni;iy he true (if the workers i n nucIc;ir power plants. But i t will he removed in tiiiie.

Q : That story wil l he written i n the I9Nh.

Gofnian: Unfortun;itely. that's right. These death\ wi l l Ius[ lie a1iaurtir.d iis part of the ctist/henel'it\. We'll ncrd tlic p w e r so much thiit irradiation and deaths of plmit workers wil l he an acceptable cost. 191

V.8-68

Pluto ni u ni: B io n.r e d i c a 1 Rc s e ;P r ch More is known about thc toxicology of plutonium

than about most othcr hazardous clcmcnts.

W. J. Bair and R.. C. Thompson

Plutonium will figurc prominently in the production of powcr durini thc next scvcral dccadcs bccausc of its kcy role in fucling brccdcr rcactors and becausc of its uscfulncss as a hcat murce in various thcrnioclcctric powcr ryrrenis. This is a frightcning prospcct to somc, who would charactcrizc plu- tohium as "thc most toxic substance known to man.'' Plutonium, in ccriain forms, is indccd a vcry toxic substancc; but its hazardousncss is not casily compared to that of othcr substanccs. primarily bccausc of lack of information conccrning thcsc othcr substanccs with which plutoniuni might bc compared. The toxicity of plutonium has bccn of conccrn sincc milligram quantitics were first produccd in thc Oak Ridge m c t o r , stariing late in 1943. In Fcbru- ary 1944. I 1 milligrams wcrc allocatcd for studics in rats. Sincc that timc, bio- bgical studics with plutsnium havc oc- cupied thc attcntion of incrcasing num- bcn of scicntists in the United Statcs .and abroad. Much has bccn learned PbOUt the toxicology of plutonium- more than is known about most other hazardous elements (I).

Chemical and Physical Properties of Biomedical Interest

The most common isotopc of plutonium, "OPu, has a 24,390-ycar half-

. life and cmits cncrgctic alpha particlcs (5.11 to 5.16 mcgnclcctron volts). It k used as a fisrionablc matcrial in explosive nuclcar dcviccs and as. a fucl h nuclcar powcr rcactors. Anothcr iso- COpc. "8Pu, is urcd as a hcat source in thcrmoclccuic powcr dcviccs. such

Dr. Drlr i s manincr or. and Dr. 'Ihompwn a u a R acicnti\t In. Ihc b i d o w dcpwimcni of h i - (CltC'B Pacldc h'orihrrbi Lrbwalortcn. Wchland. Wmhlnpion Yp311.

m R U A R Y 1974

as havc bccn cniploycd on lunar mis- sions, on c:omniunications satcllitcs. in hcart pacc-niakcrs, and proposcd for powering artificial hcnrts. Plutonium- 238 is also an alpha-cniittcr and has B half-lifc of S6.4 ycars. Thc hcavicr isotopes of plutonium will bccomc morc abundant as thcy arc produced in brccdcr rcactors. Of thcsc. 2i0Pu and Cr2Pu arc long-livcd alpha-cniittcrs and should not diffcr in any csscntial biological rcspcct from 9 ' u . Plutonium- 241 is il rclativcly short-livcd (13.2- ycar half-lifc) bcta-cniittcr and is of primary intcrcst as thc parent of amcri- ciuni-241. an alp1i;i-cniittcr t1i;it accu- mulatcs in tissucs and constitutes a hazard comparablc to plutonium.

Plutoniurrr is a chcmically "difficult" elemcnt. It will form compounds in solution cxhibiting valcnccs of 1-3, +4. +S, or +6. The +4 statc is most commonly cncountcrcd undcr physiological conditions. whcrc it is always com- plcxcd in some fashion. Wcakly coni- pl&d Pu(IV) will hydrolyzc in ncar- ncutral solutions, forming a polymcric hydratcd oxide of variable composition.

Plutonium dioxide (PuO,) is probably thc most important compound of plutonium, bccausc of its dcsirablc propcrtics for usc as a nuclcar fucl. Plutonium rrictal oxidizcs rcadily and PuO, is the compound most likcly to be cncountcrd following accidcntal rc- Icasc. Thc bchavior of Pu02 in thc biological milicu may vary grcatly dcpcnding upon such factors as exact chcmical composition and particlc sizc and shapc-factors dctcrmincd by thc conditions undcr which thc oxidc par- ticks arc forrncd. Thc "biological variability" whic:h toxicologists likc to blamc,for thc lack of prccision in thcir animal toxicity data is oftcn. compli- catcd by "chcniical variability" in studics with plutonium.

llirfory of Ihiiirdicnl

Rcscrrcli OII I'liifoniiini

Thc firht I)ionrcclic;~l stutlics will, plu- lpiriuni wcrc coiiduclcd i n Joxcph G. I~;lniilton's hboratory at thc Univcrbiiy of Califoriiin, ncrkclcy, in Fclmiary 1944. Shortly ihcrcaftcr. studicc wcrc

~ C ~ : U I I at the Univcrsity of Chicago and. rrolncwhal htcr, at LO$ hlanios Scicn- tific Laboratory and thc Univcrsity of Rochcstcr. Thcsc studics involvcd thc administration to lnboratory animals of scvcral chcniioal forms of plutonium by various routcs. I i was found that plutonium injcctcd into thc blood was dcposited principally in bonc and livcr, that plutonium was not apprcciably absorbcd from thc pstrointcstinal tract whcn givcn orally. that i t was not. quickly clcarcd from thc lung whcn introduced into the trachca, and that it was not quickly lost from thc body. Thc acutc toxicity of plutoniuni was dcscribcd in Q nunibcr of animal spccics and ostcosarconia was idcntilicd as a possiblc long-tcrm conscqucncc of plutoniuni dcposition. By 1949 a CD-

hcrcnt piclurc had cmcrgcd of thc biological bchavior of plutonium in the rat ( 2 ) .

Thcsc carly studics .wcrc niotivatcd by coiiccrn for !lit s;ifcty of plutonium worltcrs. Sonic of thcsc workcrs wcrc cxcrcting small amounts of plutonium in thcir urhc. To know what this mcant rcquircd information on human cxcrction of phtonium following injcction of known quantitics. In 1945 and 1946 thc Los Alamos Laboratory and thc Manhattan District Projcct Labontory at thc Univcrsity of Rochcstcr injcctcd scvcral scriously ill paticnts with vcry small amounts of plutonium. A fcw othcr patients wcrc studicd by .the Chi- cago and Bcrkclcy groups. Thcsc arc thc only cxpcrimcnts pcrfornicd with plutonium on human subjccts; thc plutonium cxcrction data obtaincd provide thc principal basis upon which plutonium burdcns in human bcings arc u t i - mated from urinalysis data (3 , 4 ) .

During thc laic 1950's and 1960's thc support of bionicdical rcscarch on plutonium by thc Atomic Encrgy Coni- mission (AEC) probably ncvcr fell below thc lcvcl of $1 million pcr ycar. Thc AEC now spcnds morc thin $12 million annually for rcscarch on intcrnally dcpositcd radionuclidcs, ap- proxiniaicly 50 pcrccnt of this rcscarch bcing conccrncd with plutonium and othcr transuranium clcnrcnts. This increased funding has rcsultcd not only

91s

V .1)-69

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 P ' 1 0 . 1 1 limo a l k t exposure fycarsl

Fig. 1. The dislribu- [ion of plutonium in bcacles that have inhaled PuO,. [Data from Park cf at. ( 6 ) ]

from concern for thc futurc utilization of plutonium. but also from thc rcali- ration that more nunierous d a h arc requircd froni larger animals studied ovcr ,longer pcriods of h i e . Currcnt interest centcrs on thcsc larger cxpcri- mcntal efforts. .

Studies with injcctcd plutonium in bcaglc dogs. initiated at the University of Utah in 1952. wcre cxpandcd i n thc 1960's to includc niorc animals at lowcr exposure Icvcls. and to includc animals exposed to otbcr transuraniuni elcmcnts (5). Studies at Batfcllc's Pacific North- west Laboratorics, Richland, Washing- ton, on the long-term effects of inhaled plutonium dioxide, involving an initial -65 dogs exposed in the late 19SO's, wcre expandcd in 1970 and 1971 to include a n additional 120 dogs exposcd to lowcr doses of polydispcrse aerosols of "OPuO... and 120 more dogs arc currently being exposed to '38Pu02 (6). Coordinated with this effort is a study of inhaled monodisperse plutonium aerosols in beaglcs at the Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research in Albuquerque, New Mcxico (7). A third part of this effort is under way at the Los Alamos Scientific Labo- ratory where different numbers of micro- spherical particlcs containing different amounts of 218Pu and x9Pu arc dcposited in the lung capillaries of hamsters (8). The practical occupafional problem of plutonium-contaminatcd wounds is bcing studied in beagles at Colorado State University ( 9 ) . Of special interest is thc continued

surveillance of human beings who have been exposed occupationally to Pluto- nium during thc past ncarly 30 years. This activity. undcr thc title of thc U.S. Transuranium Registry. is Coordinated by thc Sianford Environnicntal Hcnlth Foundation with thc coopcration of Battcllc's Pacific Northwot Lnboratorics nnd Los hlanios Scicntific Laboratory and with data bcinr: supplicd by othcr - .. participating laborntorics (10) .

716

In this brief historical survcy we have neglectcd many smallcr projccts as wcll as substantial contributions from othcr countries. Studics in thc Unitcd King- dom havc bccn closcly coordinafcd with cfforfs in thc Unitcd Statcs and have madc significant contributions, particularly in rcgard to plulonium binding at thc niolccular lcvcl in blood and bone. Frcnch and Russian rcscarch cBoris havc bccn substantial and arc becoming more widcly known, as is also n growing effort by the Germans and Japanese ( I ) .

Routes to Mnn

Plutonium has found its way to man, in readily measurablc quantities, only through occupational exposure, whcre the rcute is usually direct-by ingcs- tion. inhalation, or by way of a Pluto- nium-contaminated wound. These direct routes of entry will be considcrcd first; the possibilities for plutonium reaching man through a more gencral contamination of his environment wilt thcn be examined.

Alpha radiation from plutonium on the skin surface does not pcnctrafe 10 the sensitive basal layer of the epithc- lium. Absorption of plutonium through {he skin occurs only to a very slight degree, and probably only whcn thc skin is damagcd ( I J ) . Ingested plutonium is poorly absorbcd from the gastrointcstinal tract; only 0.002 pcrccnt of a 0.01N nitric acid solution of plutonium(1V) nitratc was absorbcd whcn fed lo rats and pigs (JZ). Infrcqucntly cncountcrcd chemical forms may bc absorbcd to a grcntcr extcnt. A fcw tenths of a pcrccnt of ingcstcd plutonium citratc is abborbcd; up to 2 pcrccnt of hcxavalcnt plutonium corn- pounds or chclntc coniplcxcs may bc absorbcd (13). Very young rats show an cnhanccd gnstrointcstinnl absorption of pluloniuni; 0.25 pcrccnt for

plutonium nitrntc in I-day-old. rab (14). Thc human infant might be cxpcctcd to show lcrs cnhnnccmcnt of absorption, since his intcstine is more fully dcvclopcd at birth than is that of thc rat.

Inhalation is a more probable rautc of significant plutonium c'cposition in man, CIS borne out by cxpcricncc in tCc nuclcar industry ( I S ) . Thc fraction of inhalcd plutonium that.will bc dcpositcd and rctaincd in the lung will dcpcnd in a complcx mmncr upon the physical and chcniical propcrtics of thc spccific matcrial inhalcd, and upon Ihc rcspiratory charac!cr;stics of thc pcnon who inhalcs thc plutonium. Plutonium acrodynamically capablc of reaching thc alvcolnr rcgions of thc lung will bc largcly rctaincd in thc lung or systcmically rcdihtributcd within the body.

Entry of plutonium ihrough wounds has occurrcd in industry. Dcpcnding upon thc nature and quantity of plutonium dcpositcd and thc location of thc wound, thc plutonium may bc sloughcd off with damagcd tissuc, accumulate in regional lymph nodcs, be largcly trans- located !o othcr tissues, or remain in situ.

Plutonium docs not easily pcnctnte physiologic membranes. Its limited biological transportability makcs plutonium a poor candidate for accumulation along environrncntal food c h i n pathways. The absorption of plutonium from soil through the root system of plants is vcry limited. Discrimin3tion factors (concentrntion-in-plent/concentration-in-soil) are of the order of IO-' to (16). If thc plant is eaten by man, less than 10-4 of thc plutocium is absorbed from thc intcstine (12): or if first caten by an animal, which is in turn consunled by man, two gasvo- intestinal absorption factors of lo-' must be applied.

If plutonium is to reach man via environmcntal routes. physical transpoR seem; more likely than biological transport. Thus, plutonium in the soil might bc rcouspcndcd and either dcpositcd on food or dirccfly inh.alcd by man. Graz- ing animals, inhaling ncar soil level. might bc particularly pronc to such up- takc of rcsuspcndcd plutonium. The many complex vnriablcs involved in such physical redistribution of cnviron- nienfel piutoniunl tvould sccni to defy pnranictric cvnluation. Sonic information has bscn obfaincd, hcrwcvcr. from thc obscrvntion of actunl cxpnsurc situations following ficld tcsts or nccidunts involving pluloniuiii. Jnckr:ibhits in-

SCILNCII. VOL. 182.

V.8-71

' two rind will bc translocntcd principally . to bonc and livcr. lnhalcd "insolublc"

. plutoniuni will bc rctaincd much longcr ' in thc lung and will hc translocatcd

principally to lymph nodcs draining thc pulmonary rcgion. l'luloniun\ is hctcro- gcncously distribufcd in thc lung and in lynrph nodcs. with a corrcspondingly nonuniform distribution of radiation dosc.

Woioid-sites atid regional lytttph trodcs. "Solublc" plu~onium compounds, injcctcd intraniuscularly in rats, may move quite slowly but arc eventually translocatcd Io bonc and livcr (24, 26). Howcvcr, plu~oiiium metal implanted subcutancously in rats and rabbits was absorbed only to a niaxinwm of 1.2 percent during thc subscqucnt lifc-span of Ihc animals (27). Scvcn days aflcr intradermal injcclion of miniaturc rwinc with plutonium nilratc in 0.2N nitric acid, 12 pcrccnt of thc dosc was prcscnt in rcgional lymph nodes, 7 pcrccnt in livcr, and 5 pcrccnt in bonc (26). In bcaglcs with air-oxidized plutonium implantcd subcutaneously in a paw, 17 pcrccnt of the activity had moved within a year to thc proximal lymph node; during this samc period. only about 0.1 pcrccnt had translocatcd to skclcton and about thc samc amount to livcr ( 9 ) . Bccausc of the unccrtain but potcntially hazardous conscqucnccs of . plutonium-contaminated wounds, such wounds, whcn ' thcy occur in human beings, are very thoroughly cleansed and the tissue surrounding the wound may be excised.

via the blood. Plutonium will rcach the blood by absorption from the lung, the gastrointcstinal tract, or a puncturc wound. Much of thc data on the bchavior of plutonium in animals has come from studies in which plutonium was injected directly into the blood- stream. This difTercncc must bc kcpt in mind. As previously notcd, plutonium is prone to hydrolyze at physiological pH. Such "polymeric plutonium." whcn injcctcd, is rapidly lost from thc blood and dcpositcd primarily in liver; monomcric plutonium (com- plcxcd by citratc or somc physiologic n p n t ) is morc slowly lost-from blood and is morc rcidily dcpositcd in bonc (29). Thc retention of plutonium citratc

in the circulating blood of scvcral spccics, including man, is shown in Fig. 3. Plutonium in blood is associatcd with the iron-binding protcin. transfcrrin (30) ; thc stability of this complcx cx-

Systernic distribrrtion of plutonium

n a -

Tahlr I . Conccntrntion of plutonium In ti$wpI InLrn nl ni i t rqvy Ii,,ni n humnn brinr: c r p o d occupnlionally l o tho tlrrnrni. [Dnta tram &'chon ct d. (Z.C)]

Pluloniwn Tirsuc (picocuricf

m m ) Lymph nodrr

Carina 61 Intrapulrnonnty 20 Hrlnr 12 tlcpatic 1 0.18

Plcurn ond subpleurn 0.52 Pxcnchyrnn 0.009

Lumbar vertcbrm 0.34 f i b 0.10 Livcr 0.04

LMng

Other

plains the long timc that plctonium remains in blood.

Livcr. About onc-third of infravc- nously injcctcd plutonium citratc is dcpositcd in thc livcr of bcaglcs ( 3 1 ) . This plutonium i s initially dcpositcd quite uniformly in thc hcpatic cclls ( 3 2 ) . Within thcsc cclls ,it is associatcd with thc iron-binding protcin. fcrritin, and is accumulatcd in lysosomcs. Ovcr 3 pcriod of ycars thcrc is a tendcncy for agzrcgation of plutonium within rc- ticulocndo!hclial cclls and for comprcs- sion of thc oldcr, plutonium-ladcn cclls by rcgcncrating arcas of fhc livcr ( 3 2 ) . During thc first 1000 days aftcr injcction, any loss of plutonium from thc livcr sccms to bc balanccd by an sinput of plutonium translocatcd from bone. Beyond 1000 days, thc amount of plutonium in the liver decreases with a

100

al

0 U

0

U

n o Human being

- .- .c IO - 0

E

.- '2 LO

-3 0

0 - - m - a 2 .- " c .- I?

0.1 0 I 10 15 20 25 30 I5

Days a l t e r Injection

Fig. 3. Rctcnlion of plutonium in the blood nftcr i n t r n v c n o u s 'iiriccrion of plutonium. ( I V ) citrntc. [Modificcl from Durbin (4))

half-tirnc of about 8 ycars (31) . h s c d on cxtrapolntion of d:ita from scvcrnl an imal spccics. a hsl[-timc of 40 ycais has bccn c\tinia!cd for thc rctcntion of plutonium in thc livcr of man (24).

Doric. Plirloniurn circirl~ting in blood as a transferrin complcx is prcfcrcn- tially dcpositcd on thc cndos tcd surfaces of bonc whcrc i t is in a good posilion to irradiafc tlic cclls which arc thc prc- sunicd sitcs of canccr induction (33). Dcpcnding upon thc ratc ol growth and rcmodcling of thc parlicular bonc, plutonium may rcniain on f h c bonc surface, it may bc buricd by apposition of ncw bonc, or it niay bc conccnfratcd in osteoclasts involvcd in bonc rcsorption. Plutonium frccd Troll) thc bonc surface is collccfcd in macrophagcs which mi-

'gratc through thc bonc marrow (34). Bccausc of its migration to less scnsitivc sites, thc critical pcriod for cxposurc lo bonc-dcpositcd pluroqium may bc a limitcd onc and may bc much shorter in thc young. growing animal than in thc aduli. An autoradiogram illustrating thc dcposition of plulonium in bone is shown in Fig. 4. .

Mcasilrcd half-timcs for gross rctcntion of plutonium in bonc havc ranged from about a year in mice, to scvcral ycars in rats and rabbits, and to more than IO ycars in dogs (24, 2 6 ) . A half- time of 100 ycars has been estimatcd for retention of plutonium in the skcle- ton of man ( 2 4 ) .

Other risnrrs. Tissue other than liver and bonc account for abcut 10 percent of thc total plutonium in man 1 year artcr intravcnous injcction of plutonium citratc, according to the rathcr meager data obtrincd from human bcings ( 4 ) . Studics in scvcral animal spccics havc givcn no indication, howcvcr, that tissues olher than livcr. bonc. and lung accumulatc sufficient plutonium io be of critical conccrn ( 2 6 ) .

Excretioti. Probably thc most extcn- sive Qiological data on plutonium are those rtlatcd to its cncrction in urinc and fcccs. This is bccausc analysis of cxcrcta is the most scnsitivc indicator. and in many cascs thc only indicator. of thc prcscncc of plu:oniimi in thc body. In thc cvnluatioii of human sys- tcnlic dcposition of plutoniuni, thc following equation has usunlly bccn cmploycd:

Initial intake =

whcrc t is the timc in days sincc intake (3). Total cscrction is cstinratcd to bc nbout 5 pcrccnt during thc first 20 Jays

SCII!NCII. VOL. I S 1

dnily urinary cscrction/0.002 I-."

after injection. a h w t IO pcreent by 2 yean altcr iiijc~tioii, about 19 ] IC~CCIII by 20 ycan after illjestion. and 22 pcr- ccnl aftcr 40 y c a n (4). Plutoniunr boJy hurtleiis cstinintcd from urinary cxcrclion data cannot bc considcrcd to k vcry pwcisc, . . . .

Biolofiicnl EITccts

No spccific ph)sicai injury to 0ian ' h s hccn shocvir to bc causcd by plutoniuni csposurc. hlany workcrs cxposcd to plutoniuni havc bccn grk t ly inconvcnicnccd-cvcn paincd-by thc countcrnrcasurcs takcn to avoid possiblc cRcclc, and a ccrtain aniouiit of psych+

.logical trauma has undoubtcdly; OC-

a r r c d . It must also bc acknowlcdgcd that thc cirlifst cxposurcs of. human k i n g s to plo..niuni occurrcd lcss than 30.ycars aga':.nd thc latciit pcriod for monifcstaiiod~i'd possiblc carciiiogcnic cflccls is cxpcdcd to be lo11g. Thc U.S. ' f r~nsurani~~ ' ,~~cgistry was cstablislhd in 1965 to rnkiiniirc the-biological and mcdical inbr::iation obtainablc from cxboscd w o ~ h r r s (10) . Sonic 3000 prcscnt or fui,ncr cniployccs of thc major AEC . I.rboratorics havc given pcrmission for, rclcasc of thcir nicdical and hcalth physics records and ncarly one-fourth of thcsc hnvc alithorizcd autopsy. Thc accumulation of data in this prograni will bc slow and costly. but thcsc data arc our only sourcc of information on thc posJiblc cffccts of plutonium in human bcings. Wc must currcnlly rcly on animal

studics for all information on thc bio- bgical cffccts of plutonium. Thc acutc toxicity of injcctcd plutonium is duc primarily to dcstmctive cffccts on thc hematopoietic systcm rcsulting from irradiation of the bonc marrow by plutonium dcpositcd on bone surfaccs, or rclcascd from bonc into thc marrow. At lower doses of plutonium, effects on blood cells arc notcd but thcsc arc Bot responsible for the dcath of the animal. Thus, bcaglcs injectcd with 0.1 microcurie of plutonium per kilogram show only a marginal Icuko- .penis, and no hcmatopoictic cllccts are obscncd with injcctions of 0.016 mi- - crocuric per kilogram. With this lattcr d a e . onc-third of thc animals that dicd had plutonium-induccd ostcosarcoma (35). Lcukcniia or othcr hcmatopoictic neoplasia do not sccni to bc induccd by plutonium.

T h e most scnsitivc indcx of pluto- aium toxicity in bonc is thc induction 1 m R U A R Y 1914

V.8-72

- AL.Ld. .

Fig. 4. Autoradiograph showing dcpo\i[ion of pluloniuni on thc surfacc of a bonc rpiculc of a bcnglc. 1 day aficr injcc- [ion of plutonium(1V) citrate. [Courtcsy of w. s. s. .lee]

of ostcosarcomi. In Table 2 arc shown thc data on bone tumor incidcncc in thc bcaglcs studicd at thc Univcr- sity of Utah (36). Thc incidcncc of bonc sarconia is high in all groups of dogs for whom complctc data arc available. With dccrcasing dosc the time to tumor appcarancc incrcascs. Grcat intcrcst ccntcrs on thc dogs in thc lower dosc groups, injcctcd in the latcr part of the cxpcrimcnt, and only now approaching thc point whcn thcy might bc cxpcctcd to dcvclop tumors.

Studics in rodcnts havc also indicatcd ostcosarcoma as thc most scnsitivc effcct of plutonium injection (37, 38). In studics of many hundreds of rats, Russian workers havc rcportcd ostcosarcoma induction aftcr inhalation, in- tratracheal, subcutaneous. intracutane-

ous. iiitr;ipcritonc;il, or oral dniiiiktra- lion ( 3 9 ) . Uy d l of thcsc routcx, bonc

.x?rconins wcrc iiiduccd whcn thc avcragc radiation closcs in bonc wcrc as low as 30 to 70 rads ( 4 0 ) . Prom thoc data, and a\suming a tinic indcpcndcnt linear dosc-rcsponsc rcl;itionship, Mays and Lloyd (.?S) havc calculalcd a n in- crcnscd oslcosarconia incidcncc of 0.38 pcrccnt pcr rad for bcnglcs, 0.10 pcrccnt pcr rad'for niicc, aiid 0.06 pcrccnt pcr rad for rats. Thcsc nunibcrs, it should bc cmpliasizcd. rclatc to thc avcragc rad dosc to thc total bonc; tumor- scnsitivc bonc surfaccs may rcccivc a dosc 20 timcs highcr than this avcragc dosc (5).

Of niorc intcrcsl than: absolute incidcncc f iyrcs is thc findiiig in the Utah studics that plutonium-~39 is fivc to Icn tinics niorc toxic than radium-226 on thc basis of thc samc total cncrgy dclivcrcd to bonc ( 5 ) . This diffcrcncc is attributablc to thc morc hazardous localization of plutoniuni on bonc surfaces. Thc surfacc-to-volumc ratio in trabccular bonc of man is about half that in thc bcaglc. Since plutonium is dcpositcd initially on bonc surfaccs, its conccntration at thcsc surfaccs in man, rclativc to thc avcragc conccntration in total bonc, should-bc twice that in thc dog. Thc ratc at which surfacc dc- posits bccamc buricd by apposition of ncw bonc in the 1.5-ycar-old dogs of thc Utah study was probably tcn tinics that to be cxpcctcd in adult man. Both of thcsc factors would suggcst a grcater toxicity of plutonium-rclativc to radium-in nian than in thc dog (41) .

Thc comparison with radium is important bccausc of thc abundancc of data on thc toxicity of radium in human bcings. Thcsc data scrvc as thc basis for all cvaluations of thc hazards of intcrnally dcpositcd bonc-sccking radioactive elcnicnts in human bcings. The grcater hazard of plutonium is

Table 2 Induction of bone sarcomas in beagles injected with mPu. [Data from Jcc (3611

h a u n t Dog wich snrcomas . -. . - .. .

Mean timc from Rads io skeleton*

injcctcd DO5 Sarcomar/ exposure io

death Ivcnn) (microcurie/ (No.) dcaths kilogram) ._ - .

2.9 . 9 119 4.1 d a m 0.9 1 12 iiji2 0.30 12 12/12 0.095 I2 10/12 0.0411 13 9/13 0.016t 13 4/12

-.- 3.6 4.5 1.2 8.5

_."" 1300 600 310 190

v. 8- 73

, . - _ . ricognizcd in ICl1P calculations -by a “noiiiiniform di~tribution factor” of 5. a nuiiibcr which is nppnrciitly not ovcr- conrcrvntivc.

Thc aciitc and chronic toxic syn- dronicr for inhalcd plutonium havc hccn well dcfinsd in rodcnts and dogs (I, 6. 23, 26). Lynipliopcnia is thc carlicst rcspontc sccn in animals aftcr inhalation of PuO, and occurs in dogs with iota! lung dcpositions as low, as 0.2 to 1 niicrocuric (6). Figurc 5 shows data from thc study of inhalcd ‘”PiuO, in bcaglcs, conductcd at Pacific North- west Laboratorics (6). Forty of the dogs dicd bctwccn 5 5 and 200 days aftcr cxposurc bccausc of plutonium-induced pulnionary insuflicicncy. Twenty-two dogs that survivcd morc than 1600 days had malignant lung tumors. Thc cstimatcd initial alvcolar dcposition in the dogs with lung tunion was 0.2 to 3.3 niicrocurics or 0.003 to 0.05 microcurie pcr gram of bloodlcss lung. Xlcta- stasis occurrcd to thoracic lymph nodcs and to many systcmic organs, but no primary tumors wcrc sccn in lymphatic tissuc.

The da t i in Fig. 5 arc dificult to interpret bccausc thc incidence of lung tumors was csscntially 100 pcrccnt at the lowcst dosc of inhalcd PuO, tcstcd. Therc is, howcvcr. a gradation of hazard with dosc in tcrms of survival rimc. If wc cxtrapolatc thc curve in Fig. 5 IO thc Iifc cxpcctancy of thc beagle. we might concludc that a dosc of more than 1 nanocuric per g a m could causc premature dcath duc lo a lung tumor. The extrapolation is very uncertain, however.

Data from a number of studies in rats also point to lung cancer as thc most sensitive manifestation of inhalcd PuO, (6). In rats exposed by inhalation to niorc solublc forms of plutonium, ostcosarcomas wcrc sccn. as well as lung tumors (39).

The tissuc affcctcd ,by the ncoplastic process will dcpcnd on the routc of entry and the form of plutonium involved. Inhaled insoluble plutonium will niost probably rcsult in lung tumors; inhalcd solublc plutoniuni ,may produce both lung and bonc tunion: systcmically dcpositcd plutonium will most probably producc bonc tumon

Countermeasures for Iiitcrnnlly Drporifcd Plutonium

Dccnu\c Inininn hcings cnn bc con- tarninntcd with plutonirlni. and bccnusc of i t \ toxicity in cxpcriii1cnt;il niiininls,

thcrc has bccn n continuiny. cllort & dcvclop coiintcrnicnwrcs for trcntnicnt or coiit:iniinnfcrl iiiclivithinls. Dy far flic niost cffcctivc of tlicsc proccdurcs tins bccn tlic surgical rcnioval of tissucs ndjnccnt to contaniinatcd wounds. For thc rcnioval of systcniically distributcd plutonium. thc only clinically approvcd proccdurc is that involving ndniinistra- tion of the chclating agcnt, dicthylcnc- triamincpcntaacitic acid (DTPA). Thc DTPA forms a vcry stablc chclntc coniplcx with phitoniiim which is thcn cx- crctcd in urinc ( 4 2 ) .

Scvcral hundred ~ C O P I C have bccn trcatcd with DTPA following incidcnts of plutonium contamination; thc DTPA is usually adniinistcrcd by a scrics of intravcnous injcctions or by inhalation. Rcnioval of about SO pcrccnt of the plutonium that would othcnvisc bc rctaincd is probably an cxccptionally good rcsult (43). Much bcttcr rcsults arc obtaincd in animal cxpcrimcnts, whcrc larger DTPA doscs can be cmploycd and the timing of trcatment optimizcd ( 4 4 ) .

Inhalcd, insoluble plutonium is not clfcctivcly mobilized by DTPA trcat- mcnt, nor by a widc variety of physio- logicnlly activc materials that havc bccn tcstcd ( 4 2 ) . Pulmonary lavagc-irriga- tion of thc lung with physiological sa- line solution-has rcmovcd as much as SO pcrccnt of thc plutonium dcposited in lungs of rau. dogs, and ba- boons ( 4 2 ) ; when uscd in one human being with lung-dcposited plutonium, thcrc was evidence of some plutonium rcmoval (7). .

Evaluation of H a r t & and Exposure Limik

n e ’ first attempt to evaluate the hazardous effects of plutonium in man and to cstablish cxposurc limits was made in 1944. On the basis of thc ac- ccptcd pcrniissiblc body burdcn of 100 nanocurics for radium. and with the muniption of equivalent toxicity for cqual energy dcposition by radium and plutonium. a value of 300 nanocurics was dcrivcd is 3 pcrniissiblc body burden of plutonium. A s cspcrinicntal evidence on plutonium toxicity w u accumulated. this early limit was revised downward until. in 1949, a confcrcncc bctwccn Dritish. Canadian, and Anicri- can rcprcscntntivcs at Chalk Rivcr, On- tario. initiated discussions that led to an iiitcrnntioii;illy ncccptcd pcrniissihlc hody biirdcii of 40 nanociirics. l h i s v;~hic for riccrrprt/iorinl c.~~ii~.vrtrc \vas

siibwlilcnily ndoptcd by both thc ICi:.l’ nnd thc Nntion;il Council on Rndi;ltion Prntcction (NCKI’) ;tnd has pcrsihtcd to thc prcscnt day ( 8 ) .

Thc 40-nanocuric limit for plutonium, as originally dcrivcd, was bascd upon thrcc major asumptions: ( i ) tha t coniparison with the limit of 100 nanocurics for radium is Zcccptablc a s a standard; (ii) that bonc, which is thc critical organ for radium, may also bc considcrcd thc critical organ for plutoniuni: and ( i i i ) that comparative cffccts of radium and plutonium on thc bonc of animals can bc meaningfully cxtrapolatcd to man. An evaluation of the 100-nanocuric limit for 22ORa would bc bcyond thc scopc of this articlc. Suficc i t to say that no radiation cxposurc limit is bcttcr supportcd by human data on dose-cllcct relationships than thc limit of 100 nanocurics for radium ( 4 5 ) .

With rcgnrd to the sccond a m - p - tion, it is clcar from animal studics :;-it bonc cannot bc always considered ~c critical organ for plutonium. The cxposurc of livcr. lung. and lymph nodcs must also be considered. In thc case of bone, whcrc compari-

son with radium is Icgirinialc, can the comparativc cllccts mcasurcd in animals bc cxtrapolatcd to man? The ICRP and NCRP assumc ; h t plutonium is five timcs morc hazardous th-n r:.dium, because of its morc hazardou; Ic- calization in bonc. Rcsults from do2 studics at thc University of Utah i;di- catc that this factor falls in the r z q of S to 10. There is rcason to bclicvc that the factor would be higher in man. bccausc of man’s lower bone surface ?ea iclativc to total bonc volumc, and bccausc of man3 slowcr turnovcr of plutonium from bonc surfaces. From this Iinc of rcasoning one would concludc that thc 40-nanocuric limit for plutonium i s scvcralfold “less safc” for bonc than thc 100-nanocuric liniit for raditini.

Comparison with radium is not ap prcrprinte when the critical orgin is other than bone. In the case of lung. if onc follows thc customnry apprc3cS of limiting cu;upiticnd;y in:urrcd ndiation dLws 10 15 rr‘m (GJ) pcr y r x , the mxxiniiini Fcrr.iiss3S:c lung d s y s i t becomes 16 nanosurics. or 0.016 nanocuric pcr gram of lung. This conccntration may bc coniparcd with a lcvel of I nanocuric pcr grain of lung. which sccnis not t o sliortcii the survival tinic of n hc;iglc dog (Fis. 5 ) . The iii;irsin of s t f s t y is less t1i:iii tot;illy wasstirins h i u i i w of ilic ; i l~so~icc of clatn for

SClliNCR, VOL. 1115

V.8-74

fi+iira tti mi.ikr aiiioiihts tic ptuta- phini.

X I one w r c to limit the lymph nods Jose to 13 rcni pcr year. ;i nii ich mora mtriclive liniit \vouId ha dcrivcd th;in I ~ I biisrd QII d ~ s c IO hliig. Such a limit has not hccn applied, on tllc gmunJs t1i;it ;iiiiiii.il cspcrinxnts do not indicate tlint lyiiiph nodes arc tlic critical tissue.

If nnc w r c t o liniit tlic dosc to 1700 g n n u of liwr to IS rem 1xr year, tlic prm,issihlc liver burden \ v o ~ ~ l d bu 17 rwnocurics. \vhicli. dcpcliding upon thc mute hy which plutonium rcachcg. thc livcr. might correspond to a totai gody burdcn of 50 to ZOO nanocurics. a h i i t tor restrictive than thc prcscnt limit bawd on bone.

Thcsc spcculations only hint a i .the conlplcsity of thc problcni. We havc not considcrcd the ncccssity lo limit daily. wcckly, or annual intake so that the occuniulalion of plutonium ovcr Efctimc is kcpt within acccptablc limits; nor thc distinction to bc niadc bctwccn ocq~pational csposurc and cxposurc of thc pncra l population. A major prob- Lm is the basic contradiction of a systcm that cvaluatcs hazard in tcrms of average ndiation dosc to an organ, whcn we know that this dosc is very mnuniformly distributcd within tho organ. Unfortunarcly. we do not yct know cnough about the prccisc distribution of dosc, or the cficct of very high doscs to vcry small volumcs of tis- cue, to handle the problom in any othcr way.

It should be notcd that coniniittcc .of thc ICRP and NCKP arc continually rcvicwing permissible cxposurc Emits for plutonium and other radio

&csc committccs; it is our persona l ouclidez. We arc membcrs of bot

rim that plutonium cxposurc limits will bc changcd within thc next fcw yean, in thc direction of tightcncd control-that .is. lowered permissible cxposurcs; but that thc change probably will not bc large.

The Future of Bionicdical Research on Plutonium

Having notcd in the introduction to thit article that probably morc is now known about thc toxicology of plutonium than about most othcr clcmcnts, it might bc logical for us to concludc that futurc cfforis should . bc dcvotcd to lcss wcll understood clcnicnts. Such a conclusion would, indccd. bc justified if plutonium wcrc a problcni for a fcw

/

FEBRUARY 1914

= Ilk--‘ “LJ im 1m Moo

Survivrl lune ( d r y s rf lrr2aposure)

Fig. 5. Survival linic of be:tglcs as a function of PuOa deposition in the lung. [Data from Park cf nl. ( 6 ) ]

thousand workcn cniploycd i n a carc- fully controllcd nuclcar industry-thc situation which has prcvailcd for thc past 25 ycnrs. This is not. howcvcr. thc prospcct for thc futurc. which has bccn toutcd as thc “Plutoniuni Agc“-an pgc whcn most of our cncrgy will bc dcrivcd from plutonium. an agc whcn tcns of thousands of pcoplc may bc w,ilking our strccts with cardiac assist dcviccs powcrcd 6y -IXPu, an agc whcn niillions of curics of plutonium wastcs will havc to bc kcpt from contact with man for futurc hundrcds of thousands of ycars ( 6 ) . If thcsc arc thc prospccts, it bchoovcs US 10 sparc no cfiorts in our pursuit of inforniation on thc bchavior of plutonium in man and ’his cnviron- mcnt.

Priority must bc given to thc intensive follow-up of pcrsons known to havc bccn cxposcd to sig!iificant amounts of plutonium. Only from thcsc pcrsons can wc obtain direct inforniation on possiblc clTccts of plutonium in man. Wc should also takc advantage of accidentally cxposcd cnvironnicnts to lcarn all wc can, in a real-life situation, about the niovcmcnt of plutonium in the bio- sphcrc.

More data on’ toxicity arc rcquircd from studics of animals cxposcd to the lowcr amounts of plutoniuni that approach thosc now considcrcd safc for man; such data arc nccdcd for P widcr varicty of plutonium isotopcs and compounds. Wc arc too dcpcndcnt upon data from rodcnts and bcaglcs which may-and in a11 likelihood do-posscss pccularitics in thcir handling of plutonium that arc not sharcd by man; comparativc studics in othcr spccics should bc undcrtakcn. It must bc rccog- nizcd, howcvcr, that wc can ncvcr coi- lcct cl)ough d;ita 011 obvxvcd crCccts ia miin or nniiiials to bc coiili&ilt tli;lt significant ctTectr will not occur in an

~\pt)zccl ptipitl,tlitiii IiiiIiiIicrcd i n hil- lions. Such coiifidcncc c;in conic only .froin a i l iindcrb1:inding of tlic niccha- nisnis iiivolvcd i n t tmor induction, which could ;illow us to prcdict thc re kit ionsli i p bctwccn c;Inccr i ncidcncc and dosc. and wlicthcr tlicrc is, indccd. a tlircsliold dosc bclow which no cflccts will occur.

Thc cntircly propcr conccrn now cx- prcsscd in ni;iiiy qiiaricrs for thc toxicity ol plutonium. and of othcr potcntinl radioactivc contaiiiiii;ints of our futurc cnvironnicnt. is no doubt niagnificd by thc uniisuiil propcrtics of thcsc matcrials that arc prcscnt in such small quantities, SO invisiblc and mystcrious in thcir ection. wliilc at thc .same tinic so rcadily dctcctablc. This same combination of widcsprcad conccrn. scicntific acccssibility. and small bulk. should provc uniqucly advanlagcous for thcir futurc control. Thc kcy to this control is grcatcr kiiowlcdgc-knocvlcd:c t l m must bc acquircd bcforc its application hccomcs critical.

Rchlrncci and Notca

1. For a niorc cxlcnrive 1rc.rtmcnl nl this whieci. ’ SCC: R . C. Thompson and \V. 1. Dnir. Cds..

Prorrrrlinpr ol rhr llmtlord Swtpvtiwu ,,n rhr Oioluriral lrrrpliroriorrr nl rhr Trmi wro-

, tiitus Blrnirnrr. Kiclolw~d, IVecALi~ror~ . 1971. puhli3hcd in llralrl! l%pJ. 12, 511 11972): D. J . Siovcr and W. S. 5. Jec. EA.. Radiobiol-

City. Uiah, 1972): J, N. Stannard. Ed.. I lnnrl - look nl &,rprrliiim~ral Pharntarolopy. Ura- n i rm. rlwo,ti#t#t8 and rhc Trnnr-Plsronrc &IC-

UEY 01 I’ir,rot,it,t,t (1. w. rrcTr. s:lit L J ~ C

nrcnrr. in prcss. 2. I. C. Hamilton. R~diolo#y 49, 325 (1947); K .

0. SCOII. D. 1. Axclrod. 11. Fnhcr. 1. F. Crowlcy..J. G. Hamilion. .I. D i d . Cl#r;u. i i6 ; 2113 (1948); K. G. Scott. D. AXC~IO~. J. Crow- Icy. 1. G. Ilanlillon. Arch. Porhol. 48. I1 (1949); M. A. Bloom and W. Bloom. i b d . 47. 494 (1949); J. Carrill. R . Fryncll. 1. Klcinschmidl, It. Klc;itsclimidt. \V. Lancham. A. San Pielro. R. SchalTcr. B. Schnap. 1. Diol. C h o ~ . 171. 273 (1947).

3. W. 11. Lnnghain. Aim. Ind. H?r. A.mor. Q. 17.

1. P. \V. Durbin. in Rndiohiolopy 01 Phrorrittnt. I1. J. Stover an1 W. S. 5. Jcc. EJs. (J. W. PrCrr. Salt Lake City. Utah. 1972). p. 469.

I. C. W. Mays and T. F. Doughcriy. Hcdrb P I w . 22, 193 (1972).

6. J. F. Park, W. 1. Bair. R. H. Busch. lhid.. p. 803.

7. R. 0. McClcllan. ibld.. p. 815. ’ 8. W. I t . Lanebam. ibid.. p. 941. 9. R. L. Wallcrs. and I. L. Lcbel ibld.. p. UI I .

10. 1. A. NOICWS; and C. E. Ncwton. Jr.. ihid..

11. W. I t . Langhnl. ibld. 1, 172 (1959). 12. M. H. Wcckl. 1. Kalz. W. D. OaLlcy. J. E.

301 (1956).

P. W87.

DallOtl. L. A. GCOIFC, L. K. DUslad. R. C.

3.19 (19561. 7hompron. H. A. Kornbcrg. Radior. Res. 4.

11. D. W. Daxicr and M. F. Sullivan. Ilralrh

14. 1. E. Dallou. Proc. Sot. Exp , Bdol. Mrd. 98. ri ,gr. 21. 185 (1972).

126 (1958)

v.0-75

plill. a O:Opi!y,\- ci\: c'n Icavc from the I.EC'; L::r:cncc Lnbr,rn:ory at Livirmorc, Ca1ilo:nia. Tarnplln ;.nd hir-collcag,x John Cofmnn w c i ~ csntml finurcs in t i c radiation s::ndards dchztc of th: :atc !963's t:dt I:d thc AEC IC tlphtcn crnlnicii s:andJrds lor v,atcr-xolcd reactor: cy 3 factor

I?cspitc i t s s m l l s i x , the NRDC bar scored somc or 100.)

E:nvironmentd Group Proposes a 3rnconia.x Answer hcco:ding to a position papci' p rcp i cd by T a q l i n

and SXDC phjsicir: Thcr,iar E. Cochran. picjent s!an- duds sct Ihc niaxim:Jr.? ~crmissibic rad i~t ion dosc to a nuc lcx worker at S reni pi'r yea: to :hc wkolc body or

: 15 rem pcr year to thc lungs. (Tnc rem is 1 unit of Indi- alion dosage; thc lirnil for 3 n>:mbcr si 11:: general public is occ-tenth tile occupat:onal 5:andard.) To receive

. the maximum pcrm:rr;blc 1ur.g burden ( M P L B ) . a worl.er nccd i n h ~ l c oniy 0.016 mic:ocuric of plutor.ium oxide dust, or abou: S3,OOO acrcsol particlci.

Using f i ~u rc r prcseotcd in a 1972 rcpo:t from th.: National hcadcniy 0:' Ssicr.ces on thc biOiOg::31 c!Tccts

'of radiation (Scie,ice. I Dcccmbcr 1972). Tamplin and Cochran cstimatc that thc risk o f canccr f tam S rcm to thc wholc body is I in 1000 and t i n t :hc :i\k o f canccr from 15 rcm to the lungs is I in 300,000 j x f ycar. The Acldcmy's repoit. however. did net dcal with

:hc hot-p~rticlc prob!cm. Cos!iran 2nd Tam?lin conrcnd that. in fact; :hc risk of canccr i r o m such p i t i c ! s is vlrr ly out of pro2or:mn IO the o ~ ~ i a l l dose 1i.c). deliver lo the cnlirc lung. Tti\ hy?othcsis i s b x c J in turn on some rcscaich and a rcvicw of ths rathcr sim:y litc:a- tdrc on tlic siihjcct by 3onald 1'. C.ccsr.mn. thc last o i

0x1: as>i:ncd IO T;,mp!in 31 thc La"- Gcurim.i,: was 1a:wLj oil in a "ralirc- thc l.tba;A;ory 1351 ).car and is now on

Gccsarnm calcuhicd ihr: i f one wcrc :3 inhale thc ollowcd .53,0D0 piutoni,lm p;iri:clcs ( for a n ovcrail iung

'

. '-

'

. the facul!y oi thc Univcrrity of Xiinncrola.

, Cccnm:n mt!:~>>tcd, cariics L risk of bciwccn I In 1000 nrd I in ;O.GOO of cJusinC

cancer; thus the cmiulativc risk frcm t t e masimum aI- lowsd dosc oi hot parttc;cs uauld add u? 10 almost ccr-

on ii thc ncart of thc NRDC'r case for J strict ho:.?ar:~!c standard. and is i k c l y i o prow con1rovC;sial.

Tzm7;in and Cochian ar j i~rar i ly pick a rniddic-ravgc est~n:ate of I in 2GOO as thc r;sk of cjnccr from a ringlc hot plu:onium par tic!^. Thc., ,uggcrt that two such particles-with a toial radioaitiviiy of 0.14 triilionthr of a curie-bc set :I lhc rnasimurn limi: for acctdcntal or routinc rcIcascs of plutonium. for P rcduction by a factor of 115,000 from thc ?icscnt MPLD.

The biological cvidcnic to support this proporal is nicagcr. a poinl Cozhran and Tamplin aclnowlcdgc. Only onc human cmic r casi is clcariy linkcd to plutoniuni cxposuic. :iitliough rcvcral hundred worlcrr haw bccn accidcnr;llly cs;loscd sincc tho 19iOJ: the bcsi of tho fcw animal sludiss ;roduc:d canccr in 20 o i 21 bsagics cxpossd 10 plu!oni:im dust, but aii Ihc dogs. Tamplin no:cs, reccivcd doscs 31 l c w IC0 tinlcs the current standard. on the nssualption th>t nothing would happen at lo\vcr Icvsis. Thc AEC i s supporting ncw bcnplc rludics with much lower ICVCIS of crposure. but lhcy s t i l i have a Ions timc to r i la.

In ihc alxsncc of cauni:iA- sor;xii. ianinc or uthcr- wisc, tlic X!IDC i s I ~ L i l v io c.:countzr the samc rc,ts:- mcc from thc :adiAtisn skr.dArJc cs:.ab!ishmcnt 11121 Isd

V.8-76

,. e A town frets over A E C S radioactive oversights. 1

. BY i ~ i ~ i a r n J. k n o u e t t e . FBOM BROOilFIELD, COU).

‘*If I’d known about that plant In 1969 ’ trliat I know about It now, I’d never have morcd here,” Hank S:ovall said one night ::a: long ago. “I thought thls was a quiet i.’:lC town, with good servlccs. And It Is. i;iU I never realized my family and I’d be tirinking radioactive garbage.”

Stovall, a productlon cneineer and :ather of SIX, was one of about two dozen Broomfield residents who crowded into the basement of the Mamie Doud Eisen- hower Public Library one fall evening to attend a City Councli meeting.

“That plant” is the Rocky Flats Plant. tan Atoniic Energy Commlssion (AEC) fa- clllty that has been run on contract by the Dow Chcmlcal Co., slnee It was built In 1951. I t Is also the source of the town’s contamin.tted water, a fact that Broom- fleld ccddcnts dlscovered In mid- September.

More disconcerilng to some resldents was the‘::liscovery that the AEC didn’t even r c A e tliere was radioactive leak- .age untU the state found it.

Uneasy From the Start The Rocky Flats plant Is the country’s

only AES facllity for processing pluto- nlum, a hlghly toxlc. radioactive substance wlfh a half-life of 24.000 years. (The half-life of a substance is the time requlred for half of its radioactive atoms to disintegrate to a nonradioactive form.) The plant’s 3,000 employes manufacture nuclear $warheads and bomb triggers for the Defenst Department, and they reprocess and wcover the valuable and dangerous plutoiium from the scrap of other AEC facilities.

Broom3eld residents have felt uneasy about Rocky Flats from the beginning because the four-square-mile site runs along the westcrn slde of the town of 13,000 persons. The plant has also given some concern to residents and public Officials ln Boulder. 11 miles north, and in Denver, 8 miles southeast. But a s Broomfield’s City manager, George DiCiero. puts it: “We have the dubious distinction of being hlt flrst by iinything escaping.;’

Tritium in the Wafer .e Broomfield’s d!stinction has been

.earned on niore than a dozen occasions In the past 22 years, although three incidents a re referred to most often by residents. One is a plutonium fire in May 1969 which led to the contamination of several acres of land around the site and caused damage estimated a t between $15 mllllon and $75 million. Another is the accldental release of plutonium waste into Broomfleld’s Great Western Rescrvolr. just east of the plant, in October 1972.

The accldrnt now on everyone’s mlnd, and a principal to2ic of concern a t recent City Council meetings Is the reicase of tritium, a radionctive hydrogen isotope, into 3 e local ariiiking wa:er last cpring.

Broomfield’s problems were first de-

. .

tected by the state health department in Aprll. The department’s monthly water sampllng a t Walnut Crcek, which flows fFom the plant to the rcservoir, rcvcaled abnormally high levels of tritium.

Aceordin: to calculations released by the Dow Chsmical Co. after the tritium spill Was announced, a Broomfieid resident drinking the clty’s water for one year would receive about 2s much radiation as a person flying from Denver to New York, or about one-iifth the radiatlon he would receive from wearin; a radium-dial wrist watch. But some scientists a rc nct reassured by such calculations. noting that the new source of tritium is in addition to other radiation a person recelves. KO Deductions Normal “background” levels of trltium

are about 1,000 picccuries per liter of water.in this part of the country. When state inspectors found levels of 30,OCO plco- Curies on April 24. and 3 million picocuries on May 24, they aleitcd the AEC and Dow of their findings. Rocky Flats personnel replied that they didn’t make or process any tritium a t the plant and couldn’t possibly be the source.

But they were, according to later verlfl- cation by both the state and the AEC. State and Federal officials add, however, that the permissible safety level for trl-

Coping

tium in drinking water was one mliiion picocuries, and the highest level found in the town’s reservoir was 23,000.

Tnese reassumices did little tt cal.7. the residents of Broomfield. Sales of bottled water a t the local Safeway super- market more than quadrupled, and sup plies were sold out for several days after the Sept. 18 annouccement. Demand has fallen somewhat since then, and it is LOW about double what it was in middeptem- ber. “Can I deduct the price of bottled water from my municipal water bill?” one resident quipped. ‘.‘No,” replied a city official, smiling.

“Our first reaction.” DiCiero says, “Was that the AEC shouldn’t be emitting any radioactivity above natural background levels. And if their safety procedures had worked, this situation really shouldn’t have occurred. But the AEC didn’t even know it was re les ing tritium, and ‘wasn’t equipped to test for it. It was the state t h a t first picked it up. The spill occurred in April and May, but it took them until mid-September to confirm tha t there was evcn something wrong. Jus t imagine if it had been a serious discharge. That after-the-fact testing procram just isn‘t good enough.”

Robert Siek, the sta!e’s director of occupational and radiolo~leal health, says: “We were confident thcre was no hcalth hazard to thr people of Broomfield. Our real worry was for the potential of P health hazard that thls Incident showed

us; The trltlum problem w3s an unuscai and UnprcUctable incident, but, it CCE- cerns us very much because if you C ~ Z have one incident you can have another.”

Slck says he believes that the everyday ,operations at Rocky Fln:s are very safe, bat he remains eoticcrncd aSout liz- schcduied aiid undetected rc!eases C: radioactive, waste. AEcther unschcdo!ed release-iast Octobcr-produced plutonicr; levels of 235 picocuries Fer litcr of wa:i-: in Walnut Crcek, just above the reservo:r. The health standard for plutonium :r, drinking water is 1,GOO picocuries. “We’ve also found traces of strcntium 90 acd one classified isotope, but ln sma:i amounts,” he says.

’ The appearance of strontium 90 sur- prised the Rocky Flats personnel tecaus2 their operations don’t routineiy include it. “Untll the tritium episode we cnly analyzed our effluents for plutonium raGio- activity because that’s our bag, that’s what we deal with he,fe.” says AEC spokesman J im Nicks. But now we’re monitoring Walnut creek and the settling ponds dally for all radionuclldes.”

Dow’s Reaction Yet another surprise to the AEC was

the presence oi radioactive contamhan:s -including tritium and strontium 9C-in a landfill off the plant site that wasn’t supposed to contain any nuclear waste. The AEC says it has no explanation for thls situation, Which was discovered by the State after the tritium incident.

To some, the tritium release itself is not as disturbing a s the way the AEC and Dow dealt with it:

v On Sept. 14, four days before ti.? tr:;ium rc:cxc \*:as ?r.nr?unccrl by tke state heaith department. but nearly five months after the department first told DOW it suspected tritium contamination. Dow issued a press release lauding tke company‘s successful “environmentai monitoring program.”

v When presscd for an explanation by Republican ‘Rcp. Donald Broizman, who represents the Broomfie:d area. the AEC‘s Washington headquarters as late a s S e g tember denied any responsibility for tke tritium release.

v Some Koeky Flats officials suggested publicly that the tritium release was the result of sabotage, although r.5 evidence has been citcd.

v Afier a search of records, Rocky Flats officials concluded that the plutonium wastc that contained tritium hzd come from the Lawrence Liverrnxe L a b o r a t o r y in California, and ti.eY blamed that AEC installation for not warz- ing them of this fact. Llvcrmore spo:xs- men said they assumed all the trltium had been removed and thus didn’t boCler W

8

7- --

9

.... ~

V.8-77

!

I

rewrt that the plutonlui~. had once con- city werc biril: on lsndfiii rsn;arr.ina:?d talned It. v ~ i t k cr$niiim-,~!r.o !ailin;sl. If y02':e

I. Rocky Flats v:ould no^ be :oilo:ved at

' The Rocky Fkts PI:ln'., W h k t 3lreodg other AEC Iaciiitks,

! by th? end of lsir;, thc Iaci::::~ 'svill hc stll- I containcd and i t wi!l recsc:? s!! Wastes . - . .. ~. ~~

! and haul them to AT'C l x m l !qrix:s in j other stdtes. 'The AEC :!so 2:nris to buy , 4.070 acres aroiind i?ocky Fiats 1'1 create

'Curnc: Culling' "Anytime yoc k3ve a dull and (!an-

geroiis iob beicx done in :0L31 secrecy; :hc pcople doing tha t ]OD s r e going t o cut corners:* says Metzger.

The Brwmfleld cocncil h a s ' VQted unnnixoiisly to send a l c r w to the AEC de!r.~;.o:zp that the agency bui:d- :hC retcn:iu:i reservoir 3nd divcrt the crc'e): imniedi3tci?. Th2y 3150 asked tbat no ore r.?dioaclive '.vase be r e l excd from the Rocky Flats P13nt.

doli': do something to coriect :h's sil-nt!on thc:. we and Sur kids n l l l cmtinuc 13 drii!X 2nd use th is !v.ntcr. and :,pray it on o x l:i'.vx. And i f thnt gces o n for vcrv Icn: :hen the town of Dioo:x:ield aiid its pco3 :~ w i l l be m W n g innre : h m 3 fii:er plarzi :or :he irSC's r3dioxti':e g a r x z e . I tticlc we've Iinally pu: our foot Cou11. s o w it's up to t?e AEC and DGW to act.'' -~

145 THE ATOMIC ESTADLtSIISlENT

On 51ay 11, 1969, thc most expcnsive single industrial accrdcnt in Amcricm history took place. Even though it was more costly than the great Gcncral hlotors fire at Livonia, Michigan, fifteen years bcfore,2J’ the remarkable fact that the damage caused by the fire could hardly be noticed outside the two buildings in which it occurred attests to its special nature. I t was a plutonium fire, and the problem was not so much dcstruction as it was radioactive contamination.

Dow Chemical’s Rocky Flats atomic plant, locatcd just eight miles uplvind of the densely populated areas of suburban Denver, Colo- rado, is the Atomic Energy Commission’s only facility for the mass production of plutonium parts for atom bombs, now the trigger for the modern thcrmonuclcar wcapon. The importance of this plant, ami thee two buildings in which the firc took place, can be appre-’ ciatcd by the fact that a scrious impact on weapons dclivcry schcd- ulcs and stockpiles would havc occurrcd had the firc taken place a ycar later. According to hlajor General Edward B. Giller, the direc- tcr of the AEC’s Division of Military Applications (and one of the most ablc scientific military oficers in the country), “The fire occurrcd at a particular pcriod in which our rcquiremcnts for deliveries of new devices was at a minimum. . . . If we are unable to get back into production in April, in the spring [of 19701, thcn we will not be able to meet our commitments to the Department of Defense and bur production will indccd ~ l i p . ” ~ 3 ~

of thc AEC, nppointcd a spccial board to investigate. Its report re- cci\cd little publicity, bccausc, by a rerriarkable coiriciderice, it was rclcascd on n’ovcmbcr 18, only hours before the Apollo-12 astro- nauts ldndcd on the moon. But what it said was worth noting.230

The fire bcgan in a “glovcbox” arca where plutonium is ma- chincd. Plutonium, like phosphorous, can igriite sporitaricolrsly and produce the intcnsc heat characteristic of burning metals. The report

\suggests that the source was some loose scrap plutonium which was improperly storcd in uncovered cans under the glovcbox. The glovebox liner itself was made out of six hundred tons of combustible

The day after the fire, Robcrt Hollingsworth, the general manager ‘

(

RADlOXCTlVL W A Y ? - : f l l f MOUSE ?!!,I.? R G A R E 2 :.?P matcriai. The first indication of thc firc was an alarm finally sounded by the hcat-sensing system installcd throughout the buildings. Now- ever, by this time the fire was wcll out of control, bccause the aston- ishing facts are, as the report statcs, that “since the heat detectors were locatcd outside and undcr [the glovebox] and were illsitlured by the floor of the storage cabinet, they were iricapable of sensing the fire.”*

Siniilar industrial installations, subjcct as thcy arc to state, local and insurancc-company fire rcgulations, typically have fireblocks along production lines. Not so for this top-secret installation; the report went on to say: “The long interconnected conveyor system without physical barricrs provided a path for the fire to spread. The closcd mctal door in the North Line demonstrated the effcctiveness of cvcn a simple fircbreak in the line.”

On May 20, an AEC dclcgation, in closed-door tcstimony before

rcstore Rocky Flats to full operation. In rctrospcct, it is tcmpting to spcculate how many of these contributing causes would cvcr have bcen allowcd had a private insurance company instead of thc gcncral public carried the fire risk.

At hearings for extra funds “to eliminate fire and safcty hazards at various AEC installations,” Rcprcscntative Glenn R. David of Wisconsin obscrvcd, “Are we fairly subjcct to the charge of negligence in failing to have some of thcsc basic things at these installations? Nobody would permit operations to go on without firewalls and automatic sprinklcrs and things of this kind unlcss they were undcr the jurisdiction of the federal govcrnment where they can do nothing about it, I suppose.”’*

It was at thcsc same hcarings (over a ycar after the fire) that the AEC finally admitted to the real dangcr that the fire had presented to the public. Describing it as “a near catastrophe,” Gcneral Giller testified that if the fire had burncd through the roof (it didn’t), “then hundreds of square miles could be involved in radiation exposure and involve cleanup at an astronomical cost as well as creating a

Emphasis added.

a Scnate commission, rcquestcd and reccivcd the funds needed to <

f” v 03

150 THE ATOMIC ESTABLISHMENT w r y infen.re r ~ n c h m by ihe geuerul p i r b W exposed to this. . . . If the iirc had been a little bigger, it is qucstionable whether it could have bcen contained.”

Clearly, thcn, this fire was not simply. an accident that could h a p pen anywhere, as Dr. Lloyd hl. Joshel, then Dow’s gcncral manager at Rocky Flats, implied at a meeting in Denver.237 It was caused by the everyday incompetence and negligence inevitably found in any system which polices itself. Joshel, fifty-seven, retired at the end of 1971.su

3.THETROUTFARMER

OF COURSE, newspapcrs all over the country carricd the story. Robert A. Erkins, president of the Snake River Trout Company, the world’s largcst trout farm, received a New York Times clipping io the mail from one of his customers back East.23s Thc story said that for “scvcral months, hundrcds of railroad cars will be carrying from Rocky Flats to thc Snake River plain of eastern Idaho an estimated 330,000 cubic fcet of contaminated waste to be buried below ground by the, Commission’s National Reactor Test Station.”238 The CUS-

tomer was worried that his trout might become contaminated with plutonhm. So was Mr. Erkins.

He wrote a lcttcr to Idaho’s Governor Don W. Samuclson, expressing worry that the Snake Rivcr aquifer (an underground river ,

and the largcst in the country), which fccds the springs that support the statc’s trout farming industry, might bccomc polluted with radioactivity.”O He had reason to worry: it turned out that, the open

. trench which was used for plutonium disposal was separated from the underground aquifer by a layer of basalt rock only six hundred

*EmphviraddsQ

RADIOACTIVE WASTE: THE MOUSE THAT ROARED 151

feet thick, and according to the chief of the Water Pollution Section of the Idaho State Health Department it was “crcvassed and fissured all the way down to the aquifer.”2“ Not only that, but dcep disposal wells are used in Idaho to inject liquid radioactive wastes directly into the aquifer.24a

As usual, AEC assurances werc extravagant. “We have substantial technicnl cxpcricnce. There’s no real or potcntial basis for alarm- ever,” said William F. Ginkel, manager of the AEC‘s Idaho Opcra- tions Office. He went on to say that his operation was “reviewed continually by the Departmcnt of Hcalth, the AEC and people like the National Academy of Science.”?’I Ginkcl thcrcby implied something not true, that thc National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had examined his Idaho opcration and found it safe. Ginkcl never mentioned the fact that the NAS had rcviewed AEC radioactive-waste-

Idaho operation but AEC atom dumps everywhere they existed! disposal practices for years and roundly condemncd not only the <

5” u W

4 THE “SUPPRESSED’ 1966 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

THE EXISTENCE of the NAS reports bccamc known, but nobody outside the AEC could obtain copies (at least one author couldn’t even get a copy for himself).

Idaho’s Senator Frank Church bccamc involved and asked for an indcpcndent federal rcvicw of the AEC’s waste-handling practices in his state. He also asked AEC Chairman Seaborg, “I would apprcciate a report from the AEC explaining why this rcport hns not becn made The unpublicizcd rcport Scnator Church was asking about was the National Academy of Scicnccs Rcport of 1966 (the same one referred to by the AEC‘s Mr. Ginkcl, above).

The AEC‘s official reasons for hiding this information are contained in Seaborg’s r e s p o n ~ 9 ~ ~ and in two unsigned AEC ‘staff

V. 8-80

Tho Atoinic illorgy Comtnisnion id11 hovo t o p r a p n r o m onvironontnl impzct 3tai.ornont on t h o Liquid i i o t n l P 3 t Era !dx- Hmnctor progrim. This was ordnrod by n t h r e a jud[:o c o u r t o f appon l s i n tho 1 l i 3 % r i c t of Co!.utnbia, r o v a r s i n g a lowor courc r u l j n g nnd p r o v i d i n g n iaajor v i c t o r y f o r t h o Scientists' I n s t i t u t o f o r P u b l i c Infonn:ltion, appel l - a n t i n tho c ~ l s o , Tho c o u r t r u l o c l t h a t t h o oxpan3ivo A d C brood r pro6r.m ha3 a l r o a d y pnssod boyorid tho r o s o a r c h s t n g o nnd now r o - q u i r n 3 iihnt may !IO i r r a t r i c v a b l o a l l o c a t i o n of ~ O ~ O U ~ C O S , w h c r o a s ono ~ u r ; > o s o of tho I Ja t iona l !hviromontnl P o l i c y Act, und )r which +.pact s ta tomonts must , bo f i l o d , i s t o promote p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n a t t h o d o c i s j on-mnlting stago, boforo comrriitmcnt t o tochnology that has s e r i o u s onviromontol i m p l i c a t i o n s ; "To w a i t u n t i l o. technology a t t a i n s t h e s t a g e o f coniploto commercial. f o n s i b i l i t y boforo consid :i-Jing t h e p o s s i S l a ndvsrso o n v i r o n o n t j l of 'facts. . . w i l l undoubtodly f r u s t r a t o n! a anin2 f u 1 cons i do r a t i on a n d bal. a n c i n & o f onvi r omcn t a1 c o 3 0 s :> i; a i n s t econonic and o t h a r b a n e f i t s . " k v i r o m c n t July/Aug. 1973

Plutonium c o n c a n t r n t i o n l o v c l s i n a i r around t h o Rocky F\U&s, Colorado plutonium-rocovory plcant a r ? h i g h e r t h a n hnva p r e v i o u s l y basn rapor tod , D r . Edward K n r t o l l n o t e d i n a p q o r d 3 l i v c r o d t o t he Colo. Committoe f o r Ehvironmontnl Informat ion . March 16. P lu toni im i s ono of t h s n o s t t o x i c chonic ,? l s known t o man. M a r t e l l c l a i n c d t h a t o f f s i t e c o n c - n t r a t i o n s of plutonium t h a t "approach nnd oxcood onc ton th o f a p i c o c u r i o p o r pubic motcr." T l i i 3 l o v o l i s h i z h o r t h a n t h o Atonic Enorgy C o m i s s i o n stondard o f .06 p i c o c u r i e p o r cubic n o t a r 3 0 t f o r h a a l t h w d s n f o t g p r o t o c t i o n . In o r d g r t o -a l lovial io plutonium contamins t ion , tho A%C plnns t o r e b u i l d t h o Rocky F l a t s p l ' m t and t o buy up land arouxd 'the ??!,u?t i n an n t t m p t t o oxtznd t h e p r o s e n t b u f f o r zono. !lowover, i . !artcll t o l d 2hvironmznt t h a t housing dov?lopaionts a r o r a p i d l y sx tanding towards t h o b u r f o r zono and t h a t r e s i d e n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y tho38 two t o t h r a s m i l o 3 o a s t o f t h o p l a n t , may be v u l n s r a b l o t o p l u t o n i m c n r r i e d by p r s v a i l i n g winds from t h o west.

EsiJ V I R O N " T A p r i l 1972 ,

q Thursday. (Staff Photo b y AI McLau?hiinl

him from C n i - 0 persons bcinz Lir attacks o:i Cairo suhurhs

s nor!hern dcl-

in sources said States !cas prc- n d a y to rush munition to Is-

itli? said >:gyp- ~ n c h r d Iariher mi peninsula :o ___--

wipe G u t a !!cci:ig cnluni:i 01 :rrarii armor.

.-.:r, rhe naval war, Syria nml I ~ r n e i rcporled ,:,in. I I IC~~IC vrrrions of a battie of[ the Syrian coast. The Grcck Zlerrhant ?Jnr:il~~ Aliiustry said a i Israeli gunbo;u sank one of its ships, klllm,o tv:o Crew.. mrn .

~ : a r ~ v Friday morning. fhe s>ri;in command re. Continurd o n Pago 2. Col. I

IONS

15-Inch Deluge Tops 1040 Mark S e t in Sopulpa

Rr Jon ? X i s Two more bodies IVCN!

found in tiic a\*:;rli~'q t lood- w a t e r s eiiaul:iiig nnrih central Oklahoma Thurs- d,-ay, bringin:: to foiir the n!imbc; Of percmr klll.d

iv?-caonty nrca.

Enid a!onc. All four oi Ihr drad w r e

locared near thcir homes

Full ?age o f Picturcr on Page 6. Othei Pictures and Stories on Pager 4 , I I , 16.

ir. the Brookside nrcn of ___-__

Kay Swartwood and Edgar :'ante I>oniicli, 45.

Searchers round Donnc!l some s:s I>IocI~s froin his home, undnr a anchcrl O u t bridge. Voluiitrrrs froin I'hil!ips Univrrsily located tI!c girl's body nrar her home, but reported no trace of hcr mother. st i l l listed as miss;iiC Th;irsday e v e II i n g. l l c r fnlhcr, J 1 m c s, a n ? reporicdly sarc In il nrigiihor's Iromr.

A11 four killcd in the flonrling wcrr in t h r Xilid a r m when t h orrlral bcgan.

wnsiiIscrcm (AP) - I'rczldont Nxon believes h~ h i s a free hand in cbrmhint: , i ncw vice prcai- dent and rued not continc t~:mscil to selecting :I "cxc ta!xr" witnout 19i6 ~ ~ ~ c s ~ l c : ~ t ~ : ~ l ambitions, \ v h ~ i c I I ~ A S C sources re-

Under the 25th Amend- mcnt lo the Constitution,

ratilicd in 19Ci. i i ixon's noininre m u 1 w i n malnrl- ty a p y w n i from the Ilcm- ocrari': - coiitii1i:ed Scnnte and iloure. Thn: pr.nistnn has prompied Same Con- gress members t o su::cst they should be the Prrsi- dent's partncrs in naming a new vice prcs:dvnt.

One Piixcn asswiatc rni- phasized 1 ii e President lee!s he can act "w!:i!out parameterr." o! any kind and :s seekin:: a "strong man" he a.ouIc1 regard ni wcil-qualified LO rake over the p:e\idency in Ihc event of Xison's death or disabil- ity.

D e p u t y \Vhitr iiouse Press Sccretnry Gerald L. Warren mas nskrd i: X x o n Continued on Pnac 3, Col. 6 _-

ny Ed x< The slate's ~0,1100 school

irachcrs a r e being nskcd to attend next week's S25- a-couple happy birthday gala for Gov. Hall.

Dr. Lcderle Scott, execu- t h e secretary 01 the Okln- homa Education Associn- Lion, saiil tlic OEA is nut involved in the mailing 01 a !r(tler asking lor support of ;he went. Howcvcr, A4r-s. lictly Ward. Gov. Ilnll's et iccatiw liaison of-

Sh<* h.\gc! Srott did not

c h i n * bill s h ~ hasn't Iwrm! tits cnst yrf.

'i'hc tlct. 20 r.it?ip;iicn f u t u I ~ r : ~ l ~ i n ~ ~ cf lnr? I n I t w

mtxnnnery Oklahoma Cily hl y r i a d conrrnlion c m i r r s i l l loi- low by n day the annual OEA conventioii.

F n u r tenciirr-coordinn- tors of the education ccm. miltee lor the gala who signed the letter io "Dear F c I 1 o w l'c.~chn:.s" r ~ i r l lhcy had r-ntcd hnnlh space Jor the convcnt;oii.

T h r rnvrlnpcs cnn1.i:n- jng flie lrlfrrs carry the rctiiril nildrcrs of Or. .;, Don Ilnrric . tiic Okinhonin Cily ilrnltst who I S :r!icr;iI chairman l ir thc h i n d - rai-rr.

. . . . . -.

r .A. ..,I ,c a p c c k d :a hit early Friday.

Upsticam. readings at Okcene indrcalcd the ram- paging ri*ier should crest near 17 Ice1 in Dovar and b.c nca:ig t i ~ r c reet O G ~ of i:s banks do~rnstream at Guthrie and Perkins late Friday morning.

F n m w r s and pcrsons d n a c 10 11w rirrr tram I ~ o v c r dnnvrinlrcam t o ncar :lit K~;<!nr~c Rcservoir XPTC v:nwx? to m o w ani- ~rrals and machincry tti iilr:ic of rafrty ahovc the cxpectcd llood levels.

>lrana.liiic, ihr Cliikas- kia awl tiic Salt Fork 01 the Arkansas in Ihe Blark-

lhan I1 l c r t above Iloud s l i i ~ e . s1:infIin~ at nn rsti- m:itcd 28 !crt a t 3 p.m. Ex- act mr :~$urwwnts were in: In r the slrandcd and imims4blc h c c L c s c the

t gauge The highway p;ilro! said - rwxly cvcry Ray County

tcr w:ts road. cxccut lor US. 60

injurcd.

rcp?.ctr~ri Io c r w t at an !n- r:cdil)lc 34 rm - morc 1h:in 16 Ice1 :)hove flood sta:c-rarly Fr ik iy mora- :nc.

'i'otik:,wa policc rcpartcd ncht-iy two dnrrn p~rsons h:id bccn pluukrd from

rod tops hy h 6 i c q d e r T h u r s d a y and rcscue I:IU!CL wcrc out looking lor scores a! others re.mrted still missing.

14 o 1 o r s t s along I-:5 !*'we caught b e t w c e n flondrd low >PIS on ncarly ewry strctch above watcr. Simlinr ronditionz w r e reported on thc riighway lor +wl!,cm Xnnaas.

School ggmnssiums and churches in i'onhawa v;:'ere XI up ;IS eniergrncy ccntcrs for stranded travcl- crs.

111 I;l:ickwcll. the raginp C 11 i k a s k i a River v;as slniidiiic at 33 iccl end rtill rising Thursday. as scvcr- ai rrri l lmlr wcrc .Itill un- arcnuntrd lor, according to JroItCc.

?dorr than 101 homes and tmsincsscs wcrc de- slruyrd VI' heavily damaged Ly the '~ i i le r . :inti hoxs and Natio:ial Guard hdirciplrrc W L ' ~ c r i s s- rrosrine the a rea search-

. . end U S. li7. wx inondat- cd and impaasahlc.

Kumcrous hridcrs. In- cluding a railroad hridce on I1.S. 64. a r r c icpl,t-lcd washcri out (mr datmgcd. and travcl ,%is discour- nerd.

Soulh and cast 01 the hit arcas. Ponca City war bracing lor n crest on the Arkansas River of more than live feet above flood stage by Sunday.

Downstream, Rilslon was warned lo expcct lour lent of flooding as the swell hits ovcr the wcck- end.

The U.S. Army Corps 01 Enpinccrs ollice in Tulsa prepared for a heavy rise in the *,sntcr volume at Keystone Like. whcre the Canadian and Arkansas inect, when the deluge hits un Sunday.

A mr!n spokesman said somc Zj,Ooi) cubic Iect of wa1r.r pcr srcond was bring relcased Irom the rcicrvoir Thwsrlay and a much iarger rclcdsr. perhaps as high a s 70,000 cubic Icct per second. was beirg considered lor near midnight Thursday.

The sp lkrsman said the kuge rclease m s not dcli- i i i tdy ~ c t latc Thursday. and that corps oiricials \vould re-cvalilate thc situation Friday morning.

Fa i r to partly cloudy skicj. arc prcdirtcd lor the slate Fnday. with aftcr- noon highs mostly In the 10s. Oklahoma City is rorc- cast lo bc mild and nnrtlv

Cnutinued From r a x e One ‘*.auld forego choosing a nominee who might prove a strong contender for the 1976 G 0 P presidential nomination. a limitation urged upon the President by many Dema-rain In Congress.

"I would not limit the Prcsident's o p t i o n 5 In seeking a 6UCCesSor." War- r e n replied, undrrscoring the description 01 Nixon's attitude as exprrsscd by

The Prcsidcnt's distaste for sclccting a c:iretaker candidate came so011 allcr the repurling o! a strong undcrcurrerit 01 bipnrlisan opposition to John B. Con- nnlly, who is regarded a s a leading potcntial contender lor the 19i6 COP noml- nation. One congressional sourcc made a Ilat prediction that a Connally nnmi- nation would be rejcctcd by the Senate.

As duscribed by ~ P S D

ciatcs, Kixon's approach la thc scarch lor an k n r w succcssnr would be wholly consistrnt v i th m a k i n g Coimaily his l i e d choicc Thc lormrr Dcmncratic Xovrrncr of Tcxas who bc- r a m c n Rcyublican in Nab' Is Ihe only man Nixon has ticire laudcd ~ x h l i c i y as cminrntly qualified lo be president.

Nixon. in linding a re- placrmcnt ror Agnrw. had cnllrd on R e p u b l I c a n

' other associR1Ca:

Canlinurd rrum Page One given out. An exception Tile Hall gala schedulef might be an answer 10 a lor 8 p.m. Ort. 20 u-iil lei state Dcparlment of Edu- catiun request lor ils use lo s c r w a spccilird educational function. he said.

"I haven't given pcrm~s. sion for any use of t he iisl," he saia. He alzo said he knew 0: no rcqucst lor use 01 the list.

I Dr. I l a n i r said 7hu:s- day IT was ,,,It sure r:h.re tho :tnmri lur tho nt:~ll:ng were obtalncd. bur ho rnid response to the :na!iinc

J

spread support ror the ~ O V - ernor among lcachers in his nnlicipatcr~ campaign Ju ry YrCSiIfS lor re-clection ncxt year.

1Ie said the Ccnr:-al TC- sponse also has been good but he was not in a pusi- lion to cs:ima:e tlic turn- out. The Xyriad Arena can sent 12,ooO.

?he ercnf will mark Go%. IIail's 43rd birthday.

The convmtion Oct. 18 and 15 at Uie Xlgriad is CY- pcclcd to altract ?O.ooO state teachers. __

Chrisfmas Tree

Cenlinecd ~-ront rn;e ch ries. Incm "It u:.cally 18 and 40 13i;es rmrpa b

tiye jc:ors lor r a d i tr i unit1 I:ia)r:s a g w e on 3 I? uho u-ill sit as jc:o:r I thc CJSP." Ourns raid.

O!:m. x n n y or :he ni t ~ r s lor jury :t-rilce iu rrtilrnrd by t t r ixr: olfic u i l h ii nn1i:ion !hot e person cailcd r.0 longr l i w s a? that address. ,,

But there UCTC GO whor

\VASHIliGTOS (AI') - A 4O-loot Colorado blue spruce arrived on the El- lipsr brhiod the \Vhile HOUSC Thursday as the iww. and a i r limp nrrma-

>ldW "This said. was higbly dil ,

lurbing lo me and I dit cusscd if u-ilh Ihr olhe dis:rirt 10 b r i m judzcs th r r r and pruple dwide in a

c

<

v .3-83

u /' 7 - Ato0;nic Lmrzy Conitnission Yasiiing t o n D. C .

T u o 3 . Oct. 9 , 1973 3900 Cmhion 21. Oklahoma C i t y , OlclC, 73112

,/'

/

,,' /

Gonticnon:

S h c e tho w r i t i n g of o u r l o t t o r of October 1, 1973 wo havo rovio:.rod

20r;::x-d you 202 t h o o x c a l l o n t a t t i t u d o of cmd.or and o;?cn'r,osr. t h a t this c o a c q t y q r s s a n t s . s-,?c:ct 50 t h o pu 'a l ic risht t o havo ~ C C G S S t o t h o r o l c v c n t f a c t s . !*:e :JWG r d z o ix?-cssod with t h o i i r e c t n o s s and t h o r o u g h m s s o f t h o .45C inopoccion Zcpor ts of t h s Cirnmron f a c i l i t y and t h o , ro la tod 'ASE cor- Tesnondonce with t h e ilerr-IkGoo Corp ,

As:a conscquozce of t h i s review, w e o f f o r t h e fo l lowing a d i i i t i o n a l commcn-lary :

..:. u,rt , . ?.X 2 u b l i c Rccords at t h o P u b l i c L i b r a r y , G u t i i r i o , 01:la. '.!c

It i s appropyia to a f T i r n i a t i t i v o a c t i o n I n r o -

1.

2,

!$e a ~ c f u r i o u s b e c m s o M r F i n 2 aid bIr EdgerJay v e r b a l l y gavc U S E, p u b l i c - r a l a t i o n s typo p i c t u r o or' a vro l l conducted o p e r a t i o n a t C5marron; orio tha t h o l d no unusual sa f tg h a z a r d s for t h e enp1oyo;s. '?:?is i s i n s h a r p c o n t r a s t t o t h c g e n e r a l conditio;zs . that thog r o - por tod in t h e i r i n s p o c t i o n 02 t h o Cirnarron P i a n t on June 18-22, i973* In that; r e p o r t I J O notod seven new v i o l a t i o n s , t h r o o sign:-ficc.zk n s w ::: 1

pToblexis and comment that s i x p r m i o u s l y re ,or tod v i o l a t i o n s !. iCI'a ' '

s t i l l uni-ssolvod. - 9 r t h e r ; . on page 8, under l im-poxont i n t c r v i e v '

it roads: l ' . , . Tno inspector d i s c u s s o d the v i o l a t i o n s . Xo s t f i t o d bnat a o s t or' t h e v i o l a t i o n s i z d i c a t e d a l a c k of concorn for f a l l o x - in?.??ocedures and p o s t e d l i m L t s and a l s o a n absonco of r n m q 6 ~ 2 a n t aucit, of' perrom,,nnce of eaployoes and onforc ing c o r n p i i e c o with the pTocedures."

axle ?,-cvious i m s p s c t i o n r c 2 o r t s a l s o c i t o v a r i o u s f ' a i l u r c 3 . i n procodurcs m d documontation, as broil as s e v ~ r a l fires (:.:arch 5;

P J-,

18, 1972) and s o v e r a l excoss ivo oxposuros 02 5 , 1973 and Xov.11, 1972.)

%is s i t u a t i o n sooms t o t m g T f y t h e c o n f l i c t t h a t son6 of GUT 2 o ~ s o n n a l have botwcen t e l l i n g t h e p u b l i c t h o unvarnished t x t h .md .prorr,otii?g n u c l e n r power. !4xilo t h e i r Lnspoct ion r o p o r t s 12'8~8 c m d i d a j o u t t h o s n f o t y conci i t ions, t h o 7 verSallg seemoa t o ba p r o t o c t i n g Ke r r -X cG c o . *:Ii-o c o n t e n t ?f the news s t o r y t o J i m Reid o f t h o Dai ly Oklchocla of 3e2t . 29, 1973 by your Chicago o f f i c c is n l s l c a d i n g . It m a d s ? e * "Korr 1;icGoo C o r p . has rocoivoci a cleixy b i l l 0: hoalt,'n froxi t h o !.tonic )%orgy Corn. f o l l o w i n g m i c v o s t i g a t i o n of a ninol- lo& o f n u c l e a r ::.aterial a t i t 3 Cirnarron T n c i l i t y . ' I !>?nil0 this i s probably ltp. ? h i d ' s r o a s o n a b l c conclus ion , basod on r ~ h n t h o WXJ told,, i t I2.;-/03 3-n o v e r a l l impress ion tha2 does n o t corrct la to : ,roll with tho ~?~: -xrd . c o n d i t i o n s o u t l i n o d i n yoc.? Juno i n s p o c t i o n

t h o on& o f t h o sI.d;-;': tkoroi'orc, i;ho.load lii:" :dl1 tor.5 t o ' -?o=.t;. Tilo ;"act thr l ; sorno v i o l a t i o n s WOPO in:;;.vod was b u r i o d

. . - c - . . k . . , . ~8 1 3 slmtsd i>i>;3*

\I. 8-84 n

2"

' -q:r thor , t h o s t o r y i n d i c n t o d t h n t t h o plutonicm n i t r z r o 1~:i3[;0 had a I o w l s v o l o f r a d i o a c t i v i t y . 'Ilict necms t o c o n f l i c t w i t h vorba l .4SC r o p o r t 3 t o u s t h a t i 3 o v e r 100,000 dpn. P u r t h o r t h o 3 t o r y c z t o z o r i c a l l y c o n f l i c t s with t h o i n s p o c t i o n r o p o r t o f Juno 18-22, 1973, pa20 l 7 , C . "IIiGhor c o n c e n t r a t i o n s n r o s o l i d i i ' i o d f o r d i s -

posal throuGh a l i c o n s o d waoto d i s p o s a l agency." (Low l o v e 1 l i g u i d w a s t o s boing d i s p o s e d v i a h o l d i n g rank3, e v a p o r a t i o n ponds, lagoon3 and t h o Cimarron Rivor . ) ,

mser:horo i n t h e s t o r y , confus ion i s a g a i n c rontod by g i v i n g t h e ri&t m s I . J e r t o t h o wrong problem. \lo woro well: awaro t h n t t h o ncss of plutonium i n t h o 55 -&a:llon d r u m was s o small t h a t i t could not; go c r i t i c a l . 'do r o s o n t Chat typo o f 3mO~co s c r o c n nows, or t o s u ~ g o s t . t h a t t h o o v e r a l l t o p i c (of c r i t i c a l i t y a t t h e p l a n t i s n o t ~C~T,.LYO. For oxamplo, y o u r i n s p o c t i o n r o ? o r t s documont iniidquato si>acing of " n l i l l c d r u m s " ( c r i t i c a l i t y ) and inadoquato shielding/

. s e p z - n t i o n t o minimize n o u t r o a ,act ion. f i r t h o r , on t h o o v e r z l l s u b j o c t of n c c i d o n t a l 'nucloor c r i t i c a l l i t g v s d o s i g n f o n t u r e r t o

.prcivont i t , t h o Xarch 12,. 1973 l o t t o r (ITS-014) from t h o D i x c t o r - n t o of L i c o n s i ~ g t o K o r r McGee s takes : "You p r o p e r l y p o i n t o u t tha t the p r o b s . b i l i t g o f a c r i t i c z l i t y i n c i d e n t i s c r f o c t i v e l g m i n - i n i z o d by d o s i g n f o a t u r o s and a p p r o p r i a t e procodures . However a c r i t i c a l i t y i n c i d o n t , , J s c r e d i t a ' m We t h e r e f o r e r e q u o s t t n a t t h e con'scqucnces of c r i t i c a l i t y bo more tharoughly and q u a n t i t a k e l y a a 1 y m 7

Consoquently, i n view of your documented r e p o r t s o f Korr-riicGoo's i n a b i l i t y t o w r i t o nnd oni'orco adoquato o p e r a t i n g procedures, o r t o a33uro t h o roasonably conotant a v a i l a b i l i t y o f n r a d i a t i o n p h y g i c i s t , our f u i t h i s a l i t t l a s t r a i n o d i n rospocl; t o not hnving a c r i t i c a l i t y a c c i d o n t . F u r t h o r , t h o r o i s no compeling ovidonoo that the d o s i g n competency w i l l be bebbor than the o p e r a t i o n a l

. competoncy,

Furthor , t h o s t o r y inf'ors t h o t r i v i a l n a t u m o f r e c o r d k e q i n g ? r o b l e n s , howover; t h e l i c e n s e xiYd i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t s scem t o in - d i c a t e t h a t t h o maintononce of , accura te d a t a a t t h o g love boxes and t h o a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of i ' i s s i o n a b l a material a r o s i g n i f i c a n t . In v i m o f t h e i n c r e d i b l y c a r c i n o g e n i c nature ofplutonium, i t would scem t h n t p r e c i s e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y wouid b e h i g h l y important .

Again, ne do n o t r ind the s t a t e m e n t "... B u t as l o n g a3 t h o conta;hul- i n a t i o r ? i s c o n t a i n e d on.t'no p l a n t s i t e t h e r o i s no d.anger," t o S o a c c e 2 t a b l e . Y i g h winds and c l o u d b u r s t s do no r o s p e c t p l a k f c n c e s and nay c a r r y away somo plutonium wasto. C-ono Vith t h o Yind x,ny apply t o t h o p o p u l a t i o n as b r d l as t h o plutonium. From n long rango cumulative m p o c t , which iis t h o only r a t i o n a l . w n y t o vio;j so i n c r o d i b l y d m g o r o u s and l o n g p o r s i s t o n c o n a t e r i c l , m y cmiss ioa m u s t bo viewed w i t h a l a m .

/

-4 99.79 $.contai,z;r,mt o f P iu toniun , r 'or exahple, would be c _ u i t s unaccop%blo, . . !.le conclude, from t h e , n b o v o , . t h a t t h o p u b l i c ' s r ight t o h o w t h o facts would bo botkor.sorvdd C' aow3 r e l c a o a vera pogn,ncci in Oklahoma basod on t h o AGC' p u b l i o . T O C O T ~ S .

V . 8-85

2 .

. .. 3.

4. Xo noto J s o r i o u s conceptual oversight i n l i c o n o o i*oquironisnr;s Tor tho zdchuicnl staff, i. 0. rodundmcg o r n j a d i l y svai ln '3lo c!uali ,"loa back-up f o r Icoy t o c h n i c a l ;?orsono1 whon a t t r i b i o n .occu-?s. I ik t r ic - i o n i s p a r c i c u l n l y i n h o r e n t i n t h o e n p l o p o n t of h i g h l y educatod and s l c i l l o d p o r s o m o l .

5. Anot!ior cozcoptua l o v e r s i g h t i n s t a f f i n g p o l i c y tr3.s n o t sn t ic lpa t5nG t h o p o s s i b i l i t y o f l a b o r - r e l a t i o n s probloiis a d consosuont ly n o t having s u f l ' l c i o n t depth i n t e c h n i c a l suporv lz ion t o n n i n z i a n b o r n p r o d u c t i o n Lid sa fo tg w i t h managament typo of i n e x p o r i m c o d workers 113 p r o d u c t i o n personnel .

found t o bo v a l i d i n nany i n d u s t r i e s . 'That tho f o r c m m i s the key t o o f f o c t i v o o c c u p a t i o n a l safotg. He m u s t b e s t rong onougii t o i n - s ist on e i t h e r saro p r o d u c t i o n o r no product ion , no proddct ion- no aay.

the r 'o rcmn ropresents nanagemont, i t i s a'osolucoly o s s o n t i a l that mmagcmonz p o l i c y and p r n c t i c o s be conducive t o good 1abor-mw.ago- mont y e l a c i o n s . Further, d i o n an onl ighcened p o l i c y p r e v a l i s , anot 'ner 'posizive I'orco may appoar-- a good union w i l l c 'naat iso i t s own noxbors f o r v i o l a t i o n s of s a f e t y r u l e s ,

6. .hot!ior conccpt tha t you need t o c o n s i d c r i s one thct has 5 c x l

Tnis means z h u t t h e foreman m u s t 56 e q u a l l y c o z p a t s n t i n - p r o d u c t i o n , safoty and human / labor-nanagenont r e l a t i o n s . Lince

. I

In view of the probl'en i n s n f o t y , a t t r i t i o n and l a b o r r o l a t i o n s , as documented i n t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s , wa conclude t h a t t n o r e i s a couso-orf o c t r e l a t i o n s h i p botween management s lab02 p o l i c i e s and the s a f e t y record . PicGee's c b i l i t y t o unders tand a id cope with tha con7lox mix of r e q u i r o a o n t s and performance s t i p u l a t e d by t h o p l u t o n i u s Liccnse.

This t h e r e f o r e r a i s e s doubts as t o ;<err

7. ' . .

\lo v o r a a?;pallod Sy t h o many v i o l a t i o n s and porsonnel ejirnosures documcn-lod i n yc;ur x p o r t s . plU.Loni.cn, we conclude that some o r the i.ro=.kora w i l l d i? , g o s s i b l g 5 to i5 y o a r s hence. bo ~cot,e)ctocf fron those charged to p r o t ~ c t thGno

it hzs noli. becono s o vo?y obvious a2-g >:a re&=.ed tfio tolophone - c a l s f r o m t h e monymous workers a t t h e plutonium plant, i n c i d s n t a f t e r i n c l d o n t - r o p o r t a f t e r ropor t - words a r t c r word5, arid no i r q r o v e n c n t occurod. Apparontlg it ~ 2 . s "no biz doc3,'' t o nmage- nicnt. . I n . v i e w of a l l o f the f o r o g o i n s , t h e workers c a l l o d US oat of concorno f r u s t r a t i o n , and a f a e l i n g o f pomrlossmss .

I n trould ap,poar, i n s p i t 0 of i t s i n s p e c t i o n m p o r t s , t h o tG3C has inriulged Karl. KcGee nanagexont s-7~ .:;hat it has not yo! cornand- od tho adoquate a t z o n t i o n o f t h o i T t o p managomen:.

i n d i c a t c a by p u b l i c roconds, the AEC D i m c k o r a t o o r Llcsns iag , i n thoir 1ot:or o f Xay 12, 1973, is s t i l l try:Fg t o o b t a i n ro32onsos

I n viow o f t h e over-exposures t o

It i s a shAnro that peonie so of t en ha73 fo .

3.

.go .

10. Tno ? l u t o n i u n l i c a n s o b r a 3 i s s u e d or. A G r i l 2, 1973, howevor os

http://plU.Loni.cn

V ,8436

f r o n Iiorr-;kQoo r o l a t i v o t o v a r i o u s annoct o f t h o I h v i r o m o n t d I n p a c t Statcmont. Sinco tho P u b l i c Rocozd c o n t a i n s no f u r t h e r i n f o m a t i o n , wo assumo that t h o D i r o c t o r a t o could not; y o t havo rozchod a d o c i s i o n bocauno t o hnvo dono s o would dony t h o p u b l i c t h o f a c t s upon which such :i d o c i s i o n would havo t o bo bnsod.

good f a i t h on t h o p 2 r t of iCorr IvIcCoo i n r o s p o c t t o t h e p u b l i c ' s r i z h t t o knoi f t h z f ' a c t s . It appears that K o r r NcGoo d i d n o t want t o b o a "Good !LToi,libor" i n t h o coninunity i n t h a t i t winhod t o concea l i'roin t h o p u b l i c that i t Tins manufactur ing a h i g h l y , ca r - cinog;.,nic and p o r s i s t a n t m a t e r i a l . For oxor,iplo, i n t h o i r lotcer of +ril 17, 1973 t o the AEC D i r o c t o r a t o of Licensing; f i r s t paragraph. D , . "lkuabver, wo b e l i e v e tha t some of t h e i n f o m a t i o n roquos ted should n o t bo i n o l u d c d i n t h o onvi rkonnentn l Foport , m.d roquos t your considr3rat ion of o u r p r o p o s a l t o omit tho i t o m s d i scussed bolow fron o u r submittal.. Tho i toms o f i n f o m a t i o n which Korr McGoo ob J o c t s t o having ino ludod i n t h o onviroinontnl r o p o r t aro t h o s e i t o c l s i n d i c a t e d by the following l i s t e d q u o s t i o n s of your l o t t o r o f biarch 12:

11. Thcrcis ovidonco, i n t h o P u b l i c Rocords, o f tho patcnb l z c k of

1. P u r p o s o o f F a c i l i t y

I. khat... . 2. Do you have ... 3. What would be t h e r o e .

2. Tne. S i t o ( b ) L o c a l e n v i r o m o c t a l a c c e p t m c e

1. Tdhat has beon done i n p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s t o g a i n t h o accopt- . . ance of a plutonium p l a n t i n t h e &@.or,?

2. Xavo t h o r o been &?'J l o c a l groups a c t i v o l y suppor t ing 02

3e

r e j e c t i n g the ccmcept o f a p l u t o n i m p l a n t ?

Have you h o l d arty p u S l i c meet ings or h e a r i n g s f o r tho purpose of d i s c u s s i x th6 p l a n t n c t i v i t i s s ?

7. A l t e r n a t i v e s ( a ) m d ( b )

1. .Discuss t h o consequonces of shUttii>g p l ~ t down.

2. UDscuss the i .npac t of . ..... 3. D i s c u s s i o n for....

o n o t b o l i a v o t h a t t h o abovo quos t ions a r o p r o 9 e r sub jSc2z fo A:?culyy i n an c n v i r o m n t d . s tudy . 'i%o j .m?oxi?t j on s o l i c f t o d :d !'Io$ E - O ~ c o n t y i b u t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o a b o t t o r c:-idcrstznding of t h o onvirorncntal i n p a c t ,of the o p o r a t i o n of t'no Cinnrron P l u t o n i c n P l o a t . :,io r e a l i z o that.. . . Howevor wo vould prc i" r t o f u m i s h such infor:nat;ion t o t h o Co;;:r:.ission by c~cpara to , priv:LYa c o x a x i c a t l o n s r s t h o r than having it r'.:-.:,ludod i n a p u b l i c rc ',:id. ? l o a 3 0 lot QS imovr if you CGZCU: --ltt-, GLT p r o ? o s a l t o omit ... .I mswor3 to. t h o abovci q u o s t i o n s i.,~.:. the s u p p l o n o n t a l i n f o r x . .:on t o bo submitbod. If s o , 110 would . J x i l l i n g ;o m d c s t h o info?.:: ' .on roquostod by -Ll;oso g u o s t ~ o n 3 . avail. to t h o . ' .,mi: ..lo;? ir' zL-< .q for t h o Comisl;- LOAS ? U i " p O S C 3 -

v. 8-87

Goorgo 13. P a r k s E x o c u t i v o Vice p r o z i d o n t Xerr HcGoo Gorp. "

Consoqucn t ly , c o n t r n r y t o tho i n t a n t of t h o C n l v o r t - C l i f f 9 s d o c i n l o n (July 23, 1971 Fcdorol Cour t o f t q p e a l s ) t o d a t o t h o ? ? b l i c ;.iGht-to-!mow has b o o n a b r i d g c d . Nono of t h o c n v i q x c n t a l (;;-oups havo bcon a d v i s o d o r t h o o;ciaconco o r tho dnnzoTs oi' havi&;; a p lu ton iu rn 21ant i n t h o i r midst , Lilco:.iise tho n o m lnodia and m o s t lcoy c i t i z o n s i n t o r o s t e d i n t h o e n v i q b n o n t d id n o t know. O n t h o o t h c r h a d , A?3C did n o t t a c o any s t x q a f f i r m a t i v o a c t i o n t o toll t he p u b l i c a b o u t t h o p l a t , n o r 1m.3 t h c r o aiiy s t m n g Md o f f o c t i v o a c t i o n t o 'cell t h o p u b l i c about tho ? u b l i c Rocords a t Gut'hrTo, Ckla. The AEC has been p a r t o f tho in foAmct i o n p r o b l om, n o t wi ths t m d i q t h e exc 011 n n t conc cp t of p u b l i c rocoyds . Consoquon t ly , h a d i t no5 beon t h o c o i n c i d e n c e of b - : ing c a l l e d 3y the anonymous 1 ~ 0 r k o r 3 , we and the p u b l i c would a t i l l be unawaro. 'Fnis i s a c o x p l c t o l y c n a c c o p t a b l o s i t u a t i o n . !.lo r c c o g n i z o , however that i n t h o .AEC l o t t a r 02 May 12, 7 3 , AEC empn~5.xod t h a t ICorr-FIcGeo mus t rospong!.

In view of K o r r XcGeo's l a c k or" good f a i t h torao.rds kho and i t 3 p u b l i c heai t 'n , i t s lnc l r of i n t s r o s t i n p l m t s z f e t y , i t trould ap?oar t o be i n the ? u S l i c i n t o r o s t t o rovoka t h e h p l u t o n i u m l i c m s e . through the establlshed administrative chamol:: o f tho AZC.

? l o m a advise us OF tho p e r t i n e n t d e t a i l s of when a d whma t h o Xavi;"omontal I n p o r t h e a r i a will b a ho ld ,fez tha Plu'coniun

P l a n t at .. tlm Cimamon Zacili-&ge.

c o r n u n i t y

Wo woulC: hope this c o u l d be a c c o n p l i s h o d

v. U-d8 n

UNITED STATES

A T 0 M I C EN E RGY CO M M ISS IO N WABHINOTON. D.C. 20145

JAN 1 1 1974

Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord Younghein 3900 Cashion Place Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73U2

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Younghein:

This is in reply to your letters dated October 1 and 9, 1973, expressing your concerns relating to the operation of the Kerr-McGee Corporation's Cimarron facility located in Crescent, Oklahoma.

With respect to the allegations relating to the leakage of plutonium waste, which you brought to the attention of the Atomic Energy Commission on August 29, 1973, we conducted a comprehensive investigation at the Cimarron facility during the week of September 17, 1973. Our investigation find- ings_concerning these allegations, which were discussed with you by our

; inspectors on the evening of September 19, 1973, are summarized in the attached Enclosure 1.

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of a report covering our most recent inspection at the Cimarron facility (Enclosure 2). This report discusses our inspection findings with respect to Kerr-McGee's handling of radioactive waste at the Cimarron facility and addresses many of the questions and comments raised by your letters. With respect to the other matters in your letters not covered by our inspection report, we have prepared answers which we believed to be responsive to your concerns. information is provided as Enclosure 3.

This

In your letter of October 9, 1973, you expressed concern for the "public relations type picture" our inspectors gave you concerning operations at Cimarron. I regret the apparent misunderstanding in this regard. The intent of our inspectors in meeting with you on September 19 was to provide you with factual information. The statements given to you by our inspectors were directed toward the corrective efforts relating to the decontamination associated with the waste drum leak to assure you as a concerned citizen that no safety hazards were identified with this operation. They did not intend to infer that plant operations had been trouble free.

As you pointed out in your letter, there have been inspection findings by AEC inspectors in regard to the activities conducted at the Kerr-McGee Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Plant where noncompliance with Commission

V . 8-89

rules and regulations have been identified. these findings are documented in inspection reports which are a matter of public record and available at the Public Document Room in Guthrie, Oklahoma. Measures t o correct the specific deficiencies have been taken;

Again, as you have noted,

I

The Regulatory Operation's primary role is to protect the health and safety of the public and our continuous program of inspection is aimed at satisfying this commitment. take appropriate action to achieve full compliance.

When Commission rules are violated, we will

I truet this letter and the enclosed information will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Enclosures : Enclosures 1 thru 3

Regional Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region I11 799. Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

v .&go

ENCLOSURE 1

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND INVESTIGATION FINDINGS - KERR-McGEE CIMARRON FACILITY

On August 29, 1973, the Director, Directorate of Regulatory Operations, was advised by the AEC Chairman's Office that allegations had been received regarding "spills of plutonium" and some "leaking tanks" at the Kerr- McGee (K-M) Crescent, Oklahoma, plutonium (Pu) fuel fabrication facility.

The specific allegations and our investigative findings related to these allegations are summarized below:

Allegation No. 1: occuring on or about on or about August 25, 1973, should have been reported to the AEC. The occurrence of three other similar incidents were alluded t o . In general, unsafe working conditions with respect to the spill clean- ups were alleged.

An incident of a leaking plutonium waste drum allegedly

Findings: From a review of testimonies of employees involved in decontam- : ination efforts and management representatives as well as K-M records, it , was established that the leakage from a drum containing plutonium nitrate waste was discovered at 0755 on Saturday, August 18, 1973, during a routine yard check by a Health Physics Technician. single drum which was stored in a stationary truck van located on the licensee's property. Storage of waste in this van is permitted by License No. SNM-1744. The van is used for temporary storage of dry solid waste and solidified liquid wastes pending its pickup and transfer offsite by Nuclear Engineering Company truck to burial sites at Morehead, Kentucky, or Sheffield, Illinois.

The leak occurred from a

The leaking drum of "solidified" waste discovered on August 18, 1973, was one of four such drums in the van. The remaining drums in the van were dry waste. a problem with the liquid waste solidification process was experienced. This problem contributed directly to the leak. This same solidification problem was experienced with the waste drum leaks noted to have occurred on July 22, 1972, April 23 and 24, 1973, and May 7 , 1973.

During the course of the investigation it was established that

Contamination, resulting from the August 18, 1973, leak, was confined to the storage van, its undercarriage and a small area of ground immediately below the leaking drum. vision of qualified K-M Health Physics personnel. There was no personnel contamination, exposure or release of material offsite. Interviews with numerous employees and a review of records failed to substantiate the allegation of unsafe working conditions.

All decontamination was conducted under the super-

V.8-91

- 2 -

Allegation No. 2: for having left the site in a contaminated condition." No date of this

Two employees were "recently given letters of reprimand -

occurrence was furnished as a part of the allegation. Concern was expressed that contamination may have been deposited at a cafe used by two employees.

Findings: The incident referred to above was documented in K-M records. The contamination incident occurred on April 17, 1972, at approximately 0700 in one of the glove boxes in Room B-02 of the wet ceramic area. The men became contaminated while performing maintenance on a pump.

The investigation did confirm that the men had received reprimands for having left the site in a contaminated condition on April 17, 1972, in vio- lation of established K-M internal procedures. by the two employees were not surveyed by K-M. This failure by the licensee constitutes noncompliance with Section 20.201(b) of 10 CF'R 20.

The offsite areas visited

Allegation No. 3: That licensee reports dealing with the recent drum leak- age_ incident, (see Allegation No. 1) should be "backdated" to reflect the date of occurrence as August 18, 1973.

Findings: No information was developed to substantiate this allegation.

Allegation No. 4 : A K-M plant at Cushing, Oklahoma, where thorium was allegedly being processed had experienced some explosions and was "out of commission." It was alleged that workers were tearing out walls that were contaminated and welders were cutting structural steel. No time frame for this allegation was given.

Findings: Based on information provided by Region IV and K-M mangement, It was found that the K-M Cushing plant had been sold approximately t w o years ago to Dewey Enterprises, Inc. sing at this plant since mid 1960's.

AEC License No. SNM-695, which authorized processing thorium at the Cush- ing plant was terminated on July 6, 1966. Region IV performed an inspection at the plant and found that less than deminimus contamination levels existed. With respect to the explosions, it was learned from R0:IV that hydrogen explosions had occurred at the Cushing plant during June 1965 and February 1966, however, no radioactivity was involved.

K-M performed no thorium proces-

Prior to license termination,

..RO InsF t i o n Report No. 070-925/73-05 RO Inspect ion Report No. 070-119:3/73-06

Lkensee : Kerr-PIcGee Corporation Kerr-McGee Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

.!INCLOSURE 2

U. S. ATONIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS

REGION I11

Cimarron F a c i l i t y Licenses No. SNM-928 Oklahoma Ci ty , Oklahoma and No. SM-1174

P r i o r i t y : I Category: A ( 1 )

Type of Licensee : Special Nuclear Mater ia l

Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced

Dates of Inspection:

Dates of Previous Inspect ion:

September 17 - 21 and 26, 1923

June 18 - 22, 1973 e

flfl&iZ A 5 P ‘P r inc ipa l Inspector : K. R. R i d g w a r 2

Accompanying Inspector : J. A. Finn

Other Accompanying Personnel: J. F. Donahue

&>en& Reviewed By: G. F i o r e l l i , Chief

Reactor Operations ;Branch

u- r- 73 (Date)

-. _/- -

'4.8-93

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Enforccment Act ion (License SNM-1174)

The fo l lowing v i o l a t i o n i s cons idered t o be of Category I s e v e r i t y :

. 10 CrFR 20.103 states t.hat "No l i c e n s e e s h a l l posses s , u se o r t r a n s f e r l i c e n s e d m a t e r i a l i n such a manner a s t o cause any i n d i v i d u a l i n a r e s t r i c t e d a r e a t o be exposed t o a i r b o r n e r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l possessed by t h e l i c e n s e e i n an average concen t r a t ion i n excess of t h e l i m i t s s p e c i f i e d i n Appendix B y Table I, of t h i s p a r t . "

, upon exposure t o t h e s p e c i f i e d concen t r a t ions f o r f o r t y hours i n any . . p e r i o d of seven consecut ive days.

The l i m i t s a r e based

Cont rary t o t h e above, du r ing t h e week of J u l y 8 - 14, 1973, an employee working a t a s l o t box i n t h e plutonium l a b o r a t o r y was exposed t o a i r b o r n e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of plutonium, which, when averaged over f o r t y hours , were 1.3 times t h e s p e c i f i e d l i m i t s . (Paragraph 23)

The fo l lowing v i o l a t i o n s a r e cons idered t o be of Category I1 s e v e r i t y :

' A . Condit ion 27 of License SNN-1174 s t a t e s , "Nuclear poisons used f o r a . secondary nuc lea r s a f e t y c o n t r o l s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o b o r o s i l i c a t e g l a s s

Raschig r i n g s and t h e use of such r i n g s shall be i n accordance wi th t h e proposed ANS s t anda rd , "Use of Boros i l ica te -Glass Raschig Rings a s a Fixed Neutron Absorber i n So lu t ions of F i s s i l e Mate r i a l , " publ ished i n t h e Nuclear Engineer ing B u l l e t i n , 4 - 3, November 1965, by t h e American Nuclear Socie ty . use of n u c l e a r po isons on page 21, Appendix A of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . "

This cond i t ion supplements t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n regard ing . Contrary t o t h i s t h e r equ i r ed in spec t ions i n t h e proposed November 1965 s t anda rd and t h e subsequent ly approved ANSI s tandard N16.4-1971 have n o t been carried out. Only one in spec t ion of t h e rings has been made s i n c e p lan t s t a r t u p and t h i s i n s p e c t i o n d i d n o t f u l f i l l t h e requi rements of t h e s t anda rds . (Paragraph 18)

Condi t ion 28 of License SNM-1174 s t a t e s , "This l i c e n s e does n o t a u t h o r i z e the d e l i v e r y of l i c e n s e d m a t e r i a l t o a c a r r i e r f o r t r a n s p o r t except a5 may be au tho r i zed pursuant t o 10 CFR 71."

Sec t ion 71.10 of 10 CFR 71 s t a t e s t h a t a n exemption t o t h e requi rements of t h i s p a r t of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s is permi t ted when d e l i v e r y of a tme B q u a n t i t y of r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l , a s de f ined i n paragraph 71.4(q), t o a carrier f o r t r a n s p o r t i s accomplished i n accordance wi th t h e p r o v i s i o n s of a s p e c i a l permi t , which has been i s sued by t h e Department of Trans- portation and is i n e f f e c t on June 30, 1973.

B.

- 2 -

V.8-94

On two occas ions t h e s p e c i a l DOT permit requi rements governing the shipments were n o t f u l l y adhered t o i n t h a t wastes shipped f o r b u r i a l were n o t i n t h e d r y s o l i d form. I n one c a s e t h e shipment r ece ived on J u l y 11,

. 1973, was made i n a "Poly Yanther ," DOT SP 6272 package, which held one waste drum c o n t a i n i n g l i q u i d , t h u s v i o l a t i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e DOT

' p e r m i t . Th i s shipment t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t comply wi th t h e p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 71.10 and 71.12 of 1 0 CFR 71 i n t h a t a gene ra l l i c e n s e w a s no t secured t o cover t h e shipment , which conta ined t h e waste drum o f contamina t ed l i q u i d .

In a second case t h e shipment r ece ived on June 5 , 1973, was made i n a "Super Tiger , " DOT SP 6400 package. a r r i v e d a t t h e b u r i a l s i t e it held t h r e e drums which conta ined l i q u i d s .

When t h e "Super Tiger" package

.This shipment which i s governed by a s p e c i a l l i c e n s e (SNM-338) d i d no t

.comply wi th t h e terms of t h e l icense nor 10 CFR 71 Sec t ion 71.12(b) i n that t h e i n n e r packages c o n t a i n i n g l i q u i d s d i d n o t meet t h e drop t e s t requi rements s p e c i f i e d by paragraph 173.393(g) of t h e DOT r e g u l a t i o n s . (Paragraph 20) ,

C. Item 8 of l i c e n s e SNM-1174 s ta tes t h a t t h e l i c e n s e e w i l l o p e r a t e t h e Plutonium P l a n t i n accordance w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t s , r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and c o n d i t i o n s con ta ined i n Appendix A of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n da ted March 3 , 1969, and supplements da t ed August 28, 1969, January 2 and 12 , 1970.

Appendix A s p e c i f i e s t h e Nuclear Group o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e wi th management and t e c h n i c a l p o s i t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and t h e t r a i n i n g and expe r i ence requi rements f o r t h e s e p o s i t i o n s .

Cont rary t o t h e requi rements of Appendix A of l i c e n s e SNM-1174 t h e l icensee, l a t e i n 1972, s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e of t h e Nuclear Manufactur ing Group and t h e Phys ica l Sc ience and Measurement Department, combining r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of h e a l t h and s a f e t y t e c h n i c a l p o s i t i o n s , e l i m i n a t i n g o t h e r p o s i t i o n s and f i l l e d t h e License and Sa fe ty O f f i c e r p o s i t i o n wi th an employee whose expe r i ence does n o t meet t h e r equ i r emen t s of Appendix A of t h e l i c e n s e . T h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e change has n o t been fo rma l ly r e p o r t e d t o t h e Commission. (Paragraph 2)

D, 10 CFR 20.201(b) s t a t e s t h a t "Each l i c e n s e e s h a l l make o r cause t o be made such su rveys as may be necessa ry f o r him t o comply wi th t h e regula- t i o n s i n t h i s pa r t . "

Cont rary t o t h e hbove, no o f f s i t e surveys were performed on A p r i l 17 , 1972, t o e v a l u a t e t h e consequences of two contaminated employees l e a v i n g the Cimarron Plutonium P l a n t on t h a t d a t e .

. (Paragraph 25)

- 3 -

-

v. 8-95 0 The following v i o l a t i o n s are considered t o be of Category I11 seve r i ty :

A. Condition 18 of License Sm-1174 s t a t e s , "The l i censee s h a l l prepare and r e t a i n f o r Commission review a management a p p r a i s a l of the e f f ec t iveness of t h e a c t i o n s taken following each one-hour tornado warning taking i n t o account the types of operat ions being conducted, the forms and q u a n t i t i e s of plutonium involved, the forms and q u a n t i t i e s of plutonium renioved t o t h e vaul t and remaining ou t s ide the vau l t following the one-hour warning a c t i o n s , number of persons involved, time required t o complete the a c t i o n s - and improvements indicated ."

' r

Contrary t o t h i s , on May 24, 1973, and June 4, 1973, one-hour tornado alerts were received by the l i censee and the required management appraisals

. were not documented. (Paragraph 13)

8 . '10 CFR 20.401(b), r e q u i r e s , i n p a r t , t h a t each l i censee maintain records of t he results of surveys required by 10 CFR 20.201(b).

Contrary t o t h e above, records were not maintained of the r e s u l t s of surveys f o r contamination on the s o l i d waste s torage t r a i l e r p r i o r t o coa t ing with pa in t i n August 1973. (Paragraph 26)

Licensee Action on Previously I d e n t i f i e d Enforcement Action

A. License SNM-928 . . r

1.

. 2.

3.

The l i c e n s e e f a i l e d t o provide required valve p ro tec to r s f o r UF6 c y l i n d e r s i n s torage.

The l i c e n s e e has obtained a d d i t i o n a l valve p ro tec to r s and has Ins t ruc t ed personnel on t h i s l i c e n s e requirement.

In two cases, t h e l i censee s to red f i s s i l e ma te r i a l within 1 2 f e e t of a concrete donut storage ar ray contrary t o posted s a f e operat ing l i m i t s .

The l i c e n s e e has revised the posted l i m i t so t h a t s torage within 12 f e e t of t h e a r r a y is permitted i f t he ou te r r o w of con ta ine r s i n the donut a r r a y do not contain f i s s i l e ma te r i a l . r e ins t ruc t ed .

The licensee s tored a container of f i s s i l e material i n an unauthorized

Employees have been

loca t ion . . .

The s i t u a t i o n was immediately corrected and employees r e i n s t r u c t e d in the c o r r e c t s torage of f i s s i l e materials. .

- 4 -

V.8-96

4. The l i c e n s e e s to red seve ra l overloaded p e l l c t boats i n v i o l a t i o n of procedures.

Employees were r e i n s t r u c t e d in t he c o r r e c t s torage of these boats.

5. Containers of s to red high enriched material were unlabeled a e t o the f i s s i l e content.

The con ta ine r s were counted and properly labeled. r e i n s t r u c t e d i n properly l a b e l i n g f i s s i l e containers .

Employees were

The above matters are considered resolved.

BP License SNM-1174

11. The l i c e n s e e f a i l e d i n two cases t o follow posted s a f e operating l i m i t s i n Glovebox 40 when the number of permitted containers was exceeded and the minimum spacing l i m i t between con ta ine r s v io l a t ed . The condi t ion was corrected.

2, The l i c e n s e e f a i l e d t o post Glovebox 3.A t o show t h e quan t i ty of fissile material present .

The glovebox s t a t u s sheet was posted,

The above items are considered resolved.

Unusual Occurrences

A. On J u l y 18, 1973, the l i censee informed Region I11 by telephone of t he exposure of an employee t o about 1.3 times the 40-hour MPC f o r a i rbo rne concentrat ions of soluble plutoniun during the period Ju ly 8 - 14, 1973. The exposure occurred a t a s l o t box i n the general laboratory a t t h e Plutonium Plant . Bioassay samples showed no de tec t ab le uptake of plutonium. 1973, submitted t o the Commission pursuant t o 10 CFR 20.405(a)(l) . (Paragraph 23)

The te lecon was confirmed by a w r i t t e n r epor t dated J u l y 31,

Bo On Ju ly 18, 1973, t he l i censee informed Region 111 by telephone of contaminated a i r samples from seve ra l l oca t ions i n the plutonium l abora to ry €or t h e period Ju ly 3 - 4 , 1973. from c e r t a i n work u n t i l bioassay r e s u l t s were received. Urine and f e c a l samples showed no de tec t ab le uptake of plutonium. from h i s i nves t iga t ion t h a t t he a i r samples were not v a l i d and t h a t e i g n i f i c a n t exposures d i d not occur. l i c e n s e e evaluat ions were reviewed during t h e inspect ion.

Involved employees were r e s t r i c t e d

The l i censee concluded

Analyses, bioassay records, and (Paragraph 24)

- 5 -

v .8-97

C. ‘On A p r i l 17 , 1972, an ope ra to r and two maintenance men became contaminated w h i l e r e p l a c i n g a pump i n a glove box i n t h e w e t ceramic a r e a . The maintenance men l e f t t h e p l a n t without adequate ly checking themselves for contaminat ion . When l e a v i n g t h e process a r e a , t h e o p e r a t o r found he was contaminated. Surveys of t h e two maintenance men when they r e tu rned t o t h e p l a n t r evea led contaminat ion on hands, f a c e , ’ h a i r , and pe r sona l e f f e c t s . S e v e r a l s p o t s of contaminat ion were found i n a pe r sona l c a r used by t h e two men. A l l t h r e e employees were decontaminated s u c c e s s f u l l y . Urine and decal samples showed no d e t e c t a b l e uptake of plutonium. (Paragraph 2 5 )

D. On August 18, 1973, l i q u i d was d iscovered l eak ing from a s t a t i o n a r y t r a i l e r van used f o r waste s t o r a g e a t t h e plutonium load ing dock. the leak w a s one of f o u r 55-gallon drums con ta in ing low-level ,plutonium waste which supposedly had been s o l i d i f i e d f o r shipment t o a l i c e n s e d d i s p o s a l agency. taminated g r a v e l benea th t h e trailer took 11 days. Contaminat ion and no release o f f s i t e .

The source of

Decontamination of t h e t r a i l e r and replacement of con- There was no pe r sona l

(Paragraph 26)

Other S i g n i f i c a n t F indings

A. Current f i n d i n g s

a. T h e l i c e n s e e h a d been given QA c l e a r a n c e on t h e FFTF p i n c o n t r a c t and was p repa r ing t o proceed wi th f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n .

2, A c t i v i t y a t t h e Uranium P lan t w a s l i m i t e d t o was te recovery and maintenance work. s ta r t up i n November 1973.

The ceramic and p e l l e t l i n e s were expected to

3: License SNM-928 has been amended t o lower t h e uranium posses s ion l i m i t . (Paragraph 6)

No l i c e n s i n g a c t i o n has been taken on f a c i l i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n and 4. personnel changes. (Paragraph 2) _-’

5. Waste handl ing a t t h e Plutonium P l a n t .was reviewed. other than was te s o l i d i f i c a t i o n were d e t e c t e d . (Paragraphs 19 , 20, and

No problem a r e a s

B. S t a t u s of P rev ious ly Reported Unresolved Items

%, The Nuclear S a f e t y O f f i c e r and t h e Licens ing and Regula t ions O f f i c e r r e q u i r e d i n Appendix A and Appendix B have no t y e t been r ep laced wi th q u a l i f i e d personnel . The a u d i t and c r i t i c a l i t y s a f e t y f u n c t i o n cont inu: to be performed by BNW c o n s u l t a n t s . (Paragraphs 3 and 8)

- 6 -

2.

30

I

4 .

5.

V.8-98

The new position of Health and Safety Coordinator and other organiza- tional changes from that shown in the licenses and the amendment applications submitted in 1968 and 1971, and having to do with the Nuclear Operations Group's safety program have still not been resub- mitted for Directorate of Licensing's consideration.L/

A glovebox criticality safety drain system recommended by the Criticality Safety Officer was found to be installed but due to the size of the drain lines and their vulnerability to plugging, it is questionable that there will be an effective safety system in the present state.

'The licensee has placed screens in the gloveboxes to protect the drains; 'however, the screens were not fastened down and in one glovebox the screen was found across the box from the drain. The licensee stated that the screens would be fastened over the drains.

A Change Review Request (CRR) form has been used informally in connection with facility changes. radiological and/or industrial safety review and a review for agreement with license requirements, before the change is initiated. No fonnal procedure existed for handling these CRR forms.

The CRR system requires a criticality,

A formal procedure for administering the CRR system has been drafted and is circulating for approvals.

Technical support in the area of radiation protection was previously questioned. this area.

(Paragraph 7)

The licensee has not as yet considered improvement in

The above items will be reviewed during the next inspection.

ManaRement Interview

Two interviews were conducted at the conclusion of the inspection; one at the corporate offices, and one at the Cimarron Plant. were present during the interviews:

The following Individuals

P. S. Dunn, Vice President, Nuclear Manufacturing W. J. Shelley, Director, Regulation and Control N. Moore, Manager, Cimarron Facility 6. J , Sinke, Health and Safety Coordinator IC. Bendrick, Attorney

- 1/ RO Inspection Reports No. 070-925172-03 and No. 070-1193172-03.

- 7 -

v .8-99

G. N. France , 111, License and S a f e t y O f f i c e r R. J, Adkisson, Con t rac t R e l a t i o n s Represen ta t ive R. L. Kiehn, s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , Efaintenance J. V. Narler, Supe r in t enden t , Plutonium P l a n t D. Rhodes, Supe r in t enden t , Uranium P lan t B. J. Buntz, Manager, Engineer ing and Technica l S e r v i c e R. Janka , Manager, Adminis t ra t ion and Accounting A. W. Norwood, Manager, Heal th Phys ic s and I n d u s t r i a l S a f e t y

The i n s p e c t o r s reviewed t h e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n s taken on p rev ious enforcement a c t i o n s and s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n s appeared t o have been implemented. He a l s o remarked t h a t ev idence had no t been g iven t o conf i rm t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n had been g iven t o employees concerned wi th t h e p rev ious o p e r a t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s . The l icensee s t a t e d t h a t most of t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s had been recorded a s material covered i n s h i f t s a f e t y meet ings.

The i n s p e c t o r s s t a t e d that s e v e r a l appa ren t v i o l a t i o n s as l i s t e d i n t h e Enforcement Ac t ion s e c t i o n had been d e t e c t e d and t h e s e were reviewed.

The recent l e a k a g e of d i l u t e plutonium waste s o l u t i o n from t h e drum stored on t h e s t o r a g e van was d i scussod . The i n s p e c t o r s s t a t e d t h a t t h e a c t i o n s f o l l o w i q t h e d e t e c t i o n of t h e l e a k appeared t o be proper and t h e c leanup was accomplished i n a s a f e manner. It was s t a t e d , however, t h a t t h e r e c u r r i n g problems of u r r s o l i d i f i e d was te had no t been thoroughly i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h e p a s t a s l eakages , had r eoccur red . The i n s p e c t o r s t a t e d t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s tudy he ing c a r r i e d o u t on t h e c o m p a t i b i l i t y of t h e waste material wi th u rea formaldehyde, a s t u d y should be made t o de te rmine t h e r equ i r ed mixing of t h e two components before and af ter adding t h e c a t a l y s t .

The i n s p e c t o r s s t a t e d t h a t f u r t h e r s o l i d i f i e d waste s h i p n e n t s should cease u n t i l t h e a s s o c i a t e d problems were r e s o l v e d , he would a d v i s e R0:III of t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e problem p r i o r t o f u r t h e r shippi;.

The l i c e n s e e agreed t o t h i s and s t a t e d

The i n s p e c t o r s r eques t ed that t h e l i c e n s e e document t h e h i s t o r y and a s s o c i a t e d problems t h a t he h a s exper ienced i n t h e i r l i q u i d waste s o l i d i f i c a t i o n progran . The l i c e n s e e p l a n s t o do t h i s . However, he s t a t e d that i n t h e p a s t they had not r e c e i v e d feedback from HQ r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , . from t h e documentation of s p e c i f i c problems t h a t had been submi t ted , i.e., t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n of t h e bag-out f i r e early i n March 1973.

The licensee was advised that management should review t h e i r h e a l t h phys i c s s t a f f i n g , s i n c e s t a f f i n g inadequac ie s appea r t o be a cause of survey r eco rd d e f i c i e n c i e s and f r e q u e n t c a n c e l l i n g of r o u t i n e h e a l t h p h y s i c s surveys .

V.8-100

11. Previous ly Reported Unr_esolved Items

l am P e l l e t Shipping Container I n s p e c t i o n s I A procedure had been d r a f t e d t o schedule p e r i o d i c i n s p e c t i o n s of t h e p e l l e t sh ipping c o n t a i n e r s as r equ i r ed by a l i c e n s e cond i t ion . The 1 procedure s p e c i f i e s t he :

I . (1) Frequency of i n spec t ions . I , (2) Conta iners t o be in spec ted .

- (3) Void l e v e l permi t ted .

' (4) Void l e v e l where a d d i t i o n a l v e r m i c u l i t e must be added. . . .

, ' *

b. Solu t ion Vacuum Cleaner Muff ler , .

The i n s p e c t o r observed t h a t a CRR had been submit ted f o r t h e s a f e t y a n a l y s i s of the s o l u t i o n vacuum c l e a n e r . It was be ing reviewed by BNWL.

I I There are no f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s on t h e above matters.

Plutonium P l a n t

12. S t a t u s

On September 1 4 , 1973, t h e l i c e n s e e rece ived t h e QA c e r t i f i c a t i o n and n o t i c e t o proceed on t h e FFTF f u e l c o n t r a c t . was l i m i t e d t o c leanup and maintenance of t h e f a c i l i t y i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e product ion run.

A c t i v i t y du r ing t h e in spec t ion

13. Tornado Warnings

During 1973, t h e l i c e n s e e rece ived two one-hour tornado a l e r t s on May 24 and June 4 . These n o t i f i c a t i o n s were recorded i n t h e gua rds ' s Dai ly Log Sheet and i n t h e Opera t ions Log. of t h e f a c i l i t y ' s tornado a l e r t procedures and a c t i o n s fo l lowing an a le r t was a v a i l a b l e as r equ i r ed by t h e l i c e n s e . A l i c e n s e e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t a t e d t h a t one eva lua t ion had been documented but i t had been l o s t . The brief n o t a t i o n s of t h e a le r t s i n t h e l o g book were no t cons idered t o be a proper e v a l u a t i o n of t h e procedures and a c t i o n s taken . e v a l u a t i o n s i s cons idered a v i o l a t i o n of Condi t ion 18 of License SNM-1174.

No record of t h e management's eva lua t ion

F a i l u r e t o document

- 13 -

v .8-101

This c o n d i t i o n supplements t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n r ega rd ing use of n u c l e a r poisons on pzgc 21, Appendix A of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , The proposed ANS s t anda rd r e fe renced i n t h e l i c e n s e c o n d i t i o n s has s i n c e been r e v i s e d and i s sued a s a n American Nat iona l S tandards I n s t i t u t e s t a n d a r d , ANSI N16.4-1971 which has been adopted as an a c c e p t a b l e procedure i n Regula tory Guide 3.1. The r equ i r ed sampling and t e s t i n g of t h e r i n g s in t h e proposed s t anda rd were more r i g o r o u s than t h o s e r e q u i r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t a n d a r d which now r e q u i r e s i n s p e c t i o n s f o r :

a. Ring s e t t i n g

b. S o l i d s Accumulation

(1) i n t h e t ank . .

' ' ' (2) on t h e r i n g s

I .

C . P h y s i c a l P r o p e r t i e s of t h e Rings

(1) mechanica l c o n d i t i o n (broken, c racked or chipped r i n g )

(2) Boron c o n t e n t

The f requency of i n s p e c t i o n s i n t h e proposed s t anda rd was s t a t e d a s "at

minimum of once every 13 months i n t h e approved s t anda rd . of t h e r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e d t h a t on ly one Raschig r i n g i n s p e c t i o n had been

, m a d e (February 28, 1972) s i n c e t h e approva l of License SNM-1174 on A p r i l 6 , 1970. Th i s i s n o t cons ide red t o be a t " f requent i n t e r v a l s " as r e q u i r e d no r was t h e r e any r eco rd of a n a l y s i s f o r boron c o n t e n t .

* f r e q u e n t i n t e r v a l s " wh i l e t h e i n s p e c t i o n frequency i s s p e c i f i e d as a An examinat ion

19. Waste Handling P rocess

a. Liquid Waste ?

Liqu id wastes from t h e Plutonium P l a n t are sepa ra t ed i n t o f o u r streams:

(1) S a n i t a r y Wastes - T o i l e t s o n l y e n t e r t h i s s t r eam which d i s c h a r g e s in to two s a n i t a r y lagoons t h a t i n t u r n d i s c h a r g e i n t o t h e Cimarron River.

. (2) Change Room and Decontaminarion Room Wastes - L a v a t o r i e s , showers and f l o o r d r a i n s i n t h e change rooms and decontaminat ion rooms, and a s i n k i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y d i scha rge a l t e r n a t e l y i n t o two 10,000 g a l l o n underground t anks which are sampled and r e l e a s e d t o t h e s a n i t a r y lagoons when c o n t e n t conce t r a t i o n s a re below t h e d i s c a r d l i m i t of one tenth hiPC o r 4.0 x lo-? P C i / m l .

-

- 15 =

b.

V.8-102 n

(3) Ilot Laundry Waste Wnter - Waste from one washing machinc i s c o l l c c t e d and sanplcd i n a tank and d ischarged a l t e r n a t e l y t o two 6,000 g a l l o n underground t anks when the c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s below MPC ( 4 . 0 x uCi/ml) . The underground t anks i n t u r n a r e sampled a g a i n t o a s s u r e t h e was tes are below HPC b e f o r e d i scha rge i n t o t h e Plutonium Holding Pond.

(4) J iqu id P rocess Waste - Wastes from t h e s c r a p p l a n t and wet ceramic f i l t r a t e s are c o l l e c t e d i n geomet r i ca l ly f a v o r a b l e t anks and ana lyzed be fo re t r a n s f e r t o non-geometr ical ly f a v o r a b l e hold tanks. The plutonium c o n c e n t r a t i o n l i m i t f o r t h e hold t anks is 0.03 g / 1 t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e s a f e mass l i m i t (200 g Pm) i s n o t exceeded.

* . A f t e r t h e l a r g e t a n k s are f u l l t hey are mixed and sampled, t h e pH a d j u s t e d u s i n g ammonia g a s and mixed t h r e e p a r t s t o one wi th urea formaldehyde (UF) i n 55 g a l l o n drums f o r shipment o f f s i t e a s s o l i d wastes.

S o l i d Wastes

S o l i d wastes contaminated wi th f i s s i l e m a t e r i a l s are c o l l e c t e d i n packages and a re counted i n t h e v a u l t by t h e cus tod ian . material i s recyc led t o t h e s c r a p p l a n t . Unrecoverable was tes a r e packaged i n 55 g a l l o n drums f o r o i f s i t e shipment . So l id was te s , i n c l u d i n g t h e s o l i d i f i e d l i q u i d s , are t empora r i ly s t o r e d i n a covered van o u t s i d e t h e p l a n t , bu t w i t h i n t h e exc lus ion a r e a u n t i l s u f f i c i e n t material i s accunula ted t o warran t a p i c k up by Nuclear Engineer ins Company, I n c . (NECO) . NECO u s e s e i t h e r "Super T i g e r , DOT S p e c i a l Permi t (SP) 6400, o r "Poly Pan the r , " DOT SP 6272 au thor i zed packages t o t r a n s p o r t t h e s o l i d wastes t o e i t h e r t h e S h e f f i e l d Nuclear Center , S h e f f i e l d , I l l i n o i s , o r Morehead, Kentucky, b u r i a l sites.

Recoverable

A review of sh ipp ing r e c o r d s f o r s o l i d wastes shipped from t h e Pu P l a n t s i n c e May 1972 showed t h a t a t o t a l of 327 drums of s o l i d i f i e d waste c o n t a i n i n g a t o t a l of 438 grams of plutonium had been sh ipped . One hundred seven ty f i v e drums were shipped t o Morehead and 152 drums were shipped t o S h e f f i e l d .

20. Low Level Plutonium Waste Leaks

a. S o l i d i f i c a t i o n P rocess

P r i o r t o May 1972, t h e l i c e n s e e used a f l o c c u l a t i o n - f i l t r a t i o n p rocess , t o remove plutonium-americium from p rocess was tes . Wastes were d i s - . charged i n t o a p l a s t i c l i n e d hold ing pond when t h e Concent ra t ion was below MPC (4 x wastes were s o l i d i f i e d In urea formaldehyde i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t r a n s p o r t

uCi/ml). Subsequent t o t h i s d a t e , l i q u i d p rocess

- 16 -

t o l i c e n s e d b a r i a l grounds. The 6 o l i d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s is conducted i n Room BO-2 of t h e Plutonium B u i l d i n g where t h e l a r g e l i q u i d was te t a n k s ore located, The d i l u t e ( l e s s than 0.03 g/l plutonium) was te i s s o l i d i f i e d i n drums f a b r i c a t c d t o DOT Specif i c a t i o n 1711 w h i c h con- t a i n p l a s t i c l i n e r bags . The s o l i d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s r c q u i r c s t h a t a measured 12.5 g a l l o n volume of urea formaldehyde (UF) b e p l a c e d i n t h e drum i n t o which 37 g a l l o n s of l i q u i d w a s t e , n e u t r a l i z e d w i t h ammonia, i s added. The drum t o p is i n s t a l l e d and t h e c o n t e n t s mixed € o r 15 m i n u t e s w i t h a d i s p o s a b l e a g i t a t o r . The a g i t a t o r is about 18 i n c h e s l o n g w i t h b l a d e s small enough t o e n t e r t h e drum bunghole . The m i x t u r e i s t h e n c a t a l y z e d by a d d i n g c o n c e n t r a t e d n i t r i c a c i d (about 800 ml) u n t i l a pH of 1 i s a t t a i n e d . a n o t h e r f i v e minutes . A f t e r f i v e m i n u t e s , when s o l i d i f i c a t i o n s t a r t s , t h e a g i t a t o r is r e l e a s e d and lowered i n t o t h e drum and t h e drum bung i n s t a l l e d . The drum i s checked f o r e x t e r n a l c o n t a m i n a t i o n and if c l e a n r e l e a s e d by t h e H e a l t h P h y s i c i s t . t h e t r a i l e r van f o r s t o r a g e . T h i s p r o c e s s i s c o n t i n u e d u n t i l t h e large waste t a n k i s empty.

The m i x t u r e is s t i r r e d

It i s t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t o

b. Drummed Waste Leaks

S e v e r a l l e a k s and c o n t a m i n a t i o n s p r e a d s have r e s u l t e d from s o l i d i f i c a - t i o n p r o c e s s problems i n t h e p a s t .

(1) Leak of J u l y 22, 1972

On J u l y 22, 1972, l i q u i d waste from a " s o l i d i f i e d " drum leaked t h r o u g h t h e bot tom of t h e t r a i l e r and contaminated a 2 112 f o o t d i a m e t e r of ground b e l o w . . E f f e c t i v e decontaminat ion of t h e ground, i n s i d e of t r a i l e r and t h e dock was promptly accomplished by K-M.

The leak c a u s e was a t t r i b u t e d t o incomple te s o l i d i f i c a t i o n of the drum c o n t e n t s and was c o n s i d e r e d by K-M t o be due t o a bad b a t c h of u r e a formaldehyde. The UF is purchased f r o m NECO. NECO i n t u r n o b t a i n s i t from several vendors . The b a t c h i n q u e s t i o n was more v i s c u o u s t h a n p r e v i o u s b a t c h e s . formaldehyde h a s a s h e l f l i f e of a b o u t one y e a r , and i ts v i s c o s i t y i n c r e a s e s w i t h a g e .

The l i c e n s e e ' s recommendations a t t h a t time t o p r e v e n t f u r t h e r leaks were:

Urea

(a) T e s t each b a t c h of UF f o r h a r d e n i n g p r o p e r t i e s .

(b) Use a h e a v i e r p l a s t i c l i n e r (12 mil p o l y - v i n y l c h l o r i d e ) .

- 17 -

V.8-104

(c ) Use a d i f f e r e n t s t i r r i n g rod for more e f f e c t i v e mixing,

(d) Require supe rv i so ry i n s p e c t i o n be fo re moving drumo froin Room 80-2 t o t h e s t o r a g e van.

(e) Add abso rben t m a t e r i a l t o t h e b a r r e l t o c o n t a i n any remaining

(f) C a r e f u l l y lower s t i r r i n g rod i n t o t h e drum t o prevent punctur ing

l i q u i d s .

t h e PVC l i n e r s .

( 6 ) Use new b a r r e l s t h a t had been l e a k t e s t e d .

Not a l l of t h e s e recommendations were incorpora ted i n t h e w r i t t e n Liquid Waste S o l i d i f i c a t i o n Procedure, KM-NP-37-2, Revis ion 1, da ted May 2, 1972, and p r e s e n t l y i n use . Discuss ions wi th employees d i s c l o s e d t h a t t h e recornendat ions were p a r t i a l l y being fol lowed.

(2) Leaks of A p r i l 2 4 and May 7, 1973

On two o t h e r occas ions l e a k s a t t r i b u t e d t o l e a k i n g " s o l i d i f i e d " waste drums had been recorded . On A p r i l 24, 1973 , t h e loading dock was contaminated by l e a k i n g drums. On Flay 7, 1973, r o u t i n e su rve s d e t e c t e d contarninat ion l e v e l s up t o 10,000 d/m p e r

t h a t t h e t r a i . l e r and dock were decontaminated and t h a t contaminated g r a v e l was removed f o r d i s p o s a l as contaminated waste . A i r sample r e c o r d s show c o n c e n t r a t i o n s below MPC. No exposures of o f f s i t e r e l e a s e s r e s u l t e d .

60 c m s on t h e ground under t h e t r a i l e r , Licensee r eco rds show

Licensee r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s s t a t e d t h a t e a r l y i n 1973 almost every drum of s o l i d i f i e d was te had r e s i d u a l l i q u i d i n i t , l i q u i d con- t e n t va ry ing from dampness to complete s e p a r a t i o n . Large volumes of r e s i d u a l l i q u i d were removed back t o t h e waste tank by vacuum t r a n s f e r . Cement and Sorb-All were then added t o t h e t c p of t h e drummed s o l i d waste t o absorb any remaining l i q u i d s . This was done be fo re moving t h e drums t o t h e t ra i le r .

Each b a t c h of waste was t e s t e d i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y t o a s s u r e t h a t i t would s o l i d i f y . No problems were d e t e c t e d i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y tests of smal l volumes.

On June 5 , 1973, NECO r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a t Morehead, Kentucky, n o t i f i e d t h e l i c e n s e e t h a t t h r e e drums of s o l i d i f i e d wastes in a "Super Tiger" package had been r ece ived from K-14. The l i q u i d was subsequent ly s o l i d i f i e d and t h e drums bur ied a t the Morehead s i te .

- 18 -

n

V.8-105

During a v i s i t on September 2 6 , 1973, by t h e i n s p e c t o r s t o the NECO S h e f f i e l d , I l l i n o i s , Nuclear Center , i t was noted from r e c o r d s that on J u l y 11, 1973, a shipment of s o l i d was tes had been received from K-M wi th about f i v e g a l l o n s of milky l i q u i d i n t h e bottom of t h e i n n e r l i n e r of a "Poly Panther" package. Absorbent was 2dded t o t h e l i n e r t o c o n t a i n t h e l i q u i d and t h e l i n e r con ta in ing t h e drums was bur ied . were encountered i n e i t h e r of t h e s e b u r i a l s .

According t o NECO r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s no problems

Condi t ion 28 of License SN'M-1174 states, "This l i c e n s e does not a u t h o r i z e t h e d e l i v e r y of l i censed m a t e r i a l t o a c a r r i e r f o r t r a n s p o r t except as may be au tho r i zed pursuant t o 10 CFR 71."

Sec t ion 71.10 of 10 CFR 71 s t a t e s t h a t an exemption t o t h e r equ i r e - ment of t h i s p a r t of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s i s permi t ted when d e l i v e r y of Type B q u a n t i t y of r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l , a s de f ined i n paragraph 7 1 . 4 ( q ) , t o a c a r r i e r f o r t r a n s p o r t , is accomplished i n accordtince w i t h t h e p rov i s ions of a s p e c i a l permi t , which has been issued by the Department of T ranspor t a t ion and i s i n e f f e c t on June 3 0 , 1973.

On t h e two s p e c i f i e d occas ions t h e s p e c i a l DOT permit requirements governing t h e shipments were no t f u l l y adhered t o i n t h a t wastes r ece ived f o r b u r i a l were no t i n t h e d ry s o l i d form. I n one case t h e shipment was made i n a "Poly Panther , " DOT SP 6272 package, which cons i s t ed of one waste drum con ta in ing l i q u i d , t h u s v i o l a t i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e DOT permi t . This shipment, t h e r e f o r e , d id n o t comply wi th t h e p rov i s ions of Sec t ion 71.10 and a l s o 71.12 of 10 CFR 7 1 i n t h a t a gene ra l l i c e n s e was no t secured t o cover t h e shipment, which conta ined a t l e a s t one waste drum of contaminated l i q u i d .

I n t h e second case, t h e shipment was made i n a "Super T ige r , " DOT SP 6400 package, t h e "Super Tiger" a r r i v e d a t t h e b u r i a l s i t e i t he ld t h r e e drums which conta ined l i q u i d s . Th i s shipment which is governed by a s p e c i a l l i c e n s e (SNi-338) d i d not comply w i t h t h e terms of t h e l icense nor 10 CFR 71 , .Sec t ion 71.12 i n n e r packages con ta in ing l i q u i d s d i d not m e e t t h e drop test requi rements s p e c i f i e d by paragraph 173.393(g) of t h e DOT r e g u l a t i o n s .

i n t h a t t h e

(3) Leak of August 18, 1973

See paragraph 26 for d e t a i l s .

21. S o l i d i f i c a t i o n Process Tes t ing and Extent of Process Use

The licensee is c u r r e n t l y conduct ing l a b o r a t o r y tests t o a s c e r t a i n t h e cause of "weepage, I' "breakdown" and "nonsol id i f i c a t i o n : of t h e u rea

- 19 -

I

V. 13- 106 n

f o t m l d c h y d e - waste mix tu res . n i t r a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and mix tu res of aounonium and sodium n i t r a t e s o l u t i o n s . The tests i n d i c a t e d t h a t s o l u t i o n s wi th ammonium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s above 7 molar f a i l e d t o set up and i n a l l c a s e s weepaee was observed. T h e tests u s i n g ammonium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ( 7 molar r equ i r ed from 10 t o 30 minutes t o harden and a f t e r 1 0 days t h e c o n t e n t s were s t i l l s o l i d . Cold tests on s u l p h a t e s a l t s o l u t i o n s and hot tests performed on a c t u a l was te s o l u t i o n s from tanks 184 and 185 con ta ined va ry ing amounts of l i q u i d s a f t e r s e t t i n g e few days.

Cold tests were made wi th va ry ing ammonium

F u r t h e r l a b o r a t o r y t e s t i n g had convinced t h e l i c e n s e e t h a t was t e s n e u t r a l i z e d w i t h c a u s t i c i n s t e a d of ammonia would set up and remain s o l i d . P l a n t tests w e r e , t o be conducted t o conf i rm t h i s p rocess change.

T e s t s were conducted w i t h cement a s t h e s o l i d i f y i n g agen t w i th and wi thout Sorb-All added.

P r o t e c t i v e Packaging I n d u s t r i e s (PPI ) , a s u b s i d i a r y of NECO supp l i ed another r e s i n f o r t e s t i n g . Th i s r e s i n was e l imina ted by K-M because i t s water ho ld ing c a p a c i t y was much less than UF and i t d i d no t s e t up prope r ly . A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of PPI was con tac t ed by Region I11 t o o b t a i n informat ion on t h e use of UF as a s o l i d i f y i n g agen t and t o determine i f any o t h e r of t h e i r cus tomers were encounter ing similar d i f f i c u l t i e s . The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t a t e d

* t h a t a l though PPI had so ld t h e i r T iger - loc i n t e g r a t e d r a d v a s t e system t o abou t n i n e n u c l e a r power s t a t i o n s , none of them as y e t have produced any s o l i d i f i e d waste wi th t h i s system. The P a l i s a d e s r e a c t o r w i l l be t h e f i r s t t o produce s o l i d waste f o r shipment u s i n g t h i s system, p o s s i b l y by November 1973.

NECO h a s used UF t o s o l i d i f y l i q u i d wastes a t t h e Morehead s i te . An i n t e g r a t e d system of p ropor t ion ing meters combine t h e f lows of was te and UF. is added wi th a d d i t i o n a l mixing p r i o r t o d i scha rge . were d i scha rged i n t o l i n e d open t r enches and covered. Now t h e l i q u i d wastes a t Morehead are p reconcen t r a t ed and s o l i d i f i e d wi th UF i n t o 55 g a l l o n drums which a re bur i ed .

. They a r e mixed i n a n i n t e r n a l k i n e t i c mixer a f t e r which a c a t a l y s t

I n i t i a l l y t h e wastes

NECO and PPI do n o t have any o t h e r known u s e r s of UF but s t a t e d t h a t Hittman Nuclear and Development Corpora t ion (HNDC) , a s u b s i d i a r y of Hittman Corpora t ion w a s a l s o u s i n g UF as a s o l i d i f y i n g a g e n t .

The PPI r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t a t e d t o t h e i n s p e c r o r t h a t t h e l i c e n s e e ' s problems w i t h UF - waste s e p a r a t i o n could i n p a r t be caused by i n s u f f i c i e n t mixing, e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r adding t h e c a t a l y s t , and t h a t t h e ba t ch mixing process used by t h e l i c e n s e e would be d i f f i c u l t t o c o n t r o l .

- 20 -

V.8-107

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of HNDC were contac ted by t h e Region I11 i n s p e c t o r t o de te rmine t h e e x t e n t of t h e i r l i q u i d waste s o l i d i f i c a t i o n s e r v i c e . T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s s t a t e d t h a t they had s o l i d i f i e d about 8 ,000 g a l l o n s of b o t h BWR wastes (25 weight percent sodium su lpha te ) and PWR was tes ( 1 2 weight pe rcen t b o r i c a c i d ) i n t o 1500 g a l l o n , 114 inch t h i c k s t e e l tanks

The b u r i a l s have been a t t h e NFS s i t e i n New York. He s t a t e d t h a t they ' h a v e had no problems wi th l i q u i d i f i c a t i o n of t h e mix tu res , bu t had done much exper imenta t ion t o a r r i v e a t t h e b e s t UF and c a t a l y s t a s w e l l a s t h e proper mix r a t i o of waste and UF.' The " D C system is s i m i l a r t o t h a t of

' PPI and i t h a s been s o l d t o s e v e r a l nuc lea r s t a t i o n s . A t p r e s e n t t h e " D C mixing system i s s t a t i o n e d on a t r u c k and taken t o t h e source of t h e was te where t h e s o l i d i f i c a t i o n ope ra t ion i s c a r r i e d o u t .

. i n s i d e of a s ix- inch c o n c r e t e s h i e l d v e s s e l . The s h i e l d and all is bur i ed .

HNDC u s e s one p a r t of . . .UF t o 2 p a r t s of l i o u i d wastes .

22. F i n a l C o r r e c t i v e Act ions Re la t ing t o S o l i d i f i c a t i o n Process Problem Reso lu t ion

Fol lowing t h e i n s p e c t i o n t h e l i c e n s e e was contac ted f o r t h e purpose of l e a r n i n g t h e s t a t u s of t h e l i c e n s e e ' s c o r r e c t i v e e f f o r t s . was informed t h e fo l lowing a c t i o n s were being taken:

The i n s p e c t o r

' ,a. , W a s t e s o l u t i o n s are t o be n e u t r a l i z e d wi th sodium hydroxide t o remove : . ammonium gas.

b. The n h t r a l i z e d was te w i l l be d i g e s t e d f o r 8 hours t o e l i m i n a t e more of the ammonia.

C .

d.

The r a t i o of was te of UF w i l l be decreased from 3 : l t o 2 : l .

The mixer b l ade w i l l be modif ied t o prevent c u t t i n g t h e l i n e r . a

e. The c o n t e n t s of each drum w i l l be in spec ted 5 days a f t e r s o l i d i f i c a t i o n for any r e s i d u a l l i q u i d .

f . The drum l i n e r w i l l be changed t o a 40 m i l po lye thylene f r e e s t a n d i n g l i n e r .

The l i n e r w i l l be t e s t e d f o r l e a k s and t h e 17H DOT drums w i l l undergo a q u a l i t y i n s p e c t i o n be fo re use .

g.

An AEC i n s p e c t i o n w i l l be made t o v e r i f y t h a t t h e above changes a r e e f f e c t i v e i n s o l v i n g t h e s o l i d i f i c a t i o n p rocess problem. ,

- 21 -

V.8-108

REPORT DETAILS

Part I1 (Radio logica l P ro tec t ion )

Prepared by ’ ‘ * 7 -. . Jr,:;, ,

dJ’ A = Finn

Reviewed by . sT ,k (c [k , L. F i she r

23. Reported Overexposure t o Airborne R a d i o a c t i v i t y

By t e lephone on J u l y 18, 1973, t h e l i c e n s e e informed Region 111 t h a t an appa ren t overexposure of an i n d i v i d u a l t o a i r b o r n e plutonium had occurred a t t h e e a s t s l o t box i n t h e gene ra l l a b o r a t o r y (Room 129) . I n accordance w i t h 1 0 CFR 20 .405(a ) ( l ) , a w r i t t e n r e p o r t da ted J u l y 31, 1973, w a s submi t t ed t o t h e Commission s t a t i n g t h a t , based on a i r samples , an employee had been exposed t o a concexi t ra t ion of 2.6 x 10-12 microcur ies per m i l l i l i t e r d u r i n g t h e per iod Ju ly 8 - 1 4 , 1973, a s averaged over 40 hours . This is 1.3 times t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n €o r s o l u b l e plutonium s p e c i f i e d i n Appendix B ,

-Table I , Column 1, ( 2 x mic rocur i e s per m i l l i l i t e r ) . Urine samples t aken a f t e r t h e exposure showed no uptake of plutonium. Prevent ive a c t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n t h e l i c e n s e e ’ s l e t t e r of J u l y 31, 1973, has been taken and t h e employee has been n o t i f i e d i n w r i t i n g of t h e e x t e n t of h i s exposure. A f t e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e l i c e n s e e concluded t h a t t h e most probable cause of t h e i n c i d e n t was f a i l u r e t o fo l low procedures . Contamination c o n t r o l a t s l o t boxes r e q u i r e s s t r ic t adherence t o procedures which s p e c i f y t h a t no m a t e r i a l may be removed through t h e s l o t and t h a t paper l i n i n g t h e bottom of t h e box must be f r e q u e n t l y rep laced wi th c l e a n paper . personnel have been r e i n s t r u c t e d i n proper work methods and p r e c a u t i o n s f o r u s e of t h e s l o t boxes.

I

Laboratory

The r epor t ed overexposure c o n s t i t u t e s noncompliance wi th 10 CFR 20.103(a), “Exposure of i n d i v i d u a l s t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l i n r e s t r i c t e d a r e a s .

24. Unusual Occurrence

On J u l y 18, 1973, t h e l i c e n s e e informed Region 111 by te lephone t h a t 48-hour a i r samples f o r J u l y 3 - 4, 1973, i n d i c a t e d p o t e n t i a l exposures t o a i r b o r n e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of plutonium up t o SO0 MPC-hours.

Ten employees were placed on r e s t r i c t e d s t a t u s pending i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the matter. Feca l and u r i n e samples i n d i c a t e d no d e t e c t a b l e uptake of

- 22 - n

v .&IO9

plutonium. The h i g h e s t f e c a l saniple was 10 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s per minute p e r t o t a l sample. Urine samples analyzed by t h e l i c e n s e e ' s Technica l Center were, wi th two excep t ions , less than 0.4 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s per minute p e r l i t e r of u r i n e (minimum d e t e c t i o n l e v e l ) , The two excep t ions were 0.4 d i c i n t e g r a t i o n s pe r minute per l i t e r and 0.7 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s pe r minute

. p e r l i t e r .

&.e of t h e a i r samples was sub jec t ed t o p u l s e h e i g h t a n a l y s i s , which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a c t i v i t y was about 80% americium 241 and 20% plutonium 239. These p r o p o r t i o n s r ep resen t . s c r a p recovery type m a t e r i a l r a t h e r than

, thc type of m a t e r i a l used i n the l a b o r a t o r y rooms where t h e h igh a i r ' camples were incu r red . These rooms inc lude t h e Metal lography Labora tory ,

the Dark Room, t h e Spec t rographic Labora tory , and t h e Dry P r e p a r a t i o n Labora tory .

. . . , ' - i i r ; toradiographs of t h e a i r sample f i l t e r s showed a c t i v i t y p a t t e r n s of t h e

s i z e and shape of f i n g e r p r i n t s i n s t e a d of t h e normal uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n of a c t i v i t y over t h e e n t i r e s u r f a c e .

There was no contaminat ion i n t h e rooms having h igh a i r .samples. sainples i n t h e g e n e r a l l a b o r a t o r y were a t o r n e a r background for t h e G a m e pe r iod .

The l i c e n s e e concluded, on t h e b a s i s of t h i s ev idence , t h a t t h e h igh a i r

10 CFR 20.

A i r

' samples were n o t v a l i d and hence t h e matter was n o t r e p o r t a b l e under

A review of l i c e n s e e r e c o r d s of a i r samples , surveys , and b i o a s s a y s , and i n s p e c t i o n of au to rad iog raphs s u b s t a n t i a t e d l i c e n s e e conc lus ions t h a t t h e

\. air samples were no t v a l i d .

25* Personne l Contamination Occurrence

On A p r i l 1 7 , 1972, an o p e r a t o r and two maintenance men became contaminated w h i l e r e p l a c i n g a pump i n a glovebox i n t h e wet ceramic area. The maintc- nance men l e f t t h e p l a n t s i t e . A few minutes l a t e r , t h e o p e r a t o r d i scove red t h a t he was contaminated du r ing a r o u t i n e se l f - su rvey , and n o t i f i e d h e a l t h p h y s i c s pe r sonne l . Upon r e t u r n i n g t o t h e p l a n t , t h e maintenance men were w r v e y e d by h e a l t h phys i c s and found t o be Contaminated. Contamination l e v e l s on hands, head, and f a c e were g r e a t e r than 100,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s

d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s pe r minute . I n a d d i t i o n , va ry ing l e v e l s of contaminat ion were found on pe r sona l c l o t h i n g belonging t o t h e t h r e e employees. t a n i n a t i o n l e v e l s found o u t s i d e t h e c o n t r o l a r e a s b u t w i t h i n t h e l i c e n s e e p l a n t inc luded 1 ,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s pe r minute on t h e door of t h e locke r room, up t o 20,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s pe r minute on a p a i r of c o v e r a l l s hanging in the l o c k e r , 100,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r minute on safety g l a s s e s , and

, p e r minute pe r 60 squa re c e n t i m e t e r s . Nasal smears ranged up t o 160

Con-

- 23 -

V.3-110

2,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s per minute on t h e time c lock . s p o t s up t o 2,200 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s per minute were found i n t h e personal c a r used by t h e niaintenance men.

Seve ra l contaminat ion

The cause of t h e contaminat ion was a t t r i b u t e d t o g love f a i l u r e . of t h e spread of contaminat ion w a s a t t r i b u t e d t o f a i l u r e of t h e two maintenance men t o make adequate pe r sona l surveys be fo re l e a v i n g the work area and t h e p l a n t . b e f o r e l e a v i n g t h e w e t c'eramic area, but they d i d n o t survey t h e i r head, face, arms, o r t h e i r c o v e r a l l s , and d i d n o t survey themselves i n t h e l o c k e r room a f t e r removal of t h e i r p r o t e c t i v e c l o t h i n g . procedures r equ i r ed (as a minimum) survey of hands each time a f t e r removal of hands from glovebox g loves ; survey of hands, forearms, and f r o n t p o r t i o n of t h e i r p r o t e c t i v e c l o t h i n g and shoe cove r s be fo re l e a v i n g t h e ass igned

:work area; survey of shoe cove r s a f t e r r each ing t h e e x i t survey s t a t i o n . I n t h e c o r r i d o r b e f o r e e x i t i n g i n t o t h e nonrad ia t ion a r e a ; and survey of shoes a f t e r removal of shoe cove r s . v ided a t t h e work l o c a t i o n , a t t h e e x i t of t h e w e t ceramic a r e a , a t t h e exit of t h e w e t p rocess ing area, a t t h e process a r e a e x i t survey s t a t i o n in t h e c o y r i d o r , and t h e e x i t of t h e l o c k e r room i n t o t h e f r o n t o f f i c e a r e a . These s t a t i o n s a re a l l passed en rou te from t h e w e t ceramic a r e a t o t h e p l a n t e x i t .

The cause

The men r e p o r t e d l y surveyed t h e i r hands and shoe cove r s

E x i s t i n g w r i t t e n

P o r t a b l e survey i n s t r u n e n t s a r e pro-

-Act ion t aken inc luded decontaminat ion of t h e a r e a and of t h e i n d i v l d u a l s . Ur ine and f e c a l samples taken from t h e i n d i v i d u a i s showed no uptake of plutonium. The h i g h e s t f e c a l r e s u l t was 1 . 3 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s pe r minute p e r t o t a l sample. The h i g h e s t u r i n e sample was 0.9 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s per minute per 24-hour sample and fol lowup samples were less than 0 . 1 d i s i n - t e g r a t i o n s p e r minute per 24-hour sample. The two maintenance men were g iven l e t t e r s of reprimand f o r f a i l u r e t o fo l low w r i t t e n procedures and p l a n t pe r sonne l were adv i sed of t h e occurrence .

There were no s i g n i f i c a n t exposures . The l i c e n s e e i n d i c a t e d t h a t o f f s i t e contaminat ion su rveys were n o t made because of t h e low l e v e l s of contamina- t i o n found i n t h e p e r s o n a l automobile used by t h e employees. The l i c e n s e e was advised t h a t f a i l u r e t o e v a l u a t e p o s s i b l e contaminat ion l e v e l s i n u n r e s t r i c t e d areas c o n s t i t u t e s noncompliance wi th 1 0 CFR 20.201(b) .

26. Plutonium Waste Leak, AuPust 18, 1973

Packaged s o l i d waste is s t o r e d i n a t ra i le r van a t t h e load ing dock o u t s i d e

a l i c e n s e d b u r i a l f a c i l i t y . The t r a i l e r is used f o r s t o r a g e only . Th i s u se is a u t h o r i z e d by License Condi t ion 31 (Amendment 1 t o t h e l i c e n s e ) .

' t h e plutonium b u i l d i n g ( i n s i d e t h e fenced yard) wh i l e awa i t ing shipment t o

A t 7:55 a . m . on August 18, 1973, a h e a l t h phys i c s t e c h n i c i a n d iscovered l i q u i d d r i p p i n g from t h e t ra i ler . The l i q u i d was found t o be l e a k i n g

- 24 -

v .8-111

from one of f o u r 55-gal lon drums c o n t a i n i n g low l e v e l l i q u i d plutonium waste which had supposedly been s o l i d i f i e d w i t h u rea formaldehyde.

The area around t h e t r a i l e r was e s t a b l i s h e d as a contaminat ion c o n t r o l area. Decontaminat ion e f f o r t s were begun imnedia te ly and cont inued over a p e r i o d of 11 days under t h e c o n s t a n t superv is ion . of h e a l t h phys ics pe r sonne l . The f o u r drums were removed i n t o t h e b u i l d i n g f o r rework and t h e t ra i le r was decontaminated. Tires and o t h e r removable p a r t s of t h e t ra i le r were packaged a s contaminated waste. d i r t were removed from undernea th t h e t r a i l e r u n t i l t h e r e was no d e t e c t a b l e contaminat ion . The removed material was packaged a s contaminated waste .

Contaminated g r a v e l and

Contaminat ion l e v e l s a t t h e beginning were g r e a t e r than 1,000,000 d i s i n t e - g r a t i o n s p e r minute per 60 squa re c e n t i m e t e r s on t h e t r a i l e r f l o o r and on t h e ground undernea th t h e t r a i l e r . Tra i le r t i res were g r e a t e r than 100,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s pe r minute . involved i n t h e su rveys , contaminat ion l e v e l s on t h e o u t s i d e of t h e t r a i l e r were less than 500 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r minute smearable and l e s s than 30,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s pe r minute d i r e c t r ead ing p r i o r t o f i x i n g wi th p a i n t . However, no r e c o r d s were made of t h e s e r ead ings . Fol lowing e x t e n s i v e decontaminat ion , t h e contaminated a r e a s were coa ted wi th red o x i d e p a i n t and two l a y e r s of g ray p a i n t . There was no d e t e c t a b l e con- t amina t ion subsequent t o p a i n t i n g t h e s u r f a c e s .

According t o h e a l t h phys i c s t e c h n i c i a n s

*

' I n d i v i d u a l s do ing t h e decontaminat ion wore p r o t e c t i v e c o v e r a l l s , b o o t i e s , rubbe r g loves , head cove r ing , and f u l l f a c e r e s p i r a t o r s .

No per sonne l contaminat ion o r exposure t o a i r b o r n e r a d i o a c t i v i t y was i n c u r r e d and t h e r e was no r e l e a s e t o t h e env i rons . A i r samples were t aken i n o i d e and o u t s i d e t h e t r a i l e r d u r i n g decontaminat ion . The maximum a i r b o r n e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o u t s i d e t h e t r a i l e r was 5.9 x lO-l3 mic rocur i e s p e r m i l l i l i t e r . I n s i d e t h e t ra i le r , t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ranged from 1.2 x mic rocur i e s pe r m i l l i l i t e r t o 8.6 x microcur i e s p e r m i l l i l i t e r . m i c r o c u r i e s pe r m i l l i l i t e r . .

MPC f o r s o l u b l e plutonium i n r e s t r i c t e d areas is 2 x

One i t e m of noncompliance w a s i n c u r r e d , i n t h a t , c o n t r a r y t o 1 0 CFR 20.401(b), no r e c o r d s were made of t h e r e s i d u a l contaminat ion l e v e l s pr ior t o cove r ing w i t h p a i n t .

- 25 -

V.8-112

ENCLOSURE 3

RESPONSE TO MATTERS ADDRESSED BY YOUR LETTERS NOT COVERED BY OUR INSPECTION REPORT

October 1, 1973 Letter

1.

2 ,

3.

Items a-e - Refer to inspection report. Item f - The site conditions which you identified were evaluated by the Directorate of Licensing as part of their review of the facility operating license application. It was concluded that there was reasonable assurance that the plant could be operated within Regulatory Requirements with no undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The plant was constructed with the recognition of Oklahoma weather conditions. Those portions of the plant where plutonium is stored were constructed to resist even the direct impact of a tornado. addition, operations are required by the Operating License to be shut down during any period when meteorological data indicate there may be tornado activity in the area. tonium is stored in a concrete vault.

(Enclosure 2)

In

During tornado alert periods the plu-

Item g - The Department of Transportation and Atomic Energy Commission regulations concerning transportation of radioactive material are based on the assumption that not all transportation accidents are entirely preventable. This assumption has resulted in detailed packaging and labeling requirements which are intended to minimize any hazard to carrier personnel during shipment, and to the public following a transportation accident.

October 9 , 1973 Letter

1.

2.

3,

Item 1 - Discussed in our letter. Items 2 and 3 - With respect to the misleading information that appeared in the newspapers, we can only comment that the AEC does not have control over this activity. We would like to emphasize, however, that the AEC did furnish a press release to the Oklahoma City newspapers regarding the waste drum leak. story stated that Kerr-McGee had received a clean bill of health as a result of our recent inspection.

We regret that the referenced news

The news story's statement concerning criticality resulted from the reporter's questioning whether the waste drums could explode. this as a logical question answered logically and reported fairly.

We view

Items 4, 5 and 6 - This matter was addressed in our November 2 meeting with corporate licensee management.

- 2 -

4. Item 7 - We would like to call your attention to the publications of . authoritative bodies, such as the National Council on Radiation Pro-

tection and Measurements and the International Commission on Radio- logical protection, for .factdal information concerning the effects of radiation exposure and the meaning of exposure limits. ICRP Publication 2 , "Report of Committee I1 on Permissible Dose for

' Internal Radiation," states: ". . .occupational exposure for the working life of an individual at the maximum permissible values recommended in this report (essentially the same as the AEC limits published in 10 CFR 20) is not expected to entail appreciable risk of damage to the individual or to present a hazard more severe than those commonly accepted in other present day industries."

Item 8 - No comment necessary.

For exampLe,

5.

6. Items 9 and 13 - On November 2 , 1973, we met with Mr. McGee and other corporate management representatives to discuss our concerns respecting the deficiencies identified in our inspection program and the need for improving the quality of operations at the Cimarron

are confident that appropriate corrective measures will be taken at the Cimarron Plant to assure the safety of plant operations and compliance with the Operating License. monitor these matters with an augmented inspection program and will take other actions as necessary and appropriate.

. 'Plant. On the basis of these discussions with top management, we

However, we will continue to

7. Items 10, 11, and 14 - The AEC has undertaken an environmental review A s yet, no date has been sched- of the Kerr-McGee Cimarron facility.

uled for the issuance of the draft environmental statement by the AEC; however, the Directorate of Licensing is taking action to obtain the additional information needed from Kerr-McGee to enable the staff to expedite preparation of the statement. mental statement is issued, a copy will be placed in the public record maintained at the Guthrie, Oklahoma, library and the public will be advised of the statement by a notice in the Federal Register inviting comments. At the same time, the draft statement w i l l be sent to Federal and Oklahoma State agencies for their review and comment. In view of your interest in this matter, we have arranged for our Directorate of Licensing to add your name to the distribution list for this draft environmental statement. Any comments that you may have will be considered with other comments received in the preparation of the final environmental statement. Substantive comments are taken into account by the AEC to assure that the plant's operation and its impact on the human environment is appropriately assessed.

A s soon as the draft environ-

W.3-114

V.8-115

V.8-116 n

n

V.8-117

V.8-llU

n

V.8-120

\ - . L'l q-. anagor coiiduct an annual intornail ;-c.,-L j;r. Cont:-ary t o abovo h n a g o r f a i l e d t o conduct an i n t o r n a l :-dvj.c:.: as r o q u i r e d

,,:can30 ?io 8.1 r o q u i r o s

V r i k c t o ..- ii.S. .ltomic &orgy Cornnission, !.!as'ninG;ton D.C. 20545 G ocurncnt Roorn Coordina tor Xoon 016 I icgulatory to lophono 301-973-7333 for docunents.

(may bo 616 m.)

V .8-I2I

#.

From A ZC, Frank Ib!alonc, C h o i f , Adm. Sarv icos 3rnnch Cff ico of Adminis t ra t ion

. a

Idccnso IJo. SN1 1174 ihonclmont No. l*!PP-1

1.isasuronant s end Y t a t i s t i c a1 Cont 1.01 s . 3.1 i’hc l i c m s o r , shall dctarmlno tho U235, U233 and o r Pu contan t of 3.11 r o c : ? i p t s , shipmonts intont iono.1 d i s c s r d s and i n v e n t o r i e d , 010r.g w i t h tho liiiiits o f o r r o r oxc2pt as specii-iod i n Condit ion 6.2. iicnsurcmcnts n o n o t rcqui rod on i t z m s which hnvc beon detsrminod by o t h o r mocms t o cont?.in less then 10 g r a m s U235, U233

End or Pu Z x h . L i n i t s o f e r r o r a.s usod. h o r o i m tn!3 n s t h o bound.rios w i t h i n vi).ich t h o t r u o o r b e s t va lue o f t h o p a r m o t o r boing mcasurad l i s s 1.rii;h n p r o b a b i l i t y of 955.

3.7 zxcocd.s t h o l s r g e r of ( a ) 1.5 l r i l o ~ r n m s Bf Plutonium o r (b) . p o f ac?d.itions t o plutonium i n proc83ss f o r t h o poriod, o r ( c ) t h o cunul- crtivo S4UF oxcccds i t s L L ~ I U F for p s i x months por iod , t h e l i c o n s a o s h e l l promply n o t i f y t h o Rogion 3 Off ica , and shall tzka immediate a c t i o n t o i n v s s t i ’ a t c t h e causo of t h e s x c o s s i v e valuos. This cvrluntion s h a l l bo porforrnod a t t h o bnd o f each 30 dny m o . t o r i a 1 bnloncc n s r i o d for t h e prev ious 6 months. Undx? t h i s c o n d i t i o n t h o f i r s t evaluation s n h l l be p e r f o m c d f o r t h o July-Dec. 1973 ti. .d poriod.

3.8 .It t h o co:ipletion of t h e FFTF p r o j e c t , t h o l i c o n s s o s h a l l 3ukciit t o t h o E;;n.torials and P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n Erench , U i r c c t o r a t o of Liconsing, USAEC W3.sh. 20545 witha copy t o Fbgion 3, Offic:, of Ui r r ic torz te of’ Regulations, a r e p o r t which sumnarizes a l l comrjoncnts of t h e m a t e r i a l bnlanco f o r t h e p r o j e c t ; the l i m i t s of c r r o r f o r o m h corapanent, the cumulative m a t o r i a l unaccounted forg . and tho cuciulative l i m i t s of o r r o r f o r t h e m a t e r i a l unaccounted f o r . Tnis r 3 p o r t shall be submit ted w i t h i n s i x t y days a f t e r t h o l a s t product shipment i s made.

x+*A3:+;n”+x+k June 8,1973

To i30yco G r i o r , Region 3, 799 Roosavsl t Rd. Glon Ir;?lyn, Ill. 60137

O o a r i , - i . G r i o r : Wo a r e i n c o c o i p t o f your l o t t o r f o r Nay 21 r e l a t - i n g t o t l io i n s p e c t i o n conducted subsoquont t o t h e fir3 which occurod :!t our vlutonium- :>lnnt on Piarch 5 , 1973.

.

If’ t h e c u n u l a t i v o L G U F for plutonium f o r a s i x month por iod 5;1

kh:’L.!c vro do n o t b q l i c v o wo hayo a b a s i s f o r withholdiniT m y p o r t i o n of i;h..t cnclbscd i n s p c c t i o n r s p o r t o from t ho w b l i c on th:? b ! ? k i 3 of pronriot:i.ry i n f o m a t i o n , wo do w i s h t o o b j o c t t o c : r t r i $ i t o n l s b q c l r ? .xn . ‘Yc: b:isO those o b j e c t i o n s upon tho f a c t t h n t nono o f ?,!io o: ; jcc t s would r e s u l t i n r o d u c t i o n of body burdon n o r irn- p r o v mont of‘ t roatment . ].:rnps.@o t o thg offoct t h a t t h o -%;EC would havo mazm&Ax done t h i n g s d . i f f e r o n t l y . Wo b s l i o v a t h a t tho a t t i t u d o t h a t a connnor- c i a l or>oi-ntion m u s t be equipped t o coinplotsly r e s s z r c h t h o c m s o and o f f o c t of any such inciclont a3 we have exporioncod i a boyond tho roquiroments of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s and sound busineos judgomont,

;..rit!.lin t h o r c n o r t becauso of i m p l i c a t i o n which can

‘.Ph?y seem t o bo couched i n pti . i lonophiccd

,

v .8-122

* . . . . . I

Cotmonts on Rolbort d a t o d Nay 21, 1973

v . , I ~ C. 1. !h'L::ys I.!OP:I cncountox-od i n o b t a i n i n g ti-icso s m p l o s . I n

nc:.c!:i. t:im, i;liaro wo.s 'an i n o r d i n a t o d o l a y boimson t h o t i m e 33mp103 war3 -sub; : : i t tod--- :;nd t h o r o c o i p t 02 the r o 3 u l t s . 'I

, .. iiL &idik iona l o r moro projy??'. a n a l y t i c a l r o s u l t s would hnvo n o t ' I . k3*/h,; alto:-cti t h o t rontmont n b r t h o dogreo o f oxposuro., !-eL ./

2. t h e occuronce ' I .

"iicdic:d c o n s u l t a n t w a s n o t n o t i f i e d u n t i l tho day following il, i"

O u r i,icrliccil c0nsulti:nt iJSS n o t i f i o d i n accordsnco wit'n pro- /fl!'\. ccdur3s providcd by that consul t 'mt and a v a i l a b l o f o r i n -

:\ spoc7;ion. 3zrli9r i n s p e c t i o n would n o t hnvo a l t e r e d our c u r r e o n t t r c attiion t p r o c edu r o s .

30'( 3rocc:luro would n o t r e q u i r o tho u s o of r e s p i r a t o r y p r o t a c t i o n ciuring bag-out o p e r a t i o n s . ''

I n r o t r o s p o c t , t h o us6 of r e s ? i r a t o r y p r o t e c t i o n dur ing bng- oub o T a r a t i o n s would hava roduced i n t a k o of r a d i o a c t i v e mat- e r i a l .

.r( 111 *

. 4. "" ta cont inuous room a i r monitor c h a r t was al lowod t o run o u t boforo---- 1,

T h i s e r r o r was i n d i r e c t c o n t r a i n d i c o t i o n t o procoduros i n o f f o c t . I n c r o n o n t n l s d d i t i o n s t o normal ambiont a i r con- c c n t r c 2 i o n s K.I ould havo bozn dotormined promply i 3 t h s s o

-4 p r o c c i u r o 3 had boon fo l lowad. Ziowovor, wo do n o t h e l i o v o the, !.ac!.: o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was a s o r i o u s d e t r i n c n t i n s s c u r - ins prompt t roa tmont of porsonnol nor af'foctod t h e ovontual o-.;'>osuro n o r sffoctod t h o ovantual body burddn of o q o s o d

' ic' "' . . pcrso.m~t3.3.

fhs r, e c t i on r c? o r t No 0 7 0- 119 3/7 3- 04 i),-rl; 2 " ?Yo ;-,roviqj.on was mado t o count t h o ~ m p l o s l o c e l l y . 'I GK' 6 ,< T h o ~ o i s no l o c a l cr7.po.bility f o r m a m u r i n g plutonium.

I f i'ara. 1.10 36 As lato as h r c h 9 t h e sovan omployeos had n o t y o t bocn : . l i i O l O body countod t o dotonnine t h o sxtmt of lung burdons. P a r t i c l o 35.20 o n a l y r c i s o f . t h o air ' samplos had n o t beon porf'ormcd. Plutonburn t o axaricrium r a t i o s and plutonium i s o t o p i c persontagos h:d not bocn doC.:mnj.nod. ''

'

':his n d d i t i o n o l in forn ia t ion would havs n o t a l t o r o d ' t h e t r e a t m o n t /f.f( o r t h o totnl bxposuro o f t h o i n d i v i d u a l s involvod.

?nr:;. L i l *,roro r = t : . i n o d by R o g l o n 3 t o f o l l o w i;hs mZdicr,l 'and dosimotry a s p e c t s o f L h . 3 i n c i d o n t . T'noy were i n f r o q u o n t c o n t a c t with i)r. S t s r n h a ~ a n and with Rogio:i 3. r o c l o v o d f rom t h e t lonsul tan t as yet .

3r. 1;oil- 'd3.1d and Dr. liogor Caldwoll o f U of Ti t t sbu rgh

A witOon r o g o r t hao n o t boon

V.8-123

Pb.g:o 2. Iklg 21

32. On b!urcli 8, t h o l i c m s o o took s o i l and voGstat ion s m p l e s doinwiiicl from t h o s tack . Resul t s havo n o t y o t beon obtained. k'1utoniui:i l e v o l s i n samples tzkon by Roeion 3 a t t h e snmplo loc- a t i o n s wor n o t d i s t i n z u i s h a b l o f r o m l o v o l s attributable t o f a l l o u 1:.

33. Savw:il smear s,?mplos !.!ore t:!ksn on t h e roof of t h e X Ray bui ' .d ing j u s t S.S. of t h o plutonium p l a n t . ' i i o s o shotrodno . d e t e c t - ab1 o p1.u tonium a c t i v i t y . 34. %no f l o o r s , glovoboxos, o q u i w c n t and p i p i n g i n Room 128 and BO-2 ver,': contnnina tad t o about 100,000 dpm p e r 100 cm2 alpha. About 2 rmolis of continuous decontamination was roqui rod t o r o - duco t h i 3 t o n o m a 1 working l e v e l s . Adjncont rooms wer.? contamin- a t o d t o a l e s s a r dsgree and wore mor0 r o a d i l y docontaminatod. Sons contaminat ion had boen t rackod i n t h o c o r r i d o r s as f a r a s t h e f i r s t a i r i n t o r l o c k . ' h i s vas confinod t o t h o product ion aroas of t h e b u i l d i n g was ' ~ 8 s r o a d i l y docontarninatod.

35. I n i t i a l exposure e s t i m a t e d woro. modo on the b a s i s o f a i r snnplos c o l l e c t e d o v = r a 14 h6ur p e r i o d which includod 7 hours p r i o r t o ' the f i r e . A u r i n e sa.npling progi7;rn was i n i t i a t a d inr;loci.iatoly f o r all 7 cmployees. A f o c a l sampling program was i n i t i a l l y os tab3ished f o r Employeo D, and was expanded i n i n c l u d e tho o t h e r s on t h o noxt dzy. ?To p r o v i s i o n was made t o count t h o sampled locally. Ssnt t o commercial l a b f o r p r i o r i t y handling, b u t f i r s t r e s u l t s wero n o t reca ivod u n t i l March 1 3 .

,

qr, ,-.....--.,- 2, .. .I ,a , . .J . .. .. .* .. ,C ,. .. x*,i-d,. d k , r .nr-rrx

GUTIIRIE DAILY LEAD'CR, F r i . Narch 9, 1973

Karr PlcGoc Reports Piinor Fire.

.:.<~I*ZI I-IcSso Corp announc2d Fr idzy that t h o r e ware no i n j u r i e s t o or,iFloyoes o r s i g n i f i c z n t d m n a ~ o t o the p l a n t as a r o s u l t o f ' o, minor f i r? a t tho compmg s Cinnrron Plu toniurn F a c i l i t y on Ihion.

Tho n u c l o a r manufacturing plant i s l o c a t a d s o u t h o f Croscent. 'i'lio f i r e occurad i n a b3.g 013 wasto m z t e r i x l s from procoss ing

op3rc Lion?, . y n d - rOsu l t a ( l . :in co;ub~i::kion of ii:Io I.r:,n-Lo , l i l t i 3 : ~ ; contc.minstcd two rooms of t h e p l a n t . It i s bol ioved tha t the f i r e was th3 r o s u l t of. spontanoous combustion t r i t h i n t h e ba.g.

?orsonno1 imd a l l emcrgmcy equip:ilent funct ionod as planned, m d t h a f i r e w3.s imt:icc.lin.t,hly containod. No r a d i o a c t i v e m a t o r i a l w n i*eloasod f r o m :ho p l a n t , th . r conpmy sa id .

Lpnlic n t s 1 ;hvirononi ;a l ftoport USh:X ~)ocl.:ct No 70-1193 , Pliitonium F u o l Ylnnt, Nov. 1971 Contnct l!ationnl 1'ccllnicz.l Information Sorvico, Dept. of Commorce S n r i n g f i o l d , Va. 22151 f o r copies . Discuss ion and Finding by t h e REG ( ~ o c l t s t - ~ ~ O 70-1193) i ) i V i S i O n Of Lic .>ns ing A i3C Helz.ting t o Considerat ion of Suspension pending NEPA ikv i romonta l Review f o r Kerr NcGoo, Cirnarron Plutonium P l m t .

t l i . c k

i ~ ~ ~ . ; f t - ~ I . ; ~ S ~ - ~ I . ; i S C . : ~

Nov. 29, 1971

V.8-124 n

to F a r k c r S . h n n , Vico Prosidonb, Nuclear Operat ions Kor r I.LGoo, 73102

Und:r dhe p r o v i s i o n s o f Soct. X of Appondix D, you z r o roquirod t o furnish t o t h o Coinnission b c f o r c Oct. 19, 1971 o r such o t h e r l s t 2 r c1::to .is mig bc np7rovzd by t h o Comnission upon good causo shorm, n w r i t z o n s t a t c n m t o f any reasons, w i t h su3:orting f n c t u d subxi3s i0n why, wi th r o f w a n c o t o t h e c r i i c r i a i: Para. 2 of 2zci;ion X, L o u r Liconn3s Y U 3 1010 covcr inc oncra t ions ~

a t your Scquoyaii Urclniurn hcxnf lor ido Product k l a n t G d kl.; 1174 covzring o p e r a t i o n s at y o u r Cirnarron i'lukonium P u o l F a b r i c a t i o n Plant should nor; b o s u s ~ o n d c d i n wholo o r i n p a r t , nencJ€ng com- o l c t i o n o f r;ho NEPA onviromsntal roview s p e c i f i o d i n Soct. B, C , o r D o f Apncndix D 3s appropr ia te .

Harold L. P r i c c , D i r e c t o r of Regu 1 at i ons

FedQral R e g i s t o r Vol. 36 No. 175 T h u r . Sopt 9, 1971 Title 10, Atomic Znergy. no 190 Sep€ 30, 1971

no. 218. Nov 11, 71

v ~ - 1 2 5

A CASZ AGAI?!S'L' THE FAST BSEXDZR ASACTOR CiND '?'HE PLUTONIUN 3 C O N O h Y

Senrg David Thoreau has sa id , "The cos t of a th ing i s t h e amount

of what I c a l l life which i s requi red t o be exchanged f o r i t , i m -

mediately o r i n t h e long run.'' We should consid.:r t h i s quota t ion

very c a r e f u l l y , e spec ia l ly a s i t r e l a t e s t o the l i q u i d metal f a s t

breeder r e a c t o r (LZFBR) and t h e plutonium economy. I am submitt ing

t h i s paper t o po in t o u t some of t he adverse e f f e c t s o f t h e LHFBR

and plutonium, which i s t h e p r i n c i p l e f u e l o f t he f3st breedsr re-

ac tor .

According t o t h e i-larch 29, 1974 i s s u e o f Science, "The Atomic

%ergy Commission has r e l eased a d r s f t environmental statement on

t h e l i q u i d metal f a s t breeder r e a c t o r progrsm p red ic t ing t h a t f u l l

s c z l e use of the bresder r e a c t o r s would have no s i g n i f i c a n t adverse

e f f e c t on t h e environment and would meet environmental q u a l i t y and

s a f e t y standards."

I cha l lenge t h i s conclusion snd Irish t o 3 o i n t out the following

reasons why the breeder would have severe adverse e f f e c t s on the

environment, t he q u a l i t y o f l i f e and even of life i t s e l f . I have

t r i e d t o be f a c t u a l , b u t , a l s o , want t o d i scuss with you f e e l i n g s ,

impressions,

o r bnd environment. After a l l , human emotions a r e 8 s r e a l and a s

l e g i t i m a t e a s t h e logar i thmic sca le .

and f e a r s - a l l o f which a r e a very r e a l : J a r t o f a good

1

It i s d i f f i c u l t t o be l i eve t h a t t h e A.E.C. can be ob jec t ive on

t h i s isaue. %ere has been pressure on t h e A.4.C. f o r a long

time t o d iv ide t h s i r s a fe ty func t ions from t h e i r promotional and

ope ra t iona l func t ions with t h e resu7t of more be l ievable , f a i r and

independent judgements. "th P r e s i d ~ n t Fixon pushing f o r self s u f -

f i c i ency i n energy by 1983, i t i s un l ike ly t h a t t he A.3.C. o f f i c i a l l y

would t ake a p o s i t i o n cont ra ry t o the exprzssed wishes of the

V.8-126

2,

president . Presidnnts come and go, b u t we may b t ying t o l i v e

with the f a s t breeder f o r a long time.

with the Znvironmental Comission of the Eational .Acsdemy of Science,

speaking on April 5 a t an Oklahoma University energy l e c t u r e , s ? i d

t h a t the c r e d i b i l i t y of the A . X . C . ‘was very low due t o t h i s !_ack

of d iv is ion of funct ions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . It i s indeed in-

comprehensible t o me how two mi l l ion d o l l a r s could be spent pre-

paring an environmental r e p o r t and not f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t envir-

onmental damage from the LYLFBR.

Dr. Richard Carpenter,

Having .spent about six months and probably a hundred d o l l a r s on

research on plutonium, s p e c i f i c a l l y , and the f a s t breeder, incid-

e n t a l l y , my conclusion would be j u s t the opDosite. B u t , perhaps,

I look’on p?utonium as a t h r e a t t o l i f e and h e a l t h and not necess-

a r i l y as a source of Sbundant energy,

It has been about s i x months now since we were t o l d of a leak o f

plutonium n i t r a t e vas te a t the Kerr IlcGee Cimarron Plutonium Fuel

Fabricat ion Plant a t Crescmt , Okla. This p l a n t f a b r i c a t e s plutonium

f u e l p e l l e t s for the Fast F l u x Reactor a t ;!znford, ifash. It w’is

indeed a shock t o f i n d t h a t we had a plutonium f a c i l i t y only 25

miles from our home, and t h a t t h i s extremely hazardous s t u f f had

leaked from a drum, over the truck bed, and unto the ground. ‘l”hus,

were we rudely introduced t o t h e peaceful atom and some of i t s

drawbacks ,,

Through t a l k i n g t o employees of the plant , and A.Z.C. inspectors ,

reading the A.Z.C. publ ic reecords a t the Guthrie Library, and

through communications by phone and l e t t e r s t o A.X.C. o f f i c i a l s ,

we have learned t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p lan t has been beset with leaks,

f i r e s , accidents, and v i o l a t i o n s o f regulat ions. Ide a r e aware

of four leaks of rad ioac t ive waste containjng p’utonium, two fires,

V.8-127

3. one i n which seven employees were exposed t o a i rborne plutonium,

several glove-box incidents , a case of two employees leaving the

p l a n t contaminated, a s h i p m n t of plutonium rsaching Crescent on

the bock of a f la t -bed t ruck, held i n only w i t h a chain, the p l a n t

operat ing f o r months without a c r i t i c a l i t y o f f i c e r - a l l t h i s i n e

per iod of less than four years.

We a r e deeply concsrned t h a t t h i s p lan t w a s located i n our mids t

with p r a c t i c a l l y no publ ic awareness, t h a t i t i s i n tornado a l ley ,

t h a t there a r e 863,000 people v i t h i n a 50 mile radius of the p lan t ,

that i t i s i n a Zone 2 earthquake area, t h a t i t i s a unique area

w i t h a low a l t i t u d e j e t stream of high winds, has f l a s h floods,

severe e l e c t r i c a l , h a i l end d u s t storms, extreme temperatures, and

is a l s o a r e s o r t area. Sowever, our l.ocal p l a n t is only a micro-

cosm of what t o expect if we adopt the fas t breeder as a main

source of power. With the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of Dlutonium sources, we

can expect a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of dengers and hazards.

a

Anyway, as a person l i v i n g close t o a plutonium plan t , I know

what i t I s t o l i v e v i t h fear . Fear. based not on ignorance, but on

a knowledge of the f iendish ly tox ic and p e r s i s t a n t na ture of p l u t -

onium. '+!hen we have a tornado a l e r t , I wonder if some of the d r u m s

of waste could be s c a t t e r e d o r cracked open, and i f t h e plutonium

can Se p u t t o bed i n time. I wonder about the f i s h k i l l t h a t occured

o n . t h e Cimarron c lose t o the plant . I wonder about the record f lood

they had i n October, and what has happened t o t h e l i q u i d i n the

lagoons. I wond3r about the many o i l mlls i n t h e v i c i n i t y and

l

t he huge underground gas s torage area near CTescmt. I wonder

whether we might have picked u p a b i t of plutonium i n t h e xindblown

d u s t when we drove up t o check out repor t s o f t h o last Leak .

about the s t J r k l y dead t r e e s j u s t north of the pl-snt, of p l a n t per-

I chink

4.

personel who check the w e l l s i n t h e v i c i n i t y , and the state 's

chief r a d i o l o g i s t , D r . Dale Nchard say ing t h a t o u r s t a t e has no

in s t rumen t s t o measure plutonium. D r . Arthur Tamplin has s a i d

t h a t p a r t i c l e s too small t o be d e t a c t e d by s o p h i s t i c a t e d in s t rumen t s

cou d s t i l l be f a t d i f i n g e s t e d i n t o t h e lungs. We no longe r

go n i c n i c i n g o r f i s h i n g nearby on t h e Cimerron River, o r t a k e

nature photographs on a f r i e n d ' s acreage s e v e r a l m i l e s from t h e

p l a n t .

Death i s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y f e a r f u l t o m e , b u t a l i n g e r i n g d a a t h

of lung o r bone c m c w caused by plutonium is. A s plutonium becomes

more p l e n t i f u l arid t h e rmrd sp reads on che n a t u r e of t h e element,

as i t i s s u r e t o , t h e f e a r xi11 s w e a d i n d i r e c t p ronor t ion . Secsuse

of t h e long t ime l a p s e between low l e v e l ex?osure t o plutonium h o t

p a r t i c l e s and the, i nc idence of cancer , t h e r e could be an epidemic

c o n d i t i o n on o u r hands sometime i n t h e f u t u r e .

a

I am s u r e you ars aware of t h e book by John ?.-clhee c a l l e d X N D I N G

3NZR3Y i n which the p o s s i b i l i t y of s t e a l i n g o r d i v e r t i n g plutonium

and risking i t i n t o atomic bombs w a s d i scussed . a t e l e v i s i o n

r e p o r t e r f o r KV'i'V, Channel 9 , Eiyron Yarris, d i d a 'P.V. show on

ou r l o c s l p l a n t and how poor ly guarded i t was. Gur friend,: \ .r .

A. 1.1. ?!organ-Voyce, r e l a t e d t h a t on a t r i p t o &gland l a s t summer,

r a d i c a l g rouns were d i s t r i b u t i n g l e a f l e t s on how t o make atomic

bombs.

t o be some kooks, c rackpo t s and malcontents who j u s t might t r y it.

Making bombs would be e x t r e n e l y d i f f i c u l t b i t h t h e u r a n i u m f u e l now

Vi th ou r popula t ion of over 200 m i l l i o n , t h e r e are bound

used i n n u c l a a r p l a n t s , bu t would be much xora si r !ple wi th t h e

p'utonium t u e l f o r t h e f a s t breeder . 'de havs l ?a r?ed t o o u r sorrow

t h a t hyjncking of plnnes, an unheard o f cond i t ion n few y e a r s g o , i s

now a very rml p o s s i b i l i t y . One wond?rs v h n t would be t h e s i t u a t i o n

V .8-129

5.

In I r e l a n d today i f plutonium were a v a i l a b l e t o t h e I.H.A. O f courss ,

you wouldn't have t o make bombs wi th i t , a l l you would hnvs t o do

i s t o p u t a dab i n t h e a i r cond i t ion ing system of,' sag Congress o r

even t h e A.E.C. How wou1.d you a s s e s s t h e environmental e f f e c t s of

having a n o t h e r country o b t a i n plutonium from u s by und3rground

o p e r a t i m s . Any p 'u tonium f a c i l i t y , vhe the r i t i s a fas t b reeds r ,

r e p r o c e s s i n g p.: apt, f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t , o r ev?n a r e g u l a r n u c l e a r

r e a c t o r i s such a s i t t i n g duck i n time of xa r ,o r i s so vu lne rab le

t o sabotage o r blackmail . This could cause unthinkable human missry.

What h o s p i t a l o r d o c t o r i s going t o t r s a t a person o r zny number

of people con tan ina ted w i t h plutonium. Talk about f e w !

Plutonium m d r a d i o a c t i v e wastes come and go from t h e C r e s c m t

P l a n t by D l a n e and t ruck . If t h e country is producing 10,000,000

l b s . a year by t h e yee r 2000, t h i s mats r ia l w i l l be c r i s s c r o s s i n g

the count ry i n eve r i n c r e a s i n g amounts.

be safe from an extremely s e r i o u s acc idsn t . This i s bscoming a n

i n c r e a s i n g concern of airline p i l o t s and s tewrrdesses . Perhaps

wo would be lucky and n o t have a p lane c r a s h involv ing plutoni!;n,

b , l t i t i s extremely foolhardy t o depend on good l u c k forev3r . It

i s lucky t h a t t h e 1 9 b 9 , ~ 7 ~ , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 f i r e t h e Rocky F l a t s Plutonium

P l a n t d i d n ' t burn th rough t h e roof and contaminate thousands o f

#

Ilobody anycrhere w i l l

a c ra s . It i s n o t so lucky tha t o f f s i t e contaminat ion due t o

contmninated o i l has i n c r e a s e d the a i r concen t r a t ions of p 'u tonium

around t h e p l a n t t o above t h e A.S.C. accep tab le s tandards .

I n 1966, t h e Enrico F s m i F a s t S reeda r n e a r D a t r o i t hac? a n e z r

meltdown, w i t h t h e r e s u ' t thot t h e p lmt i s permanently shu t d o m ,

a t a loss of ~ 1 ~ 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . What i s t o be done w i t h t h a t r a d i o a c t i v e

conc re t e Dgranid? C s r t a i n l g i t i s n ' t improving t h e environment

V 8-1 30 n

60 /

j u s t s i t t i n g t h e m . In 1961, t he experimental f a s t breedsr :t

Idaho F a l l s blew a plug sending 3 men t o a gruesome death.

According t o the Hew fork Times, Russia r ecen t ly had some kind of

acc idant with the!ir fas t breeder.

f a s t b reedsr r eac to r , and t h e g r e a t t o x i c i t y o f plutonium, f a s t

breeders a r e t o r egu la r reac5ors as l i gh ten ing i s t o l i gh t sn ing bugs.

Without t h e v a s t ou t lay of money from t h e f ed3ra l gov.?rnment, t h i s

s* billion d o l l a r vanture would have been given up long ago.

We abolished slavsry in t h i s country a hundred years ago.

Flecause of t he high hea t of a

It is

h i g h l y i r o n i c t ha t we art3 now setting up a system of f u t u r e s lavery ,

becsuse we a r e ? l ac ing i n bondage f u t u r e gsne r s t ions t o look a f t e r

our r ad ioac t ive 1.13stes. Tn" seem. t o have two choice3, t h a t of con-

densing the v a ; t e s i n t o extremely hot r zd ioac t ive chunks, o r less

concentrated and more bulky l i q u i d wastes.

a conta iner t o conta in t h i s s t u f f for v8ry long. Consider t h e

:le have ye t t o devise

rciserable record at t he 4'a.nford f ac i ' . i t y which has only been s t o r i n g

wastes f o r 30 years.

covered f o r 51 days.

q u a r t e r of a n i l l i o n years.

i t i n t o the ground and f o r g e t a b o u t i t , b u t t h a t j u s t c a n ' t be done,

because of t he p o s z i b i i i t y o f l eak ing i n t o u?dsrground :mter, ear th-

qu::kes, radioacLive ma te r i a l g e t t i n g i n t o the atmosphere o r food

chain. If ths -orice of perpe tuz l guardianship of -.rastes were includ-

The l a s t l e ak of 115,000 ga l lons wasn't ?is-

Plutonium was t s s s t s y r ad ioac t ive f o r a

It :trould be n i c e i f we could j u s t dump

ed in t h e p r i c e of nuc lea r power, i t would be indeed hizh.

Have you ev3r seen a K 3 P OUT FOREVZ3 sign. Due t o the long

pe r s f s t ance of plutonium, having a h o l f - l i f e of 24,360 ye:.rs- contam-

i n a t i o n on humen terms i s e s sen tua l lg nertnanent. D r . Jo'hn Copman

v.a-131

7.

has sa id , "1,knufacture o f plutonium 23, s n

n u c l e a r e l e c t r i c poiqer may r e p r e s e n t m a n l s most imrnor.11 act.".

ts widespread u s e i n

Since t h e widespread use of t h e LMP'q vrould have s e r i o u s sid.3

Would ou r s o c i e t y e f f e c t s , I se9 i t as s i m i l a r t o drug addic t ion .

be a b l e t o shut them off, i f w e s a y ' t h a t tP-5; ' 9 r a harmful, o r i f

we had a bad acc iden t . O r would we have become so dependant on

this type of Dower t h a t we would be fo rced t o cont inue even though

the populace l i v e d i n p e r p e t u a l f e a r .

When an i r r e s i s t o b e f o r c e meets an immovable o b j e c t , you have

an i n d e s c r i b s S l e c s t a s t r o p h e . 'hen o u r i n c r e a s i n g d s m a d f o r energy

( i r r e s i s t a b l e f o r c e ) meets and immovable o b j e c t ( t h e environment)

we have an i n d e s c r i b a b l e c s t a s t rophe - e s p e c i a l l y if we go t o t h e

plutonium f u e l economy and t h e f a s t b reeder , *

Yow can any s e m i t i v e pe r son o r s o c i e t y j u s t i f y tnlring these

k inds of chances w i t h l i f e on ea r th . Ferhaps m a n ' s fa t : i l f l a w hzs

bean the s i z e of h i s b ra in . If he were mor8 i n t a l l i g e n t , he could

f o r e s e e t h e consecuances of h i s a c t i o n s . If he :.:ere l e s a i p t e l l i -

gent he cou dnlt have brought t o f r u i t i o n t h i s n!.;htmarish poss ib-

i l i t y . Terhens plutonium i s m a n l s vay of se- f - d a s t r u c t i n g becPuse

of th i s f a t a l f l a w .

If we va lue t h e dsmocra t ic form of govsrnment, w e should consid-

e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of becoming a p o l i c e stat,e. !vlith l a r g e o u e n t i t -

i e s of plutonium around, i t w i l l be a m a t t e r of s u r v i v a l t o i n -

cmase s e c u r i t y and m i l i t r r y Dro tec t ion t o keep it from g . . t t i n g i n t o

the lrrrong hands. Freedom will be Tore and rr.ore r e s t r i c t e e , and

people w i l l be t o l d l e s s and less about what t h e i r govornment i s

doing . I w i s h t o urge my government t o change i t s p r i o r i t i e s from t h e

fas t bresd : r t o o t h e r forms o f c l a a n e r :ind s a f e r energy- such ns

V.8-132 '

aolar , t i d a l , wind, geothermal, possibly fussion, and, i n the

meantime, making every e f f o r t towards cleaning up o u r coal. We

ahould also' embark on a na t iona l po l icy o f wise u s e o f energy

and energy conservation.

V .3-133

SOW9 LARGER TRUTHS ABOUT P%-.F3CTION, PLUTOXIUI,: , lZiJD PRICE

,"his paper i s addr3ssed t o t h e U.S. Atomic ?aergy Commission and t h e

Ehvironmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency a s a p r o t e s t t o t h e A E C t s environmental

review o f t h e pl.utonium-fueled f a s t breeder r e a c t o r program.

The pyimary t h e s i s presented here i s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n on t h e program's

a c c e p t a b i l i t y t o t h e l o n g term well being o f Americans i s an e t h i c a l

and m o r a l i s s u e . Seing such 811 i s s u e , t h e ASC review procedure i s n o t

s t r u c t u r e d t o nrovide f u l l p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e and a p u b l i c forum over an

adequate per iod of t i m e t o dea l wi th such monumental e t h i c a l mat te rs .

F u r t h e r , t h i s t h e s i s w i l l p o i n t o u t t h e v a r i o u s a t t i t u d e s , f o r c e s - a t -

work snd oues t ionable assutxptions t h a t p r e v a i l i n t h e f e d e r s l and p r i v a t e

n u c l e a r Dower e n t i t i e s t h a t cause most of t h e i r personnel t o b e unqual i f -

ied t o make important e t h i c a l d e c i s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e p u b l i c wel l

being

<

The a u t h o r has a n engineer ing background- undarstsnds ana a p p r e c i a t e s

high technology. He asks each A 3 C employes t o c a r s f u l l y c o n s i d s r h i s

higher r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and p r i o r i t i e s . They sould be C r e a t o r , fellow-

humans, n a t u r e , m d s e l f i n t h a t secuence. Another way o f s t a t i n g t h i s

i s conscience, e t h i c s , c o n s t i t u t i o n , g o v s r m e n t , employer, e t c .

PZRFSCT V S Ii;l?ZRP3CT

There ar.3 two w r y r a a l t ru ths t h a t .we t h e keys t o und3rstandin.g t he

mot iva t ions behind t h e opposing c o n t e n t i o n s of e > p e r t s i n t h e n u c l e a r

s a f e t y cont roversery , md i n da ts rmining t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e i r ob-

j e c t i v i t y .

t o d e a l i n g wi th seemingly ovsrpowering e x y e r t opinions;

They a r e t h e c i t i z e n s ' t o o l s f o r a cornmon sense approach

1.

V.8-134

1. Perpetual ly Per fec t Performance o r PPP - Xany nuclear s c i e n t i s t s ,

engineers and advocates consciously end subconsciously assume PPP t o bo

a r e a l i t y i n t h e i r nuclear s a fe ty systems and procedures.

\

2. Nature abhors perpetual ly p e r f e c t human performance ( ?!ature iibhors

Per fec t ion) o r VJBP

i s t s a r e acutely awzre o f human f a l l i b i l i t y as w e l l as a wide range o f

random va r i a t ions i n na tu ra l phenomena t h a t challenges nuclear safety.

- ?!any environmsntal is ts and a few key nuclear sc ien t -

Perpetual Parfect ion- A Closer Look

The PPP concept has a conviwing image of r e a l i t y - crsated, propel led and

perpetuated by a powerful s e t of forces vhich, by our t r a d i t i o n a l values

a r e a s acceptable a s " f resh apDle p i e with i c e cream."

c i t i z e n s 993 the Faust ian aspects i n t h e pac t t h a t these forces have with

nuc lear power: e sgec ia l ly w i t h plutonium f u e l dsvelo?ment. Let us ident -

i f y znd descr ibe the e f f e c t of some of these forces :

Consequsntly few

332 The h igh ly educeted profess iona ls take a n a t u r a l and honest pr ide i n t h s i r

s c i e n t i f i c , engineering, and technica l d i sc ip l ine . It i s indeed such

Drofessional p r ide and technica l ingenuity t h a t has besn s o f r u i t f u l t o

our i n d u s t r i a l progress. Because many o f t h e i r r e s u l t s have been s o d i f f i -

c u l t t o achieve and a r e s o highly sophis t icc ted , requi r ing genius o r near

genius t a l e n t , a f a l s e sense o f t h e i r i n f a l l a b i l i t y has davdoped.

seauently i t i s almost psychologically ixposs ib le f o r any S u t a few peoole

i n the nuclear f i e l d t o conceive t h a t they c a n ' t angineer a pe r fec t sol-

u t ion t o any t h r e a t - t h a t t h e i r careers a r e n ' t i n the highest s s rv i ce t o

mankind . Is i s a case of ind iv idua ls who, h i sh ly e t h i c a l and moral i n conventional

Con-

2.

V.8-135

terms, have s p e c i a l i z e d s o i n t s n t l y t h a t they a r e incapable of recognizing

t h e i r own degree o f tunnel v i s i o n znd t h e p o s s i b l e consequences t h e r e o f on

socie+,y.

This ego asDect z l so extends through t h e e n t i r e sgstsm, from t h e J o i n t

Congressional. Committee on Euclsar Zmrgy, through t h e A X and t h e m a n -

u f z c t u r ?rs o f n u c l e a r powsr systems. The f ' abr ics tors znd r a p r o c e s s o r s o f

n u c l s a r f u e l , t h e u t i l i t y companies, a l l t h e i r bankers and s tockholders ,

yes, even e d u c i t o r s 2nd w r i t e r s of educa t iona l n i a t e r i a l s a r e mesmerized.

They r ? i n f o r c s t h e i r m u t u a l ggos and t % n d t o c r e a t e an eletis 'c va lue

systsm: all important f i n a l d e c j s i o n s shall b.3 made by t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t s ,

p r e f e r a b l y w i t h o u t a rous ing n o t i c e o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n by t h e l a i t y .

A l l a r e n a t u r a l l y prone t o p r e s ? r v e the image o f q u a l i t y i n t h e i r person-

a l jun'gment and i n t e g r i t y . They a r e s i n c e r e i n v a n t i n 3 t h e b e s t syst2tn,

t h e b e s t f o r America. Consequently, i t i s n a t u r a l f o r most t o have a

mental b l i n d s p o t i n r e s p e c t t o s a f e t y hazards. Any h i n t o f a r e a l b u t

unacknowledged danger i n n u c l e a r power o r plutonium f u e l conc3pts, for

example, i s a genuine threat: to t h e i r job security, p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e $ r s ,

and personal i n t e g r i t y . Piany of t h e e x p e r t s a r e personable , communfty-

minded l e a d s r s , f r i s n d s , and neighbors . This i s t h e e f f e c t o f ego and

it i s a very r e d f o r c e behind PPP concepts,

*

Economic Nomenturn

-4 v a s t investmsnt of f e d e r a l funds i n r e s s a r c h and development over

severF.1 decades i n n u c l e a r power i s involved as we11 as 4.0 b i l l i o n i n

p r i v a t e c o p i t a l . Over f i v e b i l l i o n i s c u r r e n t l y corcmitted t o develop

ment of t h e ~ ? u t o n l u m f a s t brsedor yoactor. !J i th t h i s hi,:h l e v e l of

econo3j.c 2nd v e s t e d i n t 3 r e s t p ressur? , t h e r e i s a predoxinant mot iva t ing

3.

V.8- 136

p r i n c i p l e a t work: economic f e a s a b i l i t y o r p r o f i t . Again, t h i s s i n g l e -

mindedness h a s h i s t o r i c a l l y and t r a d i t i o n a l l y been a g r e z t a s s e t t o our

i n d u s t r i a l p rogress and economic a f f luence .

&ery;y C r i si0 'igndrone . The developing shor tage of c l e a n convent ional energy resources i s obvious.

We make assumptions without much thought, however, that our prev ious r a t e s

of growth i n e l e c t r i c power consumption, doubl ing ev?ry t e n years , a r e

v a l i d and c m and should be sus ta ined . Plany c i t i z s n s a l s o make q u i t s

i n v a l i d assumptions t h a t n u c l e a r power i s t h e only a l t e r n a t i v e , 2nd , hence,

t h a t plutonium f u e l should be used. The h i g h r e t e of energy consunption

and waste has l i t t l e r e l e v m c e t o va lues t h a t comprise genuine and mean-

i n g f u l as;?scts of t h e a u a l i t y of l i f e o r progress .

Consequently, i n a c r i s i e a tnosphere, t h e clear-headed reasoning and

publ-ic deba te s o e s s e n t i a l t o sound d e c i s i o n s may be c u t s h o r t by exped-

iency. Sxpediency i n n u c l e a r power has i n h e r e n t p o t e n t i a l hazards u n l i k e

m y t h i n g o u r s o c i e t y has experienced.

g g s i n One !3as&t

Cleansing of convent ional c o a l mining, process ing and burning o9era t iona

by more i n n o v a t i v e and s o p h i s t i c a t e d methods, o r c o a l g a s i f i c a t i o n , has

been postponsd by l a c k of economic mot iva t ion and r e s e a r c h funding.

AlTost no n o d w n n a t i o n , f o r example, has t o l 3 r a t e d such a longs tanding

scandal i n coa l mine s a f e t y as has the U.S.A. Fur ther , i t has Seen r e -

pea ted , if n o t more so, i n u r a n i u m mining.

The i r o n y i s t h a t the problems of coal a r e of t i n k e r - t o y i-evel co!n-pared

t o f a n t a s t i c problems and t h e uncharted a r e a s of pl.utoniiim powsr. It i s

4.

_ _ _ _ _ ___ ~ _1--- - - - - - -

UI

V .U-l37

almost l u d i c r o u s t o r e l a t e t h e long rcnge hazards of p ,utonium t o t h o s e

of c o a l , howei;er, c o a l should be only an i n t e r i m t o something s a f e r and

b e t t e r . General Yotors has announced, Der Time Xazazine, t h a t they

have found a p r a c t i c a l method of removing 90,6 o f t h e s u l f u r from t h e

cheapest c o a l and t E r i ; l . go f u l l speed ahead. Vith coa l 1.18 C i ’ a i n p r o v i s e

b e t t e r techniques very rapidly-- no b i g d s s l .

Let u s exsmine now t h e common s s n s e c ~ s e for t h e oDposite concspt: NAP

(TTature Abhors P e r r s c t i o n ) . We have 311 overaSundance o f convincing evid-

ence of i t s i n h e r e n t t ru th . The e n k i r e h i s t o r y of hunan endeavors con-

~ t i t u t s s ~ r ~ f u t a b l e testimony t o t h i s . It i s , i n f a c t , i n t h e more com- ir

p l e x a roas of technology t h a t t h e b e s t evidsnce e c i s t s . For, example,

man h a s never Seen a b l e t o make PPP a r 3 a l i t y i n h i s corn.71 :x submarings,

ships , a i r c r a f t , o r s p a c e c r a f t . F a i l u r e s have f r e r u e n t l y occured i n the

c o n c e o t u a l i z a t i o n , dss ign , c o n s t r u c t i o n , o n e r n t i o n o r maintenence phase.

However, those convent ional machines and s y s t s m s have an zltc.ost chi! d-

like innocence and s i m p l i c i t y compared t o a Dlutoniun-fueled l i q u i d meta l

fas t b r e e d o r r e a c t o r .

An Age o f Innocence

In the non-nuclear p e r i o d , e s p e c i a l l y t h e pre-plutonium n s r i o d , f a i l u r e s

of man’s s y s t m s hcd consecusnces t h a t v e r e acceptable . ?or examp a,

i n t h e worst t e c h n o l o g i c a l d i s a s t e r , t h e c r a s h o f a n a i y p m e , che con-

sequonc-s were tr:..gic t o be s u r ? , howsver, n o t r.:ore thzn s e v e r a l hundred

f a m i l i j s v e r e involved, l i a b i l i t y was l i m i t e d , che vreckaze vr;‘s cleaned

up i n a ma5ter of days, bus iness as usua l p r e v a i l e d s h o r t l y n3ar t h e

c r a s h s i t e , m d t h a v o r s t s o c i a l and ernotior?al cars f:;ded aw:<y w i t h i n

a fciq years . A v i t . j l d i f f s r e n c e about such r isks W?.S t h a t they were 5.

V.8-138

comvon knowledge: we took the r i s k s v o l u n t a r i l y .

A s t r o n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e more innoc?nt pre-plutonium age was t h a t

i n ?ach such t r a g i c d i s a s t e r t h e conseauonces were s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y small

and s h o r t l i v e d , so t h a t " l e a r n h g from mistakes" was a v i a b l e approach,

Consequently, s l l t h s f o r c e of ego, e tc . was t o l e r a b l e . I n t h e pZutonium

age, t h o adeauacg o f the b e s t s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and t h e n o s t technic81

s k i l l i s o f t e n s u x m i s i n g l y inadequate becsuse of voids of b o s i c knowledge.

Conseouently " l e a r n i n g by doing, ' has gravehum- ; y i s k s i n t h e n u c l e a r

age e

The consequences of one' major f a i l u r e , o r t h e long r a g e cumulative e f f e c t s

of numerous small i n c i d e n t s i r i t h e plutol?lum age a r e mind boggling.

t r a c e s nay be dangerous. Thousznds t o m i l l i o n s o f people may be a f f e c t e d

obviously and immediately, o r i n s i d i o u s l y a f t e r a l a t e n c y per iod. Fur ther ,

not j u s t t h e i r l i v e s and l i f e t i m e s a r e involved, bu t f o r thoussnds of

g e n e r a t i o n s t o follow ( one t h i r t i e t h o f 8 m i l l i o n of a n ounce o f p l u t -

onium 239 c m cause c m c e r and i t remains hazardous f o r over two hundred

thousand g e a r s , ) I n t h i s nucleer-plutonium age, t h e c i t i z e n s a r e being

forced t o acc3pt t h e r i s k s l a r g e l y v i t h c u t consent o r a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e

of t h e n o t s n t i a l cqanger. A s tudy by Dr. Arthur Tamp i n f'or t h e Xatural

Resources DefmsE: Council h d i c a t e d c u r r e n t s tcndards may be 115,000

times too lax.

Small .

ShTATJS

The f a l l a c y i n t h e "??P" p!utonium concqpt i s nowhere rnore e v i d m t than

i n +,he c u r r e n t l y cmereing n u c l e a r i n p u s t r y . For exsmple, sevc,r:d years

ago, t h e A 3 C h a i l e d t h e proposed s t o r a g e of nuc locr m s t e i n o l d s a l t

mines uqder Lyons, hansas, a s t h e i r most s i z n i f i c s n t a c h j evexent s i n c e

f i s s i o n ;!owever, w i t h i n a y e a r o r so t h o P l a n doveloped i n t o a technicnl

6 . .

V.8-139

debacle and w a s scrapDed. The r e a l i t y cnme t o l i g h t lnr, ;ely bec.:use

an amateur o r non-nuclear expert , the Kansas S t a t e Geolozis t , asked

enough unanswerable questions.

Again i n July 1973, t he A 9 C ordered ten nuc lear power plants t o reduce

opera t ing paver because of unresolved hazayds i n f u e l and core safe ty .

The whole top ic of sa fe ty i n emerggncy core cooling systsms M ~ S aga in

brought t o l i - ; h t l a r g e l y by e f f o r t s ou t s ide o f the -492 top rriancgement,

and the nuc lear power industry.

'The saga of r ad ioac t ive w a s t ~ l e a k a g e of hundreds of thousands o f ga l lons

a t Eanford, !:'esh., i s a s to ry of A S C I S poor management. Further , as

demonstrated i n the AEC monthly record o f opgrat ions and by an account

i n t h e Val1 S t r e e t Journal of tisg 3, 1973, che opera t ion o f new l a r g e r

nuc leer power pzants i s p-agued wi th de f i c i enc ie s i n design, q u a l i t y

of ma te r i a l and cons t ruc t ion , ~ l u s blunders i n ope a t ion . The eighteen

o l d e s t nuc lea r Y l m t s were ab le t o produce only 62-6 of r a t e d power

due t o t h e i r u n r e l i a b l e performance.

Again, i n t he opera t ion o f the plutonium f u e l f a b r i c ? t i o n f a c i l i t y

no r th o f Oklahcma C i t y , t he AZC i n spec t ion r m o r c s on f i l e i n pub l i c

records c l e a r l y do:urr,ents fires, s p i l l a g e s , leakages, worker ov9r ex-

posure, regula tory v io l a t ions , l o s s s s of plutonium - i n t e r accounted

for - end l ack of management conc3rn.

NAP (Iu'eture Abhors ?e r f ec t ion ) , is a l s o a t work i n the conceptual izat ion,

organizat ion, and opera t ion o f the adminis t ra t ive , l e g i s l a t i v e and

regula tory nhases of nuclear power. Further, a l l the PYPC' '2erfect

Perpetual ?erfom.ance) f o r c e s tend t o s u s t a i n them 3nil r e s i s t t h e i r

7.

r

V.8-140

e v a l u a t i o n o r improvement. Taamples a r e t h e J o i n t Congressional

Committee on Nuclenr Power :d th i t s tunnel v i s i o n , and t h e B5C w i t h

i t s i n h e r e n t c o n f l i c t between promotion and s a f e t y . I roniczl l :? , t h e

informed r e m o n s i b l e c i t i z e n has had t o seek p r o t e c t i o n from t h o s e

chargee? wi th t h e mission of p r o t e c t i o n , u s u a l l y v i a c o u r t act ion.

The random v a r i a t i o n s of n a t u r e produce phenomena such as earthquakes,

f l o o d s , tornadoes, t i d a l waves, h u r r i c a n e s , e t c , and a l l work a g a i n s t

the most c a r e f u l l y engineered p ' m s by rcan. Plany n a t u r a l forc-cts a r e

so g r e a t as t o defy r e a l i s t i c engineered s o l u t i o n s .

* P 0 TRf!li'I ALI TY ? 21 P: C I? LS

" h e r s i s a c o r o l l a r y t o Rewton's c l z s s i c Third Law o f Phys ics ( i.e.

f o r every a c t i o n t h e r e i s an equal and o p p o s i t e r s a c t i o n )

potsnt ia .1 for good t h e r e i s an eoual p o t e n t i a l f o r e v i l . " O r , " the

g r e a t e r p o t s n t i a l f o r good, t h e grea. ter p o t e n t i a l f o r evil . ' '

"For evnvry

h'uclear power and e s p e c i a l l y the LXFBR i s ths m o s t compelling example

of t h i s p r i n c i p l e . On t h e one hand, plutonium has t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r

being t h e g r e n t e s t of b l e s s i n g s t o mankind, a cornucopia of p e m e t u a l ,

c lean , e s t h e t i c 2nd economical energy. On t h s o t h e r hand, plutonium

has t h e p o t e n t i a l o f t h e g r e a t e s t e v i l ever-- widespread abandonment

of v g s t a r e a s o f c i t i e s and c u l t i v s t e d a r e a s , contarninstad a i r , water ,

food, h igh i n f a n t m o r t a l i t y , h igher i n c i d e n c s o f lung snd bone m n c e r ,

co ld derk homes snd dead appl iances bec*iuse of an over-dependence on

nuclear power t h a t nroved t o be so f i a n d i s h l y unsafe t h a t a l l breeder

r e a c t o r s viere f o r c e d t o s h u t down. A monumsntol 6 i sgrnce could b e f a l l

a l l associated with n u c l e a r po:u'ar. Agein, t h e p o t e n t i a l i t y Drinci;ll_e:

thg 2re .Qter p o t e n t i a l good from hi <:h1-:1 spec i : ? l & ~ d exner t knowledgo, 8.

V. 8-1 41

the g r e a t e r the p o t e n t i a l harm from "tunnel-vis ion" ,and sho r t s i ; ;h t -

edness. The r i s k 8 a r e j u s t too grea t . l)r. Zohn Gofman sa id , ' 'i'he

development of 3lutonium and i t s use f o r e l e c t r i c power may be man's

u l t i 8 , a t e a c t of immorality.

Noman Cousins s a i d i n the Saturday Fieview/?iorld of October 2 3 , 1973,

"Governn?ents a r e no t b u i l t t o perceive l a r g e r truths. Only peo l e

can perce ive g r e a t t ru ths . Gov :rnnents s p e c i a l i z e i n small and i n t e r -

medi a t e t r u t hs . . . " Dr. Alvin Xeinburg, Di rec tor of C a k Ridge National Laboratory, has

acknowlLdged the valuable contr ibuaion of d i s s anting non-e-:perts t o

b e t t e r nuc lea r sa fe ty . Further , he sa id , "Amateurs have always been

the g r e a t Xessiahs o f the 'dorld. "

Only t h e ?eonle a r 3 capable of und3rstnnding the human and moral

aspec ts that a r e the g r e a t e r t ru ths . 3 u t , t he missing ing red ien t

Jn reaching t h e 1a.rger t r u t h s i s the public's r i g h t - to- know. The

P Z C , t h e nucI.er?r i ndus t ry , and the many vested i n t s r e s t s hava besn

hi:;hlg s e c r e t i v e , and,only recent ly , somewhet more open, b u t s t i l l n o t

frank.

' h e Ea t iona l Znvironment& 9rotecfuion Act, hoi-rever, dencnds ' f u l l nubl ic

d i sc losure . With such g igan t i c economic p o l i t i c - 1 , p rofess iona l , govern-

mentalrand energy-cr i s i s f o r c s s a', work, ccn a p z r t i c i p a t o r y democ-

racy end i t s people func t ion s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n such a highly technica l

i s s u e 8s ~ ' u t o n i u m f u e l ? !{e th ink the people c m . Ye must, o r faco

the p o s s i b i l i t y of an enduring tragedy m d 1onc;-lived scandal.

V. 8- 142

UNITED STATES

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 8


KC 3 f 1974

I l ene H. and Gaylord A. Younghein 3900 Cashion Place Oklahoma Ci ty , Oklahoma 73112

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Younghein:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of Apr i l 15, 1974 c0rmnentir.g on t h e Atomic Energy Cominission's Draf t Environmental Statement f o r t he Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program. The Statement has been rev ised where appropr i a t e i n response t o the many comments rece ived , and a copy of t he F i n a l S ta t emen t i s enclosed for your information. AEC responses t o your cormnehts are a l s o enclosed. More d e t a i l e d in fo r - mation concerning your comments and concerns on Plutonium Toxic i ty is presented i n Sec t ion 4.7 and Appendix 1I.G of t h e F ina l Statement.

The attachment t o your le t ter t i t l e d "A Case Against t h e Fas t Breeder Reactor and the Plutonium Economy," expresses concern over a number of LMFBR safeguards- re la ted mat te rs :

(1) the adequacy of cu r ren t safeguards; ( 2 ) t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t plutonium might be s t o l e n by e r r a t i c i nd iv idua l s o r fore ign agents ; (3) t h e r e l a t i v e ease of making bombs with LMFBR f u e l ; (4) the t h r e a t of plutonium being used a s a r a d i o l o g i c a l weapon; (5) the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of nuc lea r f a c i l i t i e s t o a c t s of war; and (6) t he p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t f u t u r e safeguards requirements w i l l s e r i o u s l y r e s t r i c t t h e freedom of ind iv idua l s .

Your concerns have been c a r e f u l l y considered i n prepar ing rev ised safeguards information f o r t he F ina l Statement. Please see Sec t ion 7.4.7.6 f o r information r e l a t e d t o your f i r s t area of concern; Sec t ion 7.4.3 f o r your second; 7.4.6 f o r t he t h i r d ; 7.4.5.1.2 f o r t he fou r th and Sec t ion 7.4.4.1 f o r t h e f i f t h . The s i x t h i t e m i s covered i n Sec t ion 5.4.2.

V. 8-1 43

2

Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR Program and comments on WASH-1535 are apprec ia ted .

S incere ly ,

s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedical And Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

Enclosures: 1. AEC S t a f f Response t o Ccmments 2. F i n a l Environmental Statement,


V .8-144

Enclosure 1

AEC Staff Response to Comments by Ilene H. and Gaylord A. Younphein

1. Comment

Radioactive Wastes !:page 6 of enclosure - A Case Against) It was claimed that mankind is enslaving future generations by obligating them to look after our radioactive wastes, that we do not yet have a container that will contain these wastes for very long (as shown by the Hanford waste tank I.eaks) and that if the cost of perpetual care of wastes were added to nuclear power costs, electricity from nuclear power plants would be very costly.

Response:

As noted in the Final Statement in Section 4.6.1, "the near-tern waste management program that has been adopted by the AEC for high-level wastes calls for retrievable surface storage for safekeeping until a safe and acceptable ultimate disposal method has been selected and tested." There are enough promising ultimate disposal concepts presently being evaluated that the prospects for developing an acceptable ultimate disposal method within a period measured in decades is highly probable. Thus, it is not anticipated that future generations will be burdened to any significant extent.

The Hanford waste tank leaks are for the most part unrelated t o the question of commercial high-level waste management. The Hanford wastes are the result of the production of plutonium for military purDoses. The Hanford waste tanks were suitable only for temporary storage. Current Federal regulations require that commercially-generated liquid high-level waste must be converted to a solid material within five years after separation in the fuel reprocessing step. Five solidification processes have been developed and demonstrated. Safe methods of storing and caring for the waste after it is solidified and encapsulated are discussed in Section 4 . 6 of both the Draft and Final Statements.

When short-term liquid storage is part of the commercial waste manaRement plan, corrosion resistant alloys will be used for the primary containment barriers (tanks) and more than one barrier will be used (e.g., tanks installed in lined vaults). low, the probability that a sizable leak could go undetected will also be very low (the leak will be trapped and detected Cn the vault) and these factors combined with the short-term storage (5 years or less) make the probability of unc:ntrolled large leaks extremeiy small. Analyses of possible paths to the environment for radioisotopes from waste management operations have not shown any instance where a serious public health hazard resulted. Current studies at AEC laboratories indicate that even the most exotic and costly high-level waste disnosal schemes would add no more than a few percent to the cost of nuclear power. This is largelv due to the fact that althou~h the cost of disposal may be high relative to the quantity of wgste, the quantity of waste is small.

The probability of leaks will thus be very

V.8-145

2

2. Coculient

(page 7 of enc losure - Sone Larger Truths) :

The Hanford waste tank leaks were c i t e d as an example of MC's poor management.

Response:

It w a s a n t i c i p a t e d from the beginning of t h e Hanford P r o j e c t (during World War 11) t h a t t h e r e blight be high-level r ad ioac t ive waste leaks from the lianford tanks. The Hanford s i t e was o r i g i n a l l y s e l e c t e d because of t he s o i l condi t ions and t h e dry d e s e r t climate which provided f o r e x c e l l e n t r e t e n t i o n of any l i q u i d l eaks i n the s o i l immediately ad jacent t o the leak. The l eaks from the Hanford waste tanks have not r e s u l t e d i n t h e exposure of any member of t he publ ic . Furthermore, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t any member of t h e pub l i c w i l l be exposed t o r a d i a t i o n i n the f u t u r e as a r e s u l t of t hese inc idents , is e s s e n t i a l l y zero.

3. Comment

LMFBR Safe ty (page 6 of enclosure - Some Larger Tru ths) :

"The consequences of one ma jo r . f a i luce , or t he long range cumulat ive e f f e c t s of numerous sua11 inc iden t s i n the plutonium age are ruind boggling."

Response :

The p u b l i c consequences of a l l U.S. nuc lear power r e l a t e d acc iden t s which have occurred have been minor. A fundanental requirement of design (see Sect ion 4.2.7.3) is that any single f a i l u r e which n i g h t occur should not r e s u l t i n a s e r i o u s r i s k t o the publ ic h e a l t h and sa fe ty . The consequences of lower p robab i l i t y , more s e r i o u s acc iden t s t h a t have been pos tu l a t ed t o occur , even hypo the t i ca l ones, would not be i n any sense "mind-boggling" (see Sec t ions 4.2.7.7 and 4.2.7.8). The a d d i t i o n a l plutonium in an U f F B R does no t g ross ly change r a d i a t i o n s a f e t y cons idera t ions , as compared wi th c u r r e n t water-cooled r eac to r s ; t h i s po in t is addressed i n Sec t ion 4.2.7.4.

4. Comment

(page 7 of enclosure - Some Larger Truths):

"Again i n J u l y 1973, t he AEC ordered t en nuc lear power p l a n t s t o reduce opera t ing pa re r because of unresolved hazards i n f u e l and core sa fe ty . systems w a s aga in brought t o l i g h t l a r g e l y by e f f o r t s ou t s ide of AEC top management and t h e nuc lear power industry.' '

The whole t o p i c of s a f e t y i n emergency core cool ing

V .8-\46

3 .

Response :

On August 24, 1973 t h e AEC imposed temporary opera t ing l i m i t a t i o n s on t en nuc lear power p1ant:s pending r e c e i p t of a d d i t i o n a l c a l c u l a t i o n s and da ta from t h e r e a c t o r mmufac turer , following B r ev iev of earlier c a l c u l a t i o w . The l i m i t a t i o n s were not imposed because of any unresolved hazards but a s an added precaut ion u n t i l c a l c u l a t i o n a l models could be f u r t h e r s tud ied . The c a l c u l a t i o n s themselves model condi t ions which assume many co inc ident f a i l u r e s of a wide v a r i e t y of opera t ing and s a f e t y systems. margins" are a l s o introduced i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s to cover a l l poss ib l e u n c e r t a i n t i e s . cau t ious p r a c t i c e of providing a d d i t i o n a l margin whenever any unce r t a in ty is discovered and does not represent a r e f l e c t i o n on the s a f e t y condi t ion of t h e r e a c t o r s involved.

Many a d d i t i o n a l " sa fe ty

Tho! August 24 order is a good example of t h e AEC' s very

5 . Comment

(page 5 of enc losure - A Case k a i n s t ) :

"In 1966, t h e Enrico Fermi Fas t Breeder near D e t r o i t had a nea r meltdown wi th t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e p l a n t is permanently shu t down, a t a l o s s of $150,000,000. What is t o be done with t h a t r ad ioac t ive pyramid? Cer ta in ly , i t ion ' t . improving t h e environment ' j u s t s i t t i n g the re . '

Response:

The Fermi' i nc iden t is discussed i n t h e F i n a l Statement i n Sec t ion 4.2.7.5 and i n d e t a i l i n 4.2.7, Annex C. This acc ident , while it d id lead t o a lengthy and c o s t l y shutdown, vas repa i red and w a s no t t h e cause of t h e p l a n t f i n a l l y being taken out of service. decommissioned . The p l a n t is now being

6. Comment

(page 6 of enc losure - A Case Against):

"In 1961, t h e experimental f a s t breeder a t Idaho F a l l s blew a plug sending 3 men t o a gruesome death. Russia r e c e n t l y had some kind of acc ident with t h e i r f a s t breeder."

According t o t h e New York Tines,

Response :

The acc ident r e fe r r ed t o a t Idaho F a l l s occurred a t t h e SL-1 r e a c t o r which w a s an Army l i g h t water experimental r e a c t o r , no t a f a s t breeder r eac to r . This acc ident r e s u l t e d from an ope ra to r ac t ion t*ich, though se r ious ly improper, would not have r e s u l t e d i n an acc ident a t any o t h e r r e a c t c r i n ex is tence i n t h e country a t t h e time, or b u i l t s ince. Although t h i s w a s t h e most s e r i o u s acc ident which has ever occurred i n t h e U.S., i n terms of consequences t o people, i t posed no hazard t o t h e genera l publ ic . The Russian "accident" is more

V. 8- 147

4

proper ly c a l l e d a malfunct ion of a p a r t i c u l a r sub-system; i t led t o a steam genera tor sodium-water react ion. t o s a f e l y accommodate t h i s type of malfunction ( r e f e r t o s e c t i o n 4.2.7.5.5) .

UIFDR systems are designed

7. Comolent

(page 6 of enc losure - A Case Against):

Because of t h e high hea t of breeders and t h e g r e a t t o x i c i t y of plutonium, 11

f a s t b reede r s are to r egu la r r eac to r s as l i gh tn ing is t o l i gh tn ing bugs."

Response:

This analogy, a l though co lo r fu l , does not accura te ly r e f l e c t t h e sinilari- ties and d i f f e r e n c e s between UfFBKs and LhTKs. r e a c t o r t ypes are presented i n Sect ion 4.2.7.4 of the F i n a l S ta teyent . It is shown the re in t h a t , d e s p i t e some d i f f e rences i n f ea tu res , each r e a c t o r type is designed f o r s a f e opera t ion wi th f u l l recogni t ion of a l l its i n h e r e n t phys ica l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For example, l i g h t water r e a c t o r s have nega t ive void c o e f f i c i e n t s , and they use high pressure coolant . LFBRs have p o s i t i v e void c o e f f i c i e n t s but use l o w pressure coolant . cases t h e o v e r a l l power c o e f f i c i e n t is negat ive, assur ing an inherent r e s i s t a n c e t o r e a c t i v i t y t r ans i en t s . Thus, t h e s a f e t y of both LMFBRs and LWRs is on a comparable and f u l l y acceptable leve l .

Some comparisons of t hese

In both

8. Comment

A l t e r n a t i v e Energy Sources (pages 4 and 5 of enc losure - Some Larper Truths):

"Cleansing of convent ional c o a l mining, processing and burning o p e r a t i o n s by more innovat ive and soph i s t i ca t ed methods, or coa l g a s i f i c a t i o n , has been postponed by l ack of economic motivat ion and r e s e a r c h funding. Almost no modern na t ion , f o r example, has t o l e r a t e d such a longstanding scandal i n c o a l mine s a f e t y as has the U.S.A. Fur ther , i t has been repeated, i f no t more 80, i n uranium mining,

"The i rony is t h a t t h e problems of c o a l are of t inker- toy l e v e l compared t o f a n t a s t i c problems and t h e uncharted areas of plutonium power. plutonium t o those of coal , however, coal should be only an in t e r im to something s a f e r and b e t t e r . General Motors has announced, pe r Time Magazjw, t h a t they have found a p r a c t i c a l method of reuoving 90% of t h e s u l f u r f r o o the cheapest c o a l and w i l l go f u l l speed ahead. With c o a l we can improvise b e t t e r techniques very rapidly-no b ig deal."

It is almost lud icrous t o relate t h e long range hazards of

Response:

Ae i n d i c a t e d on p. A.2-65 of t h e Dra f t Statement, cu r ren t p lans ca l l f o r spending about $2.2 b i l l i o n over t he next f i v e yea r s on research and developuent involving t h e mining, combustion, and conversion of coal.

V. 8-1 48 n

5

Current estimates of recoverable , proven r e se rves of c o a l i n the U.S. range from about 150 b i l l i o n tons t o about 400 b i l l i o n tons . Though some c o a l now c l a s s i f i e d as p a r t of t he more uncer ta in "resource base" w i l l be t r a n s f e r r e d t o the "recoverable reserve" category i n the f u t u r e as p r i c e s r i se and exp lo ra t ion broadens, i t i s un l ike ly t h a t i f our energy growth ra te remains high, our coa l supply would last as long as our uranium supp l i e s .

Aside from environmental cons idera t ions , t he resource bases assoc ia ted wi th coa l - f i r ed e l e c t r i c a l energy genera t ion and e l e c t r i c a l energy genera t ion by LMFBRs are n o t comparable. The LMFER resource base is s u f f i c i e n t t o l a s t f o r c e n t u r i e s , while our c o a l resources may be depleted wi th in one century , i f requi red t o provide inc reas ing shares of non-e l ec t r i ca l and, indeed, non-energy demands.

Though the 1J.S. underground coal-mine s a f e t y record is no t y e t equal t o t h a t of some o t h e r i n d u s t r i a l i z e d na t ions , t he record has improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i n c e passage of t he 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safe ty A c t . Bureau of Mines records i n d i c a t e t h a t t he number of f a t a l i t i e s per mi l l i on (ne t ) t ons of c o a l mined has dec l ined from 0.43 i n 1970 t o 0.22 i n 1973, a reduct ion of almost twofold. The number of n o n f a t a l i n j u r i e s per mi l l i on tons mined, hobever , decl ined by only 2% dur ing the same period. This s a f e t y record improvement has been accompanied by a decrease i n deep-mine p r o d u c t i v i t y ( tons producedeper man day) of about 20%, from 13.8 i n 1970 t o about 11.0 i n 1973. The Study Committee on Environmental Aspects of a Nat iona l Materials Pol icy of t he Nat ional Academy of Sciences and Nat ional Academy of Engineering has r ecen t ly made the f d l o w i n g recommendation:

"The Coal Mine Heal th and Safe ty A c t of 1969 should be thoroughly and promptly reviewed with regard t o i t s e f f e c t s on the h e a l t h and s a f e t y of t he miners. Its provis ions should be v igorous ly enforced wi th the a i m of achieving s u b s t a n t i a l r educ t ions i n underground mine acc ident rates. The Federa l government should support increased research and development i n t h e technologies of economic underground mining and improved h e a l t h and safe ty ."*

It has been found t h a t la rge-sca le rap id improvisat ion i n the coa l i ndus t ry is, i n f a c t , d i f f i c u l t . Examples inc lude the q u i t e slow rates of i n t r o d u c t i o n , t o da t e , of automated deep-mine continuous e x t r a c t i o n systems, of t he s a f e r and higher-recovery method of longwall underground mining, of r e l i a b l e stack-gas scrubbing systems on l a r g e e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y u n i t s , and of i n - s i t u (underground) coa l g a s i f i c a t i o n . A s t he pace of R&D and of technology t r a n s f e r quickens, i t i s hoped t h a t t h i s l a r g e indus t ry w i l l , i n t he near f u t u r e , be ab le t o incorpora te improved technology more r ap id ly .

*Man, Materials, and Environment, p. 115, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, (1973).

V . 8-149

6

The General Motors s t a c k gas scrubbers i n s t a l l e d on i t s power p l a n t a t Parma, Ohio have been i n opera t ion s ince :larch 1974. of 40 XW is o n l y one-tenth t o one - th i r t i e th t h a t of a modem u t i l i t y u n i t . The c u r r e n t sc rabber system cos t i s equiva len t t o ac a d d i t i o n a l $10 pe r ton of coal, an inc rease of about 402. While t h i s small experimental p ro to type is promising, f u r t h e r t e s t i n g on l a r g e r u n i t s over a longer per iod of t ine w i l l be required t o demonstrate i t s f e a s i b i l i t y f o r l a r g e u t i l i t y p l a n t s . s tudy t o r e f i n e t h e process and t o reduce t h e c o s t s . that t h e incremental c o s t incurred by scrubbing t h a t is r e f l e c t e d i n General Etotor's t o t a l product cos t is undoubtedly a small f r a c t i o n of t h e incrementa l c o s t of a u t i l i t y ' s product ( e l e c t r i c a l energy) t h a t is a s s o c i a t e d wi th cu r ren t stack-gas scrubbing systems.

The u n i t ' s capac i ty

Such r e s u l t s may be forthcoming from the j o i n t GM-CPA It is a l s o noted

0

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

v.9-1

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

CYCLOTRON LA8ORATORV CAMERIDQE. MASS. 021 38

A p r i l 1 6 , 1 9 7 4

U . S. A t o m i c Energy Commission ATT: The Secre ta ry '

Washington, D.C. 20545

Dear S i r :

Environmental Statement f o r t h e LMFBR program. I have r e c e n t l y received a copy of t h e d r a f t

T ime , and a r e c e n t family problem, prevent my commenting i n d e t a i l . However, I f ind three g l a r i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s .

F i r s t , i n t h e d i scuss ion of a l t e r n a t i v e nuc lear systems t o t h e breeder , no mention is made of CANDU r e a c t o r s . These work w e l l (87% a v a i l a b i l i t y vs . 65% of U.S. r e a c t o r s ) as used by O n t a r i o Hydro. There e x i s t a number of papers i nc lud ing one b W. Bennett L e w i s f o r t h e Royal Socit?ty of Edinburgh, on a U23%.h c y c l e f o r this r e a c t o r which would nea r ly breed.

With t h e increased uranium s u p p l i e s t h a t now s e e m l i k e l y , and t h e increased cost of t h e LMFBR, t h e s e U/Th c y c l e s must be considered a s a p o s s i b l e mechanism of marking t i m e pending a d e c i s i o n i n the f u t u r e - by which t i m e fu s ion may work.

Second, t he hazard of d ive r s ion of plutonium t o c r i t i c a l uses i s g r e a t e r for an LMFBR than f o r o t h e r systems. The r e c e n t book by Wihlrich and Taylor (Bal l inger Press, A p r i l 1 9 7 4 ) emphasizes this. There seems only a small idscuss ion of nuc lear p a p s , whereby t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s l imi t ed . Y e t t he se a r e v i t a l t o a l l e v i a t e t h e problem.

V. 9-2

-2-

Third, no mention i s made, or response given, to t h e two obvious economic problems of LMFBR; one i s thdsod ium i s opaque and a b o l t dropped down would be l o s t t o s i g h t ; two, t h e sodium/steam hea t exchanger i s very important . Heat exchangers usua l ly l eak arid a l e a k here would s h u t down the p l a n t . This p r e s e n t l y keeps PFR (Doberay ) o f f l i n e . Maybe these problems are n o t as bad as they would appear t o an o u t s i d e r - b u t t h a t should be c a r e f u l l y explained, s i n c e they a r e so obvious.

I hope t h e s e comments are h e l p f u l .

Yours s i n c e r e l y ,

Richard Wilson Professor of Physics

RW: jk

v.9-3

UNITED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY COM M ISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

Profes so r Richard TJilson Department of Physics Harvard Univers i ty Cambridge, Xassachuset ts 02138

Dear Pro fes so r Wilson:

Thank you f o r your le t ter of Apr i l 15, 1974 commenting on the Atonic Energy Commission's Dra f t Environmental Statement on the Liquid :!eta1 Fas t Breeder Xeactor (LXFCR) Program. The S ta t enen t has been r ev i sed where appropr i a t e i n response t o t h e many comments rece ived , and a copy of t h e F i n a l Statement is enclosed f o r your informat ion . This l e t t e r responds t o the s p e c i f i c i s s u e s you r a i sed .

With regard t o your concern about a l t e r n a t i v e nuc lea r systems, t he AEC d i d n o t d i scuss c e r t a i n sys tens, s p e c i f i c a l l y the CAXDU (Canadian- Deuteriun-Uranium) concept , because i t w a s decided t o linit the treatment of a l t e r n a t i v e nuc lea r technologies i n the Statement only t o s y s t e m now ope ra t ing o r considered promising and capable of pene t r a t ing t h e U.S. nuc lea r 20i.721: market. The izEC has , of course, over t h c yea r s eva lua ted and conducted research on a n u d e r of r e a c t o r concepts , s0r.e of which have been s e l e c t e d f o r f u r t h e r development and some of which have been found unpromising and t h e r e f o r e no t warran t ing f u r t h e r suppor t . The Heavy !Jater Cooled and ?!oderated Reactor concept has i n t h e p a s t been r e l e g a t e d t o t h i s l a t t e r category. >!evertheless, re-evaluat ions of va r ious r e a c t o r concepts are occas iona l ly conducted as new developments occur o r new information becones a v a i l a b l e , and i n t h e case of Heavy Water Reactors (HT;Rs) the most recent review w a s conpleted on A p r i l 5, 1974. It was concluded at t h a t t i m e t h a t cons t ruc t ion of ICV. p l a n t s (of t h e CMUXJ type) i n the U.S. dur ing t h e nex t decade does no t merit s e r i o u s cons idera t ion . "he reasons f o r t h i s conclusion are sunmarized below, and a copy of t h e eva lua t ion r e p o r t is enc losed f o r your infonna- t i o n .

The eva lua t ion concluded t h a t t h e r e appear t o b e no fundamental t e c h n i c a l p r o b l e m t h a t might de lay t h e cons t ruc t ion of IFlP. p l a n t s i n Canada o r o t h e r n a t i o n s wi th similar economic and l i c e n s i n g s t r u c t u r e s . Kevertheless , t h e r e are s e v e r a l t e c h n i c a l and e c o n o d c f a c t o r s t h a t make t h i s system much less a t t r a c t i v e i n t h e I J . S . , and f o r t hese reasons U.S. u t i l i t i e s have n o t chosen IW& and are n o t expected t o do so i n t h e nea r fu tu re . The primary f a c t o r s m i l i t a t i n g a g a i n s t IWPs are l i c e n s a b i l i t y and c o s t . The former inc ludes problems r e l a t i v e t o containment design (not e n t i r e l y compatible wi th t h e e x i s t i n s L. S. r egu la to ry approach) , t r i t i u m product ion and release (due to t h e use of heavy water as t h e coo lan t ) , and emergency

v.9-4

2

core cool ing ( the Reonetry and o r i e n t a t i o n of HllR cores i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of t h e Light 'later Reactors (LI\Ts) p reva len t i n t h i s country, and would requi re ex tens ive ana lys i s and I?&D t o v e r i f y s a t i s f a c t o r y emergency cool ing) . h ighe r c a p i t a l cos t s ( s eve ra l percent o r more r e l a t i v e t o L!I'Rs), and h ighe r f u e l cycle and deuterium c o s t s ( s ee enc losure 1).

The economic f a c t o r s n i t i g a t i n g aga€ns t !I!JRs inc lude

A major advantage of IIVRs is t h e i r good f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n - they a r e , under t h e assumptions i n t he eva lua t ion r e p o r t , 170% more e f f e c t i v e wi th respec t t o uranium requi renents than LVRs, and about 402 more e f f e c t i v e than the High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR). Fuel u t i l i z a t i o n of a l l t h r e e r e a c t o r systems (HWR, LWR and HTGR) can be improved considerably over present values and, as you noted, t h e HWR can be designed f o r nea r ly break-even breeding on the Uranium 233-Thorium f u e l cycle . This f u e l cyc le is a l s o u t i l i z e d by the HTGR, which is now e n t e r i n g t h e commercial area as an advanced conver te r , and by the Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR), which is under development by t h e AEC as discussed i n t h e enclosed Environmental Statement. A major problem i n s u c c e s s f u l achievement of breeding i n a ChVnU type r e a c t o r would be t h e requirement f o r low f u e l burnup t o prevent f i s s i o n product poison accumulation i n t h e reac tor . Resul t ing power cos t s would be increased s u b s t a n t i a l l y , makinR t h i s system even more economically u n a t t r a c t i v e i n t h e U.S. than i t appears t o be a t present . The economics of CANDU r e a c t o r s is discussed f u r t h e r i n t h e enclosed r e p o r t , where the s e v e r a l reasons €or not pursuing HWRs are examined i n more d e t a i l .

With regard t o your comment regarding t h e hazard of d ive r s ion of plutonium t o c r i t i c a l uses , t he AEC recognizes t h a t t h e safeguard ing of nuc lea r ma te r i a l is a major concern t o t h e p u b l i c and a l s o one of t h e major problems i n developing and implementing an L S B R power economy. We be l i eve these problems can be so lved , and t h e sub jec t is d iscussed at length i n Sec t ion 7 of t h e enclosed Statement, which has been ex tens ive ly r ev i sed i n response t o comments received on t h e Draf t Statement. Please see Sec t ion 7.4.6 f o r information r e l a t e d t o t h e comparative safeguards aspec ts of t h e var ious nuc lea r f u e l cyc les and Sec t ion 7.4.9.4.2 f o r d i scuss ion of t he safeguards aspec ts of nuc lea r parks .

Your observat ions regarding ". . .two obvious economic problems of LMFBR; one, t h a t sodium is opaque and a b o l t dropped down would be l o s t t o s i g h t ; and two, t h a t the sodiumlsteam hea t exchanger is very important ,. . . have both been considered i n the prepara t ion of t h e F i n a l Statement. These matters are indeed recognized as problem a reas , bu t both a r e be l ieved amenable t o engineer ing s o l u t i o n . Th*.y a r e d iscussed i n Sec t ions 4.2.3 and 4.2.7 of t he F ina l Statement.

I I

v. 9-5

3

We hope that the above information and the enclosures are sufficiently responsive to the points you raised. and for your interest in the LMFBR Program.

Thank you again for your comments

h Sincerely,


Enclosures: 1. Evaluation of the Potential of

H e a v y Water Reactor Plants in the United States (Phase 2)

LMFBR Program (WASH-LS35) 2. Final Environmental Statement,

.

V.9-6

ENCLOSURE 1

EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL OF

HEAVY WATER REACTOR PLANTS I N THE U N I T E D STATES (PHASE 2)

APR 5 1974

1. INTRODUCTION

The following discussion provides the de ta i led r e s u l t s of an evaluation of

the p o t e n t i a l of Heavy Water Reactor (HWR) plants i n the U.S. I n i t i a l

thoughts r e s u l t i n g from t h i s cvaluation were draf ted on December 12 , 1973

and submitted t o Commissioner Anders on December 18, 1973. Since then,

f u r t h e r work has been performed and the informal comments rece.ived on the

i n i t i a l t ransmi t ta l have been addressed. Additional discussions with

knowledgeable engineers represent ing the manufacturer, archi tect-engineer ,

u t i l i t y and na t iona l laboratory points of view, a s w e l l a s the r e s u l t s of

ttie review of cos t s e n s i t i v i t y and fue l u t i l i z a t i o n analyses performed by

t h e oak Ridge National Laboratory have been considered.

2. TECHNICAL STATUS OF HEAVY WATER NUCLEAR PLANTS

2.1. BASIC HEAVY WATER REACTOR TECHNOLOGY

Basic technology f o r heavy water (D,O) moderated and cooled r e a c t o r s

has been demonstrated by the Canadians.

fundamental technical problems t h a t might delay the construct ion of

such p l a n t s i n Canada. The four SO0 M W e Pickering p lan ts (operat ing

with D 0 moderated and cooled r e a c t o r s ) a r e reported t o be achieving

high p lan t fac tors .

Program Agreement the U.S. has poten t ia l access t o the e x i s t i n g

technology.

There appear t o be no

2 Because of a va l id U.S.-Canadian Cooperative

9

v.9-7

-2-

2.2, TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IN INTRODUCING HWR PLANTS I N TKE UNITED STATES

2.2.1. LICENSASILITY

During the past several years the designs of l i g h t water reac tor (LWR)

p l a n t s i n the U.S. have been upgraded t o s a t i s f y evolving q u a l i t y

standards and regulatory guides and c r i t e r i a . Since the b a s i c HWR

p lan t design is d i f f e r e n t from the LWR design, the e x i s t i n g U.S.

etaQdards and regulatory guides and c r i t e r i a do n o t apply d i r e c t l y .

These would have t o be modified o r developed a s required €or the HWR

design.

a l low the Canadian HWR plants to be l icensed i n the U.S. is not possible ,

a number of major design i ssues can be foreseen:

While a precise evaluation of changes which would be needed t o

2.2.1.1.

For instance, the four e x i s t i n g 500 MWe Pickering reac tors have a

j o in t containment t a r r i e r which does not appear t o s a t i s f y the c r i t e r i o n

of bas ica l ly passive containment of a double ended p i p e rupture accident

The containment design probably would not be acceptable.

hypothesized f o r U.S. plants.

containment over-pressure would be prevented by a c t i v a t i o n of a veGting

Instead, f o r t h i s maximum accident ,

valve i n a pipe leading t o a vacuum and quenching building.

pump which is normally i n operation t o maintain a vacuum i n t h i s bui lding

would have to be shutdown to prevent r e l e a s e of possible f i s s i o n .

A vacuum

products t o the atmosphere. Reportedly, the c r i t i c a l vent valve has

been operat ional ly tes ted only a t 1/4 s c a l e because of d i f f i c u l t i e s

in t e s t i n g i t a t f u l l s i z e under prototypic conditions of the

hypothet ical accident.

V.9-8 n

- 3-

2.2.1.2.

major portion or i ts generation is due t o the minute q u a n t i t i e s of

T r i t i u m r e l ease is of concern i n the LWR p l a n t s where a

D 0 i n the pr imary c i r c u i t cooling water. In HWR p l a n t s t h i s appears

to be a much more ser ious problem, which, on the b a s i s of a v a i l a b l e

information, has not been f u l l y addressed o r resolved.

high p a r t i a l pressure of t r i t i um i n D20 increases the p o t e n t i a l f o r

tri,tium leakage through s e a l s and f o r i ts d i f fus ion through th in

metal b a r r i e r s . As a r e s u l t , e f f o r t s t o minimize tritium r e l e a s e t o

the environment would be needed and a development program probably

would be necessary.

2

Relat ively

2.2.1.3. The e x i s t i n g HWR p lan t designs undoubtedly would have t o be

modified t o s a t i s f y c r i t e r i a corresponding t o the s ing le f a i l u r e

cri teria and redundancy requirements which have evolved f o r the U.S. .)

,

LWR plants .

2.2.1.4. A grea t deal of a n a l y s i s and research and .development has

been undertaken i n the U.S. t o demonstrate the adequacy of Emergency

Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) i n LWRs. Since HWR cores have a d i f f e r e n t

geometry and are or iented ho r i zon ta l ly t h i s e f f o r t would not be f u l l y

appl icable . Additional. ECCS analyses undoubtedly would be necessary

for HWRs and might lead t o R6D requirements a d p l a n t design changes.

~ - ___ . _. - _ _

9

2.2.2. SIZE EXTRAPOLATION

v .9-9

-4-

The l a r g e s t operat ing HWR u n i t has a 505 M W r n e t capaci ty and 750 XWe

Bruce KWR u n i t s . a r e under construction. So f a r the Canadians have not

committed a l a r g e r plant , whereas the U.S. LWR manufacturers have sold

seve ra l 1300 MWe plants .

There appears t o be no fundamental obstacle which would prevent s i z e

increases of the HWR and it has been reported t h a t conceptual design

of a high capacity p l an t is i n progress. Nevertheless, the Canadians

have opted f o r construct ion of e i g h t 750 MWe u n i t s r a t h e r than f o r

construct ion of fewer l a r g e r capacity u n i t s a t the Bruce s i t e .

I

The HWR header construct ion and r e fue l ing scheme present problems

which i t is probably preferable t o minimize through cons t ruc t ionof

mul t i -un i t plants .

w i t h coolant i n such a way as no t to i n t e r f e r e with equipment access

for on-line r e fue l ing performed a t both ends of the core.

first approximation, f o r a capacity increase from 750 t o 1300 MWe, the

area of the head forging would increase about 70 percent, s u b s t a n t i a l l y

In-core pressure tubes must be ind iv idua l ly f ed

To the

increasing the complexity of the reactor .

2.2.3. DESIGN OPTIMIZATION

The e x i s t i n g HWR p lan t s a r e optimized f o r Canadian labor and c a p i t a l

cost conditio:is and a r e designed f o r maximum s impl i c i ty of the f u e l

cycle (i.e. f o r operation with n a t u r a l uranium). As a r e s u l t of power

v.9-10

-5-

cost optimization, the U.S. Heavy Water Reactor Program which was

cancelled i n 1967, had focussed on an organic cooled r eac to r with

s l i g h t l y enriched fue l . I f U.S. manufacturers would decide now t o

adopt the D 0 cooled and moderated Canadian design, they would t r y to

minimize changes i n the proven plant . However, s ince the r e a c t o r s

would have t o be saleable , i t appears major design changes would be

necessary t o make these p l an t s more economically competitive under

U.S. conditions.

2

Thus, very l i k e l y , U.S. manufacturers would again o p t f o r s l i g h t

uranium enrichment which would remove the severe c o n s t r a i n t s facing

the Canadians i n the use of neutron absorbing core construct ion

materials.

simplifying construction, f a c i l i t a t i n g improvement of steam

condi t ions (thereby reducing c a p i t a l cos t s of the conventional p a r t

of the p l a n t ) , and by making i t e a s i e r t o ex t r apo la t e power capaci ty

to the high l e v e l offered by LWR manufacturers.

This design s t e p would tend t o reduce capi ta l c o s t s by

2.2.4. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are add i t iona l i s s u e s which could be of concern t o a u t i l i t y

purchasing a HWR plant.

t ive operat ing experience of HWR p l an t s w i l l remain small f o r a consider-

a b l e time.

Because of l imi t ed worldwide s a l e s the cumula-

Thus, there may be l ingering concerns as t o r e l i a b i l i t y ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to: (a) A se r ious inc iden t with the on-line

v.9-11

- 6-

r e f u e l i n g system.

with e p a r t i a l l y extracted f u e l element would be very se r ious and

c o s t l y because of po ten t i a l presence of f i s s i o n products and

unaccess ib i l i t y ,

It can be postulated t h a t a f a i l u r e of t h i s system

(b) An incident involving a cos t ly major l o s s of

D20 (although insurance might be ava i l ab le for protect ion from t h i s

occurrence).

* ElwR p a r t i a l load operation and shutdown recovery are influenced by . a xenon poisoning problem.

d i f f e r e n t from those with which U.S. u t i l i t i e s a r e f ami l i a r . Although

Resultant operating c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e

. t h e r e probably a r e ways to solve the problem, i t would have t o be

addressed i n d e t a i l .

An o f f s e t t i n g klement favoring HWR p l an t s may be the p o t e n t i a l of on-

l i n e r e f u e l i n g f o r bringing about r e l a t i v e l y high p l an t f ac to r s . A

determination of whether HWR plant f a c t o r s higher than achieved by

l i g h t water p l an t s a r e indeed a t t a i n a b l e (while s a t i s f y i n g a l l long-

range maintenance and inspect ion requirements f o r the p l a n t s .and t h e i r

r e f u e l i n g systems) requires extrapolat ion t o U. S. condi t ions and

accumulation of much more operat ing experience than now ava i l ab le .

3. ECONCMIC CONSIDERATIONS

3.1.

Aa discussed i n Section 2.2.2.. i t is necessary t o compare the Bruce-

Pickering HWR now offered by Canadians, w i t h the advanced LWRs now

o f fe red i n the U.S. For such a comparison, the cos t d i f f e r e n t i a l

CAPITAL COSTS (EXCLUSIVE OF D20)

v .9-12

-7-

(HWR excess cost: r e l a t i v e t o LWR) per ki lowatt of i n s t a l l e d capacity

might be broken down approximately a s follows: ( a ) 40 $/KW due t o

the grea te r HWR reac tor and plant complexity and lower construct ion

e f f ic iency under U.S. conditions (based on b e s t weighted judgment of

information i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and presumed involvement of numerous

U. S. business e n t i t i e s instead of the r e l a t i v e l y m a l l Canadian design

and construction group), (b) 30 $/KW due to the upgrading needed t o

s a t i s f y U. S. standards and regulatory requirements (based on estimated

costs of recent upgradings car r ied o u t i n LWR plants ) , (c) 80 $/KW

due t o the plant s i z e discrepancy (based on the assumption t h a t t h i s

d i f f e r e n t i a l is the same a s the one derived from Reference 1 f o r an

equivalent LWR plant size difference).

d i f f e r e n t i a l adds up t o a penalty of about 150 $/KW f o r the HWR plant ,

or about 3 mills/Kw-hr i n levelized power cost . This d i f f e r e n t i a l may

be compared t o the f igure of 145 $/KW given i n Reference 2, transmitted

by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (See Table 1,

Thus, the t o t a l estimated

Approximate Comparative Cost Data f o r 1980 Operation, i n the at tached

Appendix 2).

total, any allowance f o r construction conditions i n the U.S., and f o r

the required p lan t upgrading t o s a t i s f y U.S. q u a l i t y assurance and

This reference nentions, but does not include i n t h e

Regulatory needs.

heavy water and one h'alf i n i t i a l f u e l inventory. cos ts , probably about

On the other hand, f o r the HWR plant i t does include , .

40 $/KW*

Although the above estimated cos t d i f f e r e n t i a l s are based on the b e s t

ava i lab le data , such large t o t a l cos t differences p e r u n i t capacity

n

V.9-13

-8-

do not properly r e f l e c t the potent ia l of HWR plants i n the U.S.

To make a more val id comparison, a detailed desigii and cost estimate

of an optimized high capacity plant , sat isfying a l l U.S. require-

ments and conditions, is necessary. Without it, however, i t is possible

to weigh several basic considerations which include: (a ) the inherently

larger s i ze of HWR plants! (b) t h e i r greater design complexity; and

(c ) , the presence of additional systems required fo r handling D20.

Taking in to account these factors , and prevailing U.S. conditions,

the present judgment is t ha t ult imately there would remain a capi ta l

cost penalty of several percent or more, equivalent to a t l e a s t 0.5

mi l l skw-hr . 3.2.

In making an economic comparison of HWR and LWR reactor fue l costs ,

one can consider that the cost of D20 separation in heavy water

FUEL CYCLE AND D20 COSTS

plants basical ly o f f se t s the cost of uranium separation i n l i g h t

water plants. Thus, 8 broadly defined HWR plant fue l cycle cos t

can be obtained by lumping the D20 i n t e r e s t charges with the fue l

co8ts. On t h i s basis, the HWR-LWR fue l cycle cos t d i f f e ren t i a l

remains small fo r a re la t ive ly wide range of assumptions.

It can be assump3 t ha t the near-term uranium clre pr ices and the cos t

of separative work w i l l increase, favoring the HWR plants. A t the

eame time the D20 costs may a l so be expected t o rise, somewhat counter-

balancf ng th i s e f fec &.

V .9-14

-9-

A8 p a r t of t h i s evaluat ion, the oak Ridge National Laboratory s t a f f

was requested t o perform f u e l cycle cos t s e n s i t i v i t y s tud ie s .

p r i c e of uranium ore, separat ive work and D20, as we l l as the f ixed

charge r a t e s were varied over a wide range of values.

of t h i s ana lys i s a r e presented i n Table 2 of Appendix 1.

b e s t present judgment f o r conditions which might p reva i l 10 y e a r s from

nora.-points t o p r i ces of 15 $/ lb U 0 3 8'

(see Appendix 3 f o r comments on D 0 production cos t s ) , and*a 2 16 percent yea r ly i n t e r e s t charge.

seen i n Table 4 of Appendix 1, HWR p lan t energy cos t s might be 2.60

mills/KW(e), versus 2.53 mills/KW(e) f o r a LWR.

t h a t there is l i t t l e l ikel ihood of a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n t i a l

The

The r e s u l t s

The

50 $/$, 90 $/Kg of D 2 0

Under these circumstances, as

It may be concluded

developing in these f u e l cycle c o s t s before 1984-1985.

4. FUEL UTILIZATION

A major advantage of heavy water moderated r e a c t o r s is t h e i r good f u e l

u t i l i z a t i o n . In the course of t h i s evaluat ion, the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory has supplied g ross comparative est imates of f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n

for present LWR, EIWR and High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) plants . The

r e s u l t s are l i s t e d i n Table 5 of Appendix 1. It is seen t h a t t he heavy

water p l an t s may be considered near ly 170 percect more e f f e c t i v e with

r e spec t t o uranium requirements than the l i g h t watex p l an t s , b u t only

about 40 percent more e f f e c t i v e than the FITGR.

n

v.9-15

- 10-

The HWR-HTCR f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a l cannot be considered important.

As noted i n Section 2.2.3., i f U.S. manufacturers were t o u t i l i z e the

Canadian design, they probably would be forced by economic considerat ions

e0 switch t o a s l ighc ly enriched system, with a poorer uranium u t i l i z a t i o n

f a c t o r . Fuel u t i l i z a t i o n of all three r e a c t o r systems considered (ma, -

LWR and HTGR) can be improved considerably over the present values and

they all can be designed f o r break-even breeding on the uranium 233-

thorium f u e l cycle.'' A l i g h t water breeder i s present ly under deveI.opment

in the U.S. In the near term i t i s l i k e l y t h a t the conversion r a t i o s and

the f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n of a l l present p l a n t s w i l l tend to increase due t o

increased o r e p r i c e s and changes i n o the r f u e l cycle costs .

t r end probably w i l l evolve from geonomic considerat ions r a t h e r than from

p o l i c i e s t o improve, f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n .

However, t h i s

5. OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS AND SUMMARY REVIEW

This review i n d i c a t e s t h a t construct ion of HWR p lan t s i n the U.S. during

the next decade does not mer i t s e r ious considerat ion. Wnadian HWR nuclear

plants of cu r ren t design cannot be b u i l t i n the U.S. without modification

and the r e s o l u t i o n of a number of t echn ica l quest ions, including sa fe ty -

l i c e n s i n g i s sues . This e f f o r t would severely t a x the already extended

.U. S. manufacturing and technical manpower resources i n the nuclear f i e l d .

Furthermore, no s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l f u e l cycle cos t advantage ( a s def insd

Sect ion 3.2.) can be expected f o r the Canadian p l a n t s , and the c a p i t a l

V .9-16

-11-

charges would be considerably higher than f o r p lan ts being of fered by

U.S. manufacturers. Indeed, f o r the next 10 year period, there appears

to be i n s u f f i c i e n t motivation f o r introducing HWRs i n the U.S., even i f

one neglec ts the an t ic ipa ted HWR-LWR c a p i t a l cos t d i f f e r e n t i a l .

n

The v a l i d i t y of the conclusions is re inforced by the Canadian experience

in marketing HWR plants outs ide of t h e i r country.

countries where spec ia l considerat ions such as the s impl i c i ty of the

natural uranium fuel cycle make HWR p l a n t s a t t r a c t i v e , there have been no

major HWR plant sales. For example, following a recent review of ava i l -

able opt ions the B r i t i s h repbrtedly have again not se lec ted the HWR CANDU

reactor. Although the B r i t i s h have devoted a considerable development

e f f o r t t o the steam generating heavy water reac tor (100 MWe SGHWR), i t is

understood they have concluded t h a t d i r e c t extrapolat ion of t h i s system

.to a 1000 MWe p l a n t is not technica l ly j u s t i f i a b l e .

Except f o r those

Q

5

U.S. u t i l i t i e s and manufacturers do n o t appear i n t e r e s t e d i n the HWR system,

presumably because of negative evaluation r e s u l t s . Recent correspondence

r e l a t i n g t o an a n a l y s i s by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York,

Inc., is at tached a s Appendix 2. It notes (paragraph 2,' page 2, of the

le t ter from W. W. Lowe t o L. H. Roddis) t h a t i f t h e i r c o s t es t imates a r e

even approximately r i g h t , CANDU technology could not produce economically

competitive power f o r the'U.S. market, un less p lan ts are b u i l t i n Canada,

with the low c a p i t a l f ixed charge r a t e s . typ ica l ly appl icable t o government-

owned f a c i l i t i e s in Canada.

.V .9-17

While the HWR p lan ts a r e much more e f f i c i e n t from the f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n point

of view than the current ly commercial LWR plants , the U . S . present ly ha3

adequate a l t e r n a t i v e s without recourse to the HWR reac tor .

the HTGR system, present ly is favored by U.S. u t i l i t i e s because of

poten t ia l addi t iona l benef i t s , including consonance with d i r e c t cycle

power ex t rac t ion and heat r e j e c t i o n through dry cooling systems.

One of these,

For the ' long term (beyond 10 years ) , depending on the success of the

development of the IMFBR, HTGR and Light Water Breeder Reactor, the HWR

system may appear a t t r a c t i v e . Under c e r t a i n assumptions, t h i s system

eventual ly could become of i n t e r e s t . However, to3 firmly e s t a b l i s h i t s

competitive posi t ion would requi re d r a s t i c changes in the o v e r a l l

s i t u a t i o n such as: ( a ) major disappointment i n the HTGR system, o r

(b) a major reduction of D 0 production cos ts by some process (e.g. laser 2

technology) which would not s imi la r ly reduce the cos t of uranium separation.

Under such circumstances a reevaluation could be i n 0rde.r. F i r s t i t

would be necessary t o develop an optimized design and cos t es t imate of a

"R p l a n t f o r appl ica t ion i n the U.S. This would requi re a major design

e f f o r t with Canadian cooperation by a U.S. nuclear p lan t manufacturer.

The extensive involvement of the AEC regulatory s t a f f would a l s o be needed

to assure that t h i s design could be l icensed in the U.S.

For t h e near tenn, there remains the p o s s i b i l i t y of a cooperative e f f o r t

with the Canadians t o bui ld HWR p lan ts i n Canada, and t o contract f o r the

long-term U.S. purchase of the energy from these plants . P lan ts could

V .9-18

be b u i l t i n Canada according t o ex i s t ing designs, possibly under

r e l a t i v e l y favorable c a p i t a l cos t conditions. The U. S. could perhaps

ob ta in add i t iona l energy a t a reasonable c o s t , and the Canadians would

achieve g rea t e r economic b e n e f i t s than would be possible from d i r e c t

sales of uranium ore.

Acres, Ltd., and reportedly was tabled by the Ontario l e g i s l a t u r e .

Such a n arrangement was proposed las t summer by

Some U.S. u t i l i t i e s are understood t o have made con tac t s with the

Canadians t o b r i e f l y explore the above p o s s i b i l i t y .

i nd ica t ion of s e r ious u t i l i t y i n t e r e s t i n such an arrangement was found.

However, no

One u t i l i t y , located on the Canadian border, has reported informally t h a t

Canadian environmental c o n s t r a i n t s would be s t r i n g e n t and t h a t the o v e r a l l

r e s u l t of t h e i r i nves t iga t ion of t h i s approach was negative.

A t tachmen t s : 1. Appendix 1 2. P.ppendix 2 3. Appendix 3 '4. L i s t of References

v .9-19

APPENDIX 1

O W L SUPPORTING STUDY

Estimated Energy Costs and Fuel U t i l i z a t i o n f o r CANDU Heavy Water Reactors and U.S.-

Type Light Water Reactors

L. L. Bennett

February 7, 1974

A t t he request of the Division of Reactor Research and Development,

AEC, energy cos t s and f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n were estimated f o r CANDU-type

pressurized heavy water r e a c t o r s and f o r U.S.-type l i g h t water r e a c t o r s

(PWR used as bas i s ) . This memo descr ibes those est imates and p resen t s

cost s e n s i t i v i t i e s f o r s e l ec t ed items, such as uranium, sepa ra t ive

work and heavy water cos t s .

1. Data Sources

Data f o r l ight-water r eac to r f u e l cycles were based on t y p i c a l

PWR mass balances using recycle of self-generated plutonium.

Equilibrium cycle cos t s were calculated.

CANW data a r e based on cu r ren t n a t u r a l uranium f u e l cycle, with

no reprocessing of the spent fue l .

i nd ica t e l i t t l e o r no economic incent ive f o r plutonium recyc le

(Canadian cos t . es t imates

under near- tern conditions.)

data were derived from References 4 through 7.

Reactor c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and c o s t s

2. Base Fuel Cost Estimate

The f u e l cycle c o s t s were estimated f o r PlJR and CAiiDU-PHW p lan t s ,

u s b g a base set of c o s t parameters.

costs a r e presented i n Table 1 f o r present condi t ions, and i n

Table 2 f o r estimated upper values during the next decade.

The base values and energy

-2-

3. Heavy Water Cost

In addi t ion t o the nuclear f u e l cos t s , the heavy s a t e r r e a c t o r has

costs associated with the inventory and upkeep of i t s heavy water

Typical design c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for SOO-MW(e) CANDU-type r e a c t a r s a r e

as follows:

Heavy Water Inventory: 0.55 kgs/kW( e ) . Heavy Water Makeup*: 0.8 kg/hour (2 gmskWh(e) (3 0.8 PF)

These values lead t o the following c o s t es t imates:

D20 Inventory ($80/kg; 14%/year) :

D20 Upkeep ($80/kg) :

0.88 mills/kWh(e)

0.16 mills/kWh(e)

Total D20 cos t 1-04 mills/kWh(e)

4. Discussion of Results

4.1 LWR Costs

The c o s t s calculated for l i g h t water r e a c t o r s are thought t o be i n

agreement with c o s t s cu r ren t ly being experienced by u t i l i t i e s

operat ing LWRs. The d e t a i l e d breakdown i n Table 1 allows for

conveniently es t imat ing s e n s i t i v i t y of' LWR c o s t s t o c o s t of U 0

and separat ive work, which are the two c o s t s most l i k e l y t o increase 3 8

in the' future .

* Losses plus equivalent l o s s ra te due t o downgrading of D 0 i n system. 2

v.9-21

9 3-

4.2. CANDU COSTS

Zie Zuel cycle cost estimated i n Table 1 Eppears to be i n agree-

ment with Canadian estimates. For instance, Reference 8 s t a t e s

without giving d e t a i l , "The f u e l performance has been general ly

up t o expectations, and has confirmed the estimated cos t of

0.9 mills/kWh."

The cos t associated with heavy water inventory and upkeep a r e higher

in t h i s memo than i n References 4 through 8, because we have used

a higher cos t f o r heavy water (based on Division of Production and

Mater ia l s Management s t a f f es t imates) and higher i n t e r e s t r a t e s

prevalent i n the U.S.

.

Estimated cos ts of U.S. production of heavy water are i n the range

35 t o 40 d o l l a r s p e r pound ($77-88/kg).

4 through 8 use heavy w a t e r costs i n the range $O-SS/kg.

values appear unreasonably l o w f o r fu ture c o s t s us.ing cur ren t heavy

water production methods and considering t h a t energy c o s t s are a

l a r g e f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l D20 costs. .

Cost da ta i n References

These

Since the heavy water charges (at $8O/kg) cont r ibu te more t o CANDU

energy c o s t than does the f u e l cost , the cos t of heavy water production

i s a key var iab le i n the t o t a l cos t of energy from CANDU reactors .

v.9-22 n

5. Sensit ivLty Analysis

The sens8tivTig of tetal cost te tb valces, rasc.3 f o r c e r t a i n cost

var iab les were studied. The variables included:

u 0 price

Separative work pr ice 3 8

Heavy water pr ice

Fixed charge r a t a

Results a r e presented i n Table 3 and Table 4. It is seen that

lumped D 0 f u e l cycle costs i n 1984 a r e estimated t o be about the

same f o r W20 and D20 plants .

2

6. Fuel U t i l i z a t i o n

Table 5 presents c-parative f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n f a c t o r s which were

obta ined ' for recent designs sf HTGR, CANDU-PHW, and LWR. Plutonium

recycle has beeu as-8 f o r a l l the p lan ts , although a t present

the f u e l of CANW plants is not reprocessed.

representat ion of the future energy poten t ia l of the plutonium and

U-235 remaining i n the discharged fuel .

This gives a

V.9-23

Table 1. Cost Parameters and Energy Costs for PWR and CANDU-PHW Power Plants

(Present Cond i t iens )

DIRECT COSTS

Fuel Fabrication Fuel Shipping Fuel Reprocessing Uranium Feed Separative Work

. UtO, + UF, Conv. Plutoniurr Credit

Subtotal

INTEREST COSTS

Fabricat ion Shipping Reprocessing Uranium Feed Separative Work U,O, .+ UF, Conv. Plut oniun

Subtotal

TOTAL

PWR CANDU

. 'Basis 'mifIs/kH%(eJ - -~

Basis m i 1 Is/kh'h ( e )

$SQ/kgU 0.48 0 0 0 0

$ 8/1b - 0.33 8 0 0 8 0 0

1.38

14%/year

0.0s 0 - 0.83

0.12 '8.11 0.Q2 0.10 0.37

1.75

- 7

0.81

0.07 0 0

0.05 0 0 0

0.12

0.93

- -

Table 2. Cost Parameters and Energy c o s t s for PWR and CANDU-PHW Power P l a n t s

(EstimateC Upper Values of Sensit iviLy Parameters During Next Decade)

Basis M i 11 s /Kwh ( e ) Basis

Direct Costs

Fabrica t ion $75 /kgU Shipping $lO/kgU Reprocessing S4O/kgU U308 Feed $15/lb.

U308 -> UF6 Conv. $2.50/kgU Sep. Work $5O/SWu

P l u t . Credi t $9.30/gm Subtotal ,

Interest Costs (16%/year) Fabr ica t i on Shipping Reprocessing U308 Feed

Sep. Work u30S + U F ~ Conv. Plutonium

Subtotal .

Tota l Fuel

0.26 $30/kgU 0.03

0.14 0.81 $15/lb. 0.65 0.05

0 1.94 -

.06 0 . 03 . 26 17 . 02 . 11 . 59

2.53

-

M i l l s /Kwh (e)

0.48 0

0 0.62

0 0 0

1.10 -

. 08 0 0

.ll 0 0

- . 19 1.29

V.9-25

-7-

Table 3. Sensitivity of LWR and CANDU Costs to Selected Parameter Values

Par meter Mil l s /kh% (e) CANDU

Total - Fue 1 D2O - PWR - 1. U,O,, Price, S/lb

2.

* 1s 8 l 58

100

Separative Work Price, $/SW

* 3 6 50 3 75

3. Heavy Water Price, $/kg

25. 50

100

4. Fixed Charge Rate, %/year 10

*'14 18 1

1.75 0.93 1.04 1.97 2.23 1.26 1.04 2.30 4.64 2.93 1.04 3.97 8.08 5 .30 1.04 6.34

1.75 0.93 1.04 1.97 1.98 0.93 1.04 1.97 2.38 0.93 1.04 1.97

'1.75 0.93 0.33 1.26 1.75 0.93 0.65 1 .S8 1.75 0.93 1.04 1.97 1.75 0.93 1.30 2.23

1.64 0.90 0.79 1.69 1.75 0.93 1.04 1.97 X.86 0.96 1.29 2.25

Base Case

$ Expected Range During Next Decade

V.9-26

-8-

Table 4. Summary Comparison

(Case A Represents Present Conditions; Case B Represents Values Used for 1984 Conditions)

Case B - Case A - U308 Cost, $/lb. 8 15

D20 Cost, $/kg 80 90

sw Cost, $/SWu 36 50

Interest Rate, %/year 14 16

h e 1 Plus D20 C o s t s , mills/kwh(e)

Fuel

D2O

Total

Case A Case B CANDU

1.75 0.93 2.53 1.29

0 1.04 0 1.31

1.75 1.97 2.53 2.60

- PWR - CANDU - PWR -

1 V.9-27

Table 5. Comparative Fuel U t i l i z a t i o n

LWR CANDU-PHW HTGR

(Pu Assumes (U233 Assumes (Pu Assunes Re cy c le1 Re cycle ) Recycle )

U 0 Requirements, ST/MW(e) -3-8 xni i iai Core 0.246 395

Annual Feed * N e t 30-Y ear

0.065

2 . 205

. 089

3.065

.548

.179

5.918

-~ .+' At 0.80 Annual Plant Factor.

V.9-28

APPENDIX 3

D20 PRODUCTION COSTS

It appears t h a t a d r a s t i c reduct ion of D 0 cos t s has the p o t e n t i a l t o

make the D20 r eac to r system a t t r a c t i v e i n the U.S. and the re fo re , t h i s

i s sue was ca re fu l ly evaluated with the help o f the Division of

Production and Mater ia ls Management s t a f f .

that the projected D20 cos t s f o r the 1980-1985 period are 25 t o 40

percent h ighe r than the 1968 cos t s , i.e., about $35 t o $40 p e r pound.

2

The conclusion is

h e s e costs could be higher than an t i c ipa t ed s ince power c o s t s

c o n s t i t u t e 50 t o 60 percent of the production cos t s i n the Savannah

River type D20 plants .

A t present , there is no U.S. D20 production capaci ty f o r possible D20

nuclear p l an t s . Production f a c i l i t i e s , therefore , would have t o be

buil t and these could be p u t on l i n e i n about four years. I f b u i l t i n

the near f u t u r e , they would most probably be of the H2S - H20 exchange

type present ly operated a t Savannah River.

Introduct ion of modifications and improvements t o D20 production p l an t s

is r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t and r i sky as shown by Canadian experience a t

Glace Bay. I n i t i a l l y , Canada invested about $100 m i l l i o n i n t o t h i s salt

vater p lan t , a l s o based on the H2S - H 0 exchange process, and ended up

with an unworkable system requir ing complete renovation which w i l l 2

' a e a r l y double the i n i t i a l investment.

The enclosure t o the l e t t e r of November 16, 1973 from D r . Benedict t o

Hesar8. Smith and Pastore mentions the p o s s i b i l i t y of a breakthrough i n

V .9-29

D 0 separa t ion technology using a l a s e r technique.

in progress on D20 and uranium separation techniques using l a s e r technology

(see, f o r instance, statement of Exxon Nuclear Company during Phase XI

Laboratory e f f o r t s a r e 2

hear ings on Uranium Enrichment before the J o i n t Committee on Atomic

Energy, October 3, 1973 and Press Release R-496 of November 28, 1973) and

aventual iy these e f f o r t s could have some appl ica t ion t o large s c a l e

D20.separation techniques, but t h i s i s not a ser ious a l t e r n a t i v e a t t h i s

time.

La t h i s context i t is s i g n i f i c a n t to note t h a t laboratory centr i fuge

Separation experiments were i n progress near ly 20 years ago and there

still i s ' n o commitment i n the U.S. t o a la rge sca le uranium separat ion

p l a n t of t h i s type.

costs through new separation techniques appears u n r e a l i s t i c a t this

time.

Thus, ant ic ipa t ion of a d r a s t i c reduction of D20

V .9-30

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. RRI, S e n s i t i v i t y Analyses Performed January 22, 1974 with the Concept I11 Computer Program.

2, L e t t e r from L. H. Roddis, Jr., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., t o E. E. Kintner, dated November 15, 1973 (Enclosed a s Appendix 2).

3. A. M. Perry and A. M. Weinberg, "Thermal Breeder Reactors," Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Volume 22, 1972, pages 317-353.

L. W, Woodhead, e t a l . , "Commissioning and Operating Experience with Canadian Nuclear-Electric Stat ions," A/CONF. 49/P/148.

D. L. S. Bate, e t al . , "Costing of Canadian Nuclear Power Plants,I1 A/CONF. 49/P/149.

4.

5.

6. R. G. Hart , e t al . , "The CANDU Nuclear Power System: Competitive f o r the Foreseeabie Future," A/CONF. 49/P/151.

7. L. R. Haywood, e t a l . , "Fuel f o r Canadian Power Reactors," A/CONF. 49/P/.156.

8. K. L. Smith, "Recent Progress with Canada's Nuclear Generating S ta t ions ," AECL-4357, January 1973.

v.10-1

SHIRLEY'S ENTERPRISES nouic a BOX i z i r

mLUL R 1 0 0 t . OCOROIA 30513

Assis tan t General Manager f o r Eioraedical and Environment&l Research and Sr fe ty Progrms' US kton:ic Energy Cormission Washington,D.C. 20545

Dear Sir :

I wish t o thank you f o r the f i v e books of d r a f t s of enviroment- a1 s ta te t ien ts on LEIFBI!. I was appal led a t t he scope, and I do not have t h e resources t o rekut i n such magnitude. A l e t t e r w i l l have t o su f f i ce .

If t h e U C i s planning t o bui ld the L P m R because they have t h e money and power then i t b - i l l be b u i l t , but over t he p r o t e s t of mil l ions, because I have found no one outs ide the U t i l i t i e s Coripanies and Govern- ment Agencies, who want t h i s much rcdis. t ionalhazarc1 i n F roxn i t i t y t o their f r i e n d s and loved one.

D r . Ray s t e t ed that nuclear p l s n t s and f a c i l i t i e s were not et- t r a c t i v e targets f o r saboteurs cnd b l tc ln ia i le rs , I disagree. One sur- f ace t o sur face miss16 snuggled i n t o our land piece by piece and a h e d a t a UIFEiR o r the hihh-level wastes s torage f s c i l i t y could bring devast- a t i o n t o the e n t i r e ezs te rn seabozrd. Is it absolutely e s s e n t i a l a nuc lear catastrpphy has t o 88 occur t o convienee the E C t o do vhat t h e c i t i z e n s uant? Not t o operate nuclear polxr p lan ts .

Fore peo9le died l a s t yezr than l i v e babies ;,ere born, t he TVk had surplus e l e c t r i c i t y , they made f i f t y - s i x n i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s surplus , yet they a r e building cxl Latt lng on the g r i d , nuclear p l an t s l i k e we were in a population explosion. T h i s can only benef i t industry, not persons.

I a m enclosing a copy of m y s tz tenent on t h e Licensing of the Sequoycah P l m t - As I wish it included i n my s tz tenent on the LXFBR Environnental Hearing.

You gentlemen a r e operat ing from a pos i t ion of c redul i ty- C r k e , sabottige,kidrlapping,bltic;~ail,are ever i m r e a s i n g . The consequences t o the pe rpe r t r a to r s a r e completely disregarded by tken. They do not care. This w i l l increase t h e c o s t of bo i l ing water by nuclear r czc to r s by more d i fense of r zd io log ica l m s t e s , more defense of t r anspor t a t ion of same. Defense of high-level waste managenent f a c i l i t i e s . All t o be paid by t h e tcx payer- me.

In a t r u e Democracy you would have the people vote t o aplJrove o r disapprove t h i s action- a u t t h i s %:ill never cone t o pass, because the r e s u l t s a r e not i n doubt.

F i r , anything t k t so threa tens t h e environrient and people, that f i v e books has t o be draf ted t o present f a c t s t o the people should not be b u i l t .

Sincerely, fl

v.10-2 n

SHIRLEY'S ENTERPRISES ROUTE a #ox lair

l L U C RIDOCr OEOROIA 3-13

Direc tora te of Licensing U. S. Atonic Energy Comiission Washington, D. C. 20545

D O C k P t NOS. 50-327 and 50-328

Apri l 17, ,1074

Subject: Se$!uoyah Nuclear P lan t s Units 1 and 2

Gentlemen: .

person died from any circumstance r e su l t i ng from the operat ion of t h i s p lan t , you could not g r a n t ' a l i cense t o operate Sequoyah Nuclear Power P l a t , i f you believed:

A. That a C-130 a i r c r a f t carrying m i l i t a r y equipment was going t o

If t n e l a w of the land t r i e d each of you f o r murder i f any

crash i n t o t h i s f a c i l i t y o r

13. A SAC bomber loaded w i t h nuclear bonbs Yould crash i n t o t h i s p lan t

C. A meteor would rupture the hea r t of the r eac to r o r

or

D. A Laember of the Symbionese Liberation Army was aiming a surface t o su r fac t missile from any point within a th i r ty- f ivz irlile radius, and deaanding the USA tender 500,000,000 d o l l d r s t o the poor or they would f i r e same o r

E. A f a n a t i c a l gang was t o h i j a c x a container of the r ad io log ica l was te -ad i f t h e i r blaclamil w a s not net , would re lease and poison a inzjor x a t e r supply of a la rge c i t y . You would not g r m t this l i cense . Put t h i s you do not believe. So you will grant t h i s permit even i f each person t h a t i s capable of wri t ing, sen t 8 l e t t e r of pro tes t . You s t i l l would grant t h i s permit:

Gentlenen, I wish t o go on r e w r d saying this. i s the g rea t e s t fraud perpetrated on the Aiierican people, you gentlenen of t he 1-ZC have never t o t a l e d the cos t of thousands of years man&ging h igh l e v e l r&dio;ctive -..astes, the cos t s of rebui lding storage f i c i l i t i e s a s they decky, increased i n f l s t i o n f o r t h o u s a d s of years, y ~ u gentlenen hare not added t h i s i n t o the costs of the o p e x t i o n s of nuclear power plants . If you hhd, you would h.Lve t o reveal t o tile American 2eople t h z t nuclear energy i s the :most expensive energy ever convieved by man. You w i l l grant t h i s l i c m s e gentlt.men because you have t o f u l . f i l 1 our Bible "Evil Ken and seuucers s n z l l whx worse and gorse, decieving and being decieved."

V.10-3

SHIRLEY'S ENTERPRISES ~ O U T C a BOX l a i r

l L U C RIDOC, OCOROIA SMlS

We a r e being decieved, you a r e l icens ing Trojan Yorses f i l l e d x i th hidden enemies of t he American c i t i zens . The f i n a l envi ronrumtd statement f o r Sequoyah Nuclear P lan ts i s f i l l e d with e l r o r s (example-The statement r e p m t s r e s i d e n t i a l cos ts o f KWH a r e l e s s than 2 cents per KhX) ny l a s t e l e c t r i c b i l l shows I paid .3.8 per iCk?I-this shows beyond a doubt only indus t ry - d i l l r ec ieve bene f i t s , no t US.

Not one person have I asked -;ants nuclear power p lan ts l i censed . Never in our h i s to ry hLve so few ixposed their way upon so many xho were protest ing-I guarantee .&hen the nuc les r c r i s i s is over, t he n m e s of men who l i cense nuclear p lan ts w i l l l i v e i n infamy, D r . Ray's will be as Pontius P i l a t e .

Man i s not b io log ica l ly adaptable t o radiLtion-yet by t h i s vary a c t you tibsolutely assure more rad ih t ion ;;ill Le forced upon me and ny fel low c i t i z e n s , I p r o t e s t t h i s inhuman a c t w i t h all my being . Class 9 accident from happening y e t the m i l i t a r y had t o discharge men i n the nuclear sec t ion f o r drugs, I refuse t o bel ieve you vould f e e l s a fe w i t h a p o t srcoker E t the cont ro ls of Fequoyah, all t h i s t o b o i l xater-

You in the environmental statement re fuse t o consider a

You w i l l grmt t h i s operating permit, overeveryones p ro te s t , but I ain going t o do a l l i n my pok-er t o hcve the Price-inderson nc t repealed-then k-e w i l l see how long TVA Hi17 run nuclear p l a n t s ,

Roy Dycus

sad

V. 10-4 n

UNITED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

DEC 3 1 1974

M r . Roy Dycus Sh i r l ey ' s En te rp r i se s Route 2 , Box 121F Blue Ridge, Geogia 30513

Dear M r . Dycus:

Thank you for your l e t te r commenting on the Atomic Energy Commission's Draf t Environmental Statement on the Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program. The Statement has been rev ised where appropr ia te i n response t o the many comments rece ived , and a copy of t he F i n a l Environ- mental s ta tement is enclosed f o r your information.

Your let ter i n d i c a t e s t he b e l i e f t h a t nuc lear f a c i l i t i e s would be a t t r a c - t i v e t a r g e t s f o r saboteurs and blackmailers , and expresses concern over t he magnitude of t he c o s t s of e f f e c t i v e safeguards . . Safeguards-related concerns similar t o your own have been expressed i n a number of o t h e r l e t te rs commenting on the Draf t Statement. You may wish t o review these letters and the AEC responses t h e r e t o which are appended t o the F i n a l Statement. The M C t akes these concerns s e r i o u s l y , and has g r e a t l y expanded the scope and depth of t reatment of t he sub jec t of safeguards i n the F ina l Statement. With regard t o the p a r t i c u l a r concerns you mentioned, p l ease see Sec t ion 7 . 4 t h e AEC's present c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of nuc lear f a c i l i t i e s , and Sec t ion 7.4.9 c o s t s of f u t u r e safeguards measures.

It is recognized t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l add t o develop and implement the type of

3 f o r information r e l a t e d t o the na tu re of t he t h r e a t aga ins t f o r information r e l a t e d t o the

t i o n a l e f f o r t w i l l be requi red xpanded safeguards program t h a t

w i l l be necessary- i f plutonium comes i n t o widespread commercial use. This would occur wi th the advent of plutonium recyc le i n Light Water Reactors , anti with t h e l a t e r in t roduct ion of t he LMFBR. However, t h e r e is ample t i m e t o develop t h i s program, and the AEC is confident t h a t an adequate l e v e l of safeguards can be achieved.

V . 10-5

Mr. Roy Dycus 2

The f i n a l comment i n your l e t t e r sugges t s t h a t t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e b u l k of t h e Dra f t S'atement i s a measure of the t h r e a t posed by t h e LMFBR, and t h a t t h e LMFBR ". . . should n o t be b u i l t . " I n pre- p a r i n g t h e D r a f t and F i n a l Statements , the AEC h a s made eve ry e f f o r t t o exc lude ex t r aneous information. Unfo r tuna te ly , t h e complexi ty of t h e s u b j e c t and the many r e q u e s t s by commentors f o r s t i l l more d e t a i l e a t r e a t m e n t of t h e i s s u e s p rec ludes b r i e f p r e s e n t a - t i o n . We are hope fu l t h a t your r ead ing of t he F i n a l Statement w i l l a l leviate some of t h e concerns you have expressed.

Thank you a g a i n f o r your comments and f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR Program.

S i n c e r e l y ,

&.L J es L. L i erman

s i s t a n t Gene ra l Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosure: F i n a l Environmental S t a t emen t ,


-

v.11-1

A!lantlcRichfidldCo~pany , .International Division 515 South Flower Street Mailing Address: Box 2679 - T.A. Los Angeles, California 90051 Telephone 213 486 351 1

Agril 17, 1974

Office of the Assistant General Manager for Biaeoedical and m v h m t a l Research and Safety programs

Washington, D.C. 20545 U.S. A-C Ehm Cmnission

I muld like t o thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your March 1974 draft of the Liquid Mtal Fast B r e e d e r Reactor Program. have been extremely busy performing my tasks a t Arm, I was forced to conoentrate on volumes 1, The S u n a r y and Background , and 4 , Alternative Technol6gy Options. To auqwnt my limited knowledge of the la tes t technological achievemnts in the nuclear field, I assembled as much recent l i terature on the subject that time wuld @t. on the subject m a t t e r by diversifying my sources of infomtion.

Since I received the 5 v o l ~ s a t the end of March and

I did this not only for knmledge, but t o g a h perspective

My ammlts an your en-tal statf=m?nt w i l l be grouped into two basic categories: material presented and (2) my evaluation of the IMFBR program fran an allocation of resources viewpint.

(1) the contents and structure of your

(1) contentents of Material Presented

Fram an en-tal standpint, I believe you correctly qJproached the problem of assigning pmbahilities to a most uncertain sequence of events, such as a breakdown in the fuel supply/disposal rrechanism, a reactor mdlfuncticm, or similar occurrence. that in any system rrechanical/human breakdowns w i l l occur, but t o single out this particular program as being innately more susceptable to mishaps than the LkJR nuclear system or w3cGR system wuld seem inappropriate.

fusion and MHD generation SystemS, was particularly informative, as was the material on o i l shale and synthetic hydrocarlmns m u - factured f r m coal.

It is inevitable

technological documentation, especially that related t o nuclear

The econanics presented, especially related to a l l tentative fuel axts, was excellent. A consideration, hmever, is the potential

v . 11-2

April 17, 1974 Page 2

n

elasticity of energy demand relative to price. ted by the Arab embargo has indicated a willingness i n the consurrer to restrict energy consumption where feasible to minimize rapidly escalating costs.

As the U.S. enters the era of ever-increasing energy costs, and basic energy saving masures are implemented, e.g. mass transit, smaller cars, direct burning of a premium fuel, such as natural gas, per capita energy consumption in the U.S. could begin to level off. T h a t occurrence alone could make the need for an alternative energy source, such as the LMFBR,much less urgent. domestic fossil fuel and U308 reserves, a t current consumption rates, could las t the United Sta tes w e l l into the 21s t century without precipitating excessive price increases. To the degree that foreign energy prcducers, especially the Middle East o i l producers, escalate their prices, further additions of energy reserves will be "proved-up" .

Recent supply cutbacks precipita-

Current proved

(2) Resource Allocation

Wt press releases and the nurmerous assertians i n your Environmental Staterrent that the I%1FBR is the optimum choice for governmental research, indicates that the AEC is prepared to devote mst of its resources, both financial/manmr, to develop an I%1FBR that is ccmmercially feasible a t the earliest possible date. It is t h i s aspect of the program that I feel best able t o evaluate, and t o question.

To be specific, I do not question the need for an alternative system do exc id our f in i te energy reserves but question whether or not an agency such as yo^ s, which has access to far greater financial/manpow=r resources than any other organization of this kind i n the world, should concentrate so heavily on what could be t d an intermeaiate technology.

Alternatively, you statenwt and various o t k r AEC documents I have received indicate substantial progress i n laser-fusion technology. indicate that corrnrercial reactors of this type should be available by the year 2000, b u t m s t l ike ly could be available sooner given appropriate priority. Therefore, assuming mssive injections of resources into either program will greatly accelerate progress towards achieving a ccnmercial nuclear reactor, and, as your agency has repeatly stated, that fusion is virtually the ultimate i n nuclear technology, should not massive resource injections be a t least evenly divided betwen the relatively proven IME'l3R and the mre uncertain, y e t ult imate, fusion energy teclmology which apparently could lie i n the near future.

I do not want you to misinterpret t h i s reasoning as advocating a de-pndence on foreign energy sources, especially Middle Eastern petroleum which have in the past so greatly hnefited the industry of which I am a part, for indeed they d d then be entirely self-serving. Rather, I am advocating near-intermediate term developwnt of an energy resource which has maximum resource potential but w i l l have minimal (of a l l feasible energy resources) influence on e n v i r o m t , and, i f properly developed, can be brought on stream far before serious depletion of dcmestic fossil and uranium fuel resources.

Various forecasts

n

r

April 17, 1974 Page 3

I would great ly appreciate fur tkr correspondence on your developwnt activities, especially in the fusion area, and w i l l continue to familiarize myself w i t h all aspects of nuclear technology.

Richard JaJs Chamber1i-n special Projects Analyst

RJC: jk

V.11-4

UNITED STATES ATOM IC ENERGY COM M ISSION


M r . Richard James Chamberlin Special Projects Analyst Atlant ic Richfield Company Internat ional Division 515 South Flower S t r ee t

La5 Angeles, Cal i fornia 90051 BOX 2679-T.A.

Dear Mr. Chamberlin:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 17 , 1974 commentinR on the Atomic Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement on the Liquid P!etal Fast Breeder Reactor (LYFBR) Program. The Statement has been revised where appropriate i n response t o the many c m e n t s received, and a copv of t h e F i n a l Statement is eqclosed fo r vour information. Please see the o the r enclosure t o t h i s let ter fo r specif ic resnonses t o your c m e n t s .

We appreciate your taking t b e time t o make your views known to us and hope that t h i s response and the enclosures answer any remainine questions you may have. Your favorable comments on the documentation of technologies, the probahl is t ic treatment of seauences of events, and the treatment of economics a r e a l s o anpreciated. In regard t o p rohab i l i s t i c treatment of accidents, please refer t o Section 4.2.7 of the Final State- ment f o r a discussion of U F B R Safety.

Thank you f o r your comments and f o r your i n t e r e s t in the LMFBR Program.

Sincerely,

ames L. Liverman ,8

W A s s i s t a n t General !Ianager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Programs

Enclosures: 1. AEC Staff Response to Specific Comments 2. Fina l Environmental Statement,


V.11-5

ENCLOSURE I

AEC STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC CO'C.fEXTS BY ILR. RICiWRD J. CtLL'IDERLI:?

1. Coamrent:

"The economics presented, e s p e c i a l l y r e l a t e d t o a l l tentat ive f u e l c o s t s w a s exce l len t . A cons idera t ion , however, is the p o t e n t i a l e l a s t i c i t y of energy denand r e l a t e d t o pr ice . ... per c a p i t a energy consumption i n the U.S. could begin t o l e v e l o f f . a lone could make t he need f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e energy source, such as t h e LMFBR, much less urgent."

That occurrence

Response:

Your po in t on e l a s t i c i t y of demand is w e l l taken and the Nat ion 's recent exper ience i n t h e energy crisis i s a case i n po in t demon- s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e r e is cons iderable e l a s t i c i t v i n demand. since t h e eas ing of t h e crisis however, po in t s t o another facet of this e l a s t i c i t y vs. p r i c e equation. With the passage o f time, t h e pub l i c , as w e l l as the economy i n genera l , tend t o a d j u s t t o changes i n p r i c e s t r u c t u r e s and demand tends t o rise aga in c l o s e r t o the o r i g i n a l l e v e l r ep resen t ing t h e l i f e - s t y l e t o which t h e people are accustomed and which they would l i k e t o maintain. adjustments are made i n o t h e r areas of t he o v e r a l l l i v i n g s tandard i n an e f f o r t t o r e t u r n t o t h e o r i g i n a l s t a t u s quo. Thus, any energy conserva t ion measure which is no t backed by continuous s t r i n g e n t enforcement measures or c l e a r l y requi red by actual energy shor tages is n o t l i k e l y t o be as f u l l y e f f e c t i v e as one might l i k e .

Experience

Very o f t e n

It should be noted t h a t reduct ions i n t o t a l energy demand do no t n e c e s s a r i l y imply corresponding reduct ions i n electrical energy demand. I n f a c t , r e l a t i v e l y acce le ra t ed e l e c t r i f i c a t i o n may result. Energy conserva t ion may emphasize the use of a v a i l a b l e and snvironmental ly acceptab le energy sources. may r e q u i r e e l e c t r i f i c a t i o n of ground t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l energy uses. minimization of environmental impact may r equ i r e increased electri- f i c a t i o n and commensurate inc rease of c e n t r a l s t a t i o n power genera t ion u t i l i z i n g abundant, c l ean f u e l s , Thus, while t he AEC f u l l y endorses a s t rong energy conserva t ion program and be l i eves t h a t i t can r e s u l t i n apprec i ab le energy sav ings and a reduced rate of increase i n per c a p i t a energy consumption, it does n o t be l i eve t h a t complete r e l i a n c e on f u l l achievement of e n e r w conserva t ion goals is a prudent course f o r t h e Nation t o take. The AEC cont inues t o feel t h a t developnent of promising energy technology op t ions inc luding the LXFIIR should

Conservation of h ighly mobile f o s s i l f u e l s

I n genera l , optimum a l l o c a t i o n of f u e l resources and

V.11-6 n

2

cont inue so t h a t t he Nation has a l l the e lectr ic enei-gy generat ion opt ions a v a i l a b l e which it might need.

You a r e r e f e r r e d t o Sect ion 11 f o r ana lyses of t he impact of energy conservat ion measures on the cos t -benef i t a spec t s of t he LMPBR. This s e c t i o n examiiies t he economic b e n e f i t s of LXFBR a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r s e v e r a l energy demand pro jec t ions . Energy demand p ro jec t ions f o r t he s tandard cases were der ived from t h e i n t e r a c t i n g h i s t o r i c t r ends of populat ion, GNP, t o t a l energy demand, and e l e c t r i c a l energy demand (Sect ions 2 and 11) . Addit ional cos t -benef i t case9 were computed f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n the base energy demand p ro jec t ion . In terms of the year 2020 energy demand, t he a l t e r n a t e cases considered v a r i a t i o n s of a twenty-percent i nc rease and decrease , and a f i f t y - percent decrease. The l a t t e r case is i n d i c a t i v e of a pro jec ted energy demand assuming successfu l energy conservat ion measures. It should be noted t h a t t h e cases examine t h e cos t -benef i t r e l a t i o n s h i p s due t o n a t i o n a l power generat ion economics, The cases do not inc lude incremental costs or b e n e f i t s r e s u l t i n g from mechanisms necessary to reduce t h e energy demand or from t h e e f f e c t s of t h e reduced energy a v a i l a b i l i t y on the economy.

You are a l s o r e fe r r ed t o Sect ion 6C f o r a d i scuss ion of va r ious energy conserva t ion measures t h a t might be pursued.

2. Comment:

"Current proved domestic f o s s i l f u e l and U308 r e se rves , a t cu r ren t consumption rates, could las t the United S t a t e s w e l l i n t o the 2 1 s t cen tury without p r e c i p i t a t i n g excess ive p r i c e increases . To the degree t h a t fo re ign energy producers ... escalate t h e i r p r i c e s , f u r t h e r a d d i t i o r s of energy r e se rves w i l l be 'proved-up'.''

Response :

It is c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t that reserves would last w e l l i n t o t h e 21s t cen tury i f consumption were suddenly t o l e v e l o f f a t cu r ren t rates. There is no evidence, however, t h a t t h i s is happening, and i t is not a t a l l clear t h a t p r i c e s would cease climbing i f a l e v e l i n g were t o occur. o i l embargo p r e c i p i t a t e d even s t e e p e r i nc reases and forced reduct ion i n U.S. petroleum consumption. Uranium s e l l i n g f o r about $6 per lb. U308 a year ago is s e l l i n g today a t $15 per l b . U308 f o r d e l i v e r y i n 1980. Such increases are p a r t l y due t o mismatches i n supply/demand, p a r t l y due t o environmental and occupat iona l s a f e t y s t r i c t u r e s imposed by s o c i e t y , and F a r t l y due t o genera l e s c a l a t i o n and o t h e r f a c t o r s pecu l i a r t o the i n d u s t r i e s involved. You are r e f e r r e d t o Sec t ions 6A.1.1.2 and 6A.2.1.2 of t he F i n a l Statement f o r d e t a i l e d d iscuss ion of c o a l and 'uranium resource a v a i l a b i l i t y .

The rise i n o i l and coa l p r i c e s began before t h e Mid-east

n

3.

V.11-7

3

In any event , i t is clear t h a t these i n d u s t r i e s are preparing f o r increased , no t l e v e l o r decreased, energy demand. o i l , gas and uranium i n the U.S. (and t h e rest of t he world) w i l l probably reach a l l t i m e highs t h i s year , as w i l l a c t i v i t i e s t o e x p l o i t lower grade resources , such as t h e o i l sha l e s . contex t , t h e Lreeder ' s c a p a b i l i t y t o p l ace ail upper l i m i t on the t o t a l amount of n a t u r a l uranium requi red t o suppor t an expanding nuc lear power economy seem worthy of emphasis.

Explorat ion f o r

I n t h i s

Comment :

I)... I do no t ques t ion the need f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e system t o extend our f i n i t e energy reserves but ques t ion whether o r n o t any agency such as yours which has f a r g r e a t e r f i n a n c i a l nanpower resources than any o t h e r o rgan iza t ion of t h i s kind i n the world, should concen t r a t e so heav i ly on what could be termed an in te rmedia te technology," a l s o 'I... your s ta tement and var ious o t h e r AEC documents I have received i n d i c a t e s u b s t a n t i a l progress i n laser - fus ion technology. f o r e c a s t s i n d i c a t e the commercial r e a c t o r s of t h i s type should be a v a i l a b l e by the year 2000 bu t most l i k e l y could be a v a i l a b l e sooner given appropr i a t e p r i o r i t y ... should not massive resource i n j e c t i o n s be a t least evenly divided between t h e r e l a t i v e l y proven L>CFBR and the more uncer ta in , y e t ultimate, fus ion energy technology which appa ren t ly could l i e i n the near fu ture ."

Various

Response:

In answer t o the f i r s t pa r t of your comment, t h e LMFBR is no t be ing developed as "an in te rmedia te technology." The U F B R , when it is success fu l ly developed and proves t o be economically competi t ive and environmental ly acceptab le , w i l l have t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r meetins a l a r g e p a r t of our f u t u r e e l e c t r i c a l enerqy requirements f o r cen tu r i e s . The U C B R would only become a n " in te rmedia te technology" i f an e n e r w technology op t ion supe r io r t o i t both economically and from an environmental s tandpoin t is developed. A number of candida te technoloqies have been proposed, inc luding thermonuclear fus ion , s o l a r , and geothermal energy as w e l l as o t h e r s which might have these p o t e n t i a l a t t r i b u t e s and these have been reviewed i n Sec t ion 6. However, t h e i r success fu l development remains t o be demonstrated and u n t i l one or more of these technoloeies become e s t a b l i s h e d , t he des inna t ion of the LPfFBR as an in te rmedia te technology is n o t warranted, except i n the broades t of tine scales.

In o rde r t o respond ;to the second p a r t o f your comment, a b r i e f d i s - cuss ion of t he na ture of R6D programs and t h e i r funding a t differen: s t a g e s of development is required. It should be noted t h a t L'lFBX technology is much more advanced than t h a t of fu s ion (which inc i - d e n t a l l y c o n s i s t s of two pragrams, magnetic confinement as w e l l as laser fus ion ) . While the AEC f i r s t proved the f e a s i b i l i t y of nuclear

v.11-8

4

breeding i n the 1950's and a demonstrat ion breeder p l an t is n m being designed and b u i l t f o r ope ra t ion i n the e a r l y 198O's, con t ro l l ed thermonuclear fus ion is y e t t o be demonstrated on a labora tory sca le . The more advanced engineer ing s t age of UIFBR technology r equ i r e s g r e a t e r amounts of funding f o r t h e cons t ruc t ion of f u l l s i z e demon- s t r a t i o n p lan t3 and test f a c i l i t i e s , whercas R&I: on nuclear fus ion , being more i n the l abora to ry s t age , r equ i r e s a commensurately lower leve l of funding i n o rde r t o allow i ts development t o proceed a t an optimum rate. As research and development advances i n both areas, funding of LMFBR w i l l g radual ly dec l ine and funding f o r fus ion X&D w i l l i n c r e a s e and surpass the annual expendi tures f o r LMFBX. Even- t u a l l y , i f bo th programs are c a r r i e d t o success fu l conclusion, t h e total expendi tures f o r each should be comparable. t rend , you are re fe r r ed t o WASH-1281, "The Nation's Energy Future," December 1973. recommended expendi tures f o r each technology program f o r t he 1975-1979 time period f o r opera t ing , equipment and cons t ruc t ion ob l ixa t ions . You will n o t e t h a t i n t h i s f ive-year per iod (which r ep resen t s j u s t the e a r l y s t a g e s of t he fus ion program) t h e recommended funding f o r fus ion R&D increases from 31% ($145 m i l l i o n vs. $447 mi l l i on ) of t he L I F R R funding t o 80% ($406 m i l l i o n vs. $506 mi l l ion) . The t o t a l c o s t s f o r developing t h e UVBR are est imated t o l i e i n the same range ($8-10 b i l l i o n ) as t he t o t a l es t imated cost f o r developing e i t h e r one of t h e two candida tes f o r thermonuclear fus ion (magnetic confinement or laser fus ion) .

To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s

Tables 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9 on pages 30-32 g ive t h e

v.12-1

/-

D r . James L. Liverman Ass is tan t General Manager f o r

Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Programs

U. S. Atonic Energy Conmission Washington, D. 0. 20545

Dear D r . Liverman:

I n reeponse t o W. H. Pennington's l e t t e r of March 14, enclosed a r c my inv i t ed comments on the d r a f t Environmental Statement f o r the Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor program (WASH-1535).

My comments t a t e t he form of a paper e n t i t l e d , UAnt isoc ia l In te rvent ions Againat t he Proposed Liquid Ketal Fact Breeder Reactor Program (Provis iona l Cost Estimateo) . If Please r e p r i n t it and my appenged a r t i c l e , "3adioactive Malevolence, I' i n the f i n a l d r a f t of the Environ- mental Statement.

Permiseion t o r e p r i n t " h a i o a c t i v e Malev- olenceU has been requested from Samuel H. flay, Eii i tor of -- Science that permission i r i r ec t ly from hin. also plans t o append the a r t i c l e t o h i e commente. It I s immaterial t o me whether it should accoqany my cornr?ents o r h i s i n the f i n a l Environmentel Statement, but I Peel it is extremely v i t a l t h a t it be include&.

Public Affaire , and your o f f i c e should rece ive D r . Thomas B. Cochran

Enclosure 8

Very t r u l y yotv'B,

a, TL ?C4L L. Douglas DeNibe, Ph.D. Vice-Pres ident

10s Angeles Chapter: 1720 Pontius Avenue / Office 205 / 10s Angeles, California 90025 Telephone 2 13 /I 473-2004

v. 12-2 n

ANTISOCIAL INTERVENTIONS AGAINST THE PROPOSED

LIQUIO M'ETAL FAST BREEUER REACTOR PROGRAM

(PROVISIONAL COST ESTIMATES)

L. DOUGLAS DeNIm; Ph.D.

Apri l , 1974

Summary

This paper w a s submit ted a s a n i n v i t e d commentary on the dra.ft Environmental Statement (ES) f o r t h e Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor Program (WASH-1535), USAEC, March 1974. It g i v e s p r o v i s i o n a l e s t i m a t e s of t h e minimum d o l l a r c o s t s t o t h i s count ry etemming from a n t i s o c i a l a c t s d i r e c t l y re la tee! t o the nresence o f a subs t a n t i a l mixed LMFBI"R f i s s i o n power d eployment i n t h e United S t a t e e .

Various p o s s i b l e reasons f o r t h e n e g l e c t of v i o l e n t an3 coer- c i v e behavior i n t h e d raf t a r e considered, and found inapprop- r i a t e . With c o n s e r v a t l v e assumptions, it i 6 f o r e c a s t that each one hundred y e a r s of n a t i o n a l commitment t o e l e c t r i c i t y g e n e r a t i o n from atomic f i s s i o n w i l l g i v e r i s e t o n o t l e s s than one and one-half t r i l l i o n d o l l a r s in a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s , due t o malevolent e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h e n u c l e a r indus t ry .

Of a t o t a l es t imated burden of $1,687,705 760,000, roughly $424 b i l l i o n w i l l be consumed by a c t s of war, $193.7 b i l l i o n i n l o s s e s w i l l be i n f l i c t e d by t e r r o r i s t s , crime w i l l exac t a t o l l of $130 b i l l i o n , an3 compromise of t h e United S t a t e s ' r e l a t i v e i n t e r n a t i o n a l power p o s i t i o n w i l l cos t about $1 t r i l l i o n .

t h e d raf t E3 from t h e f i r s t 46 y e a r s of t h e LMFBR program i s small r e l a t i v e t o t h e expected 108ses from acc ident o r maleficence.

It is concluded that thorouqh coverage of t h e t o p i c o f nalev- o l e n t I n t e r v e n t i o n s is a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e f i n a l d r a f t of t h e LMFBR Environmental Statement, and t h a t if more o p t i m i e t l c p r o s p e c t s do not emerge from d e t a i l e d study, t h a t the LMFBR and nsoocizted LWR r e a c t o r programe be halit In abeyance.

It I s observed t h a t t h e $50 S i l l i o n c o s t eaving promised i n

V.12-3

ANTISOCIAL INTERVENTIONS AGAINST THE PROPOSED

L I Q U I D METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR P R 0 S . W

(PROVISIONAL COST ,ESTIMATES)

Le Douglas DeNibe, Ph.D.

April , 1974

This p a p e r i s s u b m i t t e d as a n i n v i t e d commentary on the d r a . f t

Envi ronmenta l S t a t emen t f o r t h e proposed LMF'BR program (WMH-1535) , USAEC, March 1974. It g i v e s p r o v i s i o n a l e s t i m a t e s of the c i o l l a r

and e o c l a l c o s t s t o this c o u n t r y of a n t i o o c i a l a c t s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d

t o the p r e s e n c e of a s u b e t a n t i a l mixed LMFBR-LWR power r e a c t o y fieploy-

ment i n the Unl t ed S t a t e e . In view of the s t a r t l i n g l y h i g h magnitudes

of the f igu res d e r i v e d h e r e i n , it is deemed a b e o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l that

t h e f i n a l Envl ronmenta l S t a t e m e n t ( E S ) i n c l u d e t h o r o u g h l y d e t a i l e d

and J u s t i f i e A e s t i m a t e s , o r ranges t h e r e o f , on t h e same t o p i c s .

The d r a f t E 3 mabes no a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y or w a r f a r e g

t e r r o r i s m , o r c r i m i n a l i t y i e d i m i n i s h i n g . The evir lence a p p e a r s t o

suggest the o p p o s i t e . T e r r o r i s m and cr lme have become i n c r e a s i n g l y

v i e i b l e In r e c e n t y e a r s . S i n c e the D e c l a r a t i o n of Indepen?ence, the

L'nFted S t a t e s has been Involved i n shooting wars d u r i n g 16% of i t 6

years. S i n c e t h e end of WorlR War 11 and t h e a i lvent of n u c l e a r weap-

ons, t h e U.S. h a s been i n v o l v e d i n s h o o t i n g wars ( F o r e a and Indoch ina )

during 46% of i t s y e a r s . P r e s e n t l y looming q u n r r e l e ove r t h e d i v i 6 i o n

of n l a n e t a r y r e s o u r c e s , and improvements i n weapons d e l i v e r y systems,

o f f e r no n r o s p e c t f o r e a r l y improvement i n the out lool . f o r f u t u r e w a r .

In t h l e c o n t e x t , 6ome possible r e a s o n s f o r t h e z e g l e c t of t h e s e

t o p i c s i n t h e d r a f t ES w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d , by way of i n t r o d u c t i o n .

One c o n c e i v a b l e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r omis s i cn is t h a t the LMFBR nrogram

V . 12-4 n

- 2 -

is deemed t o involve no hazards a d a i t i o n a l t o those a s s o c i z t e d wi th

l i gh t -wa te r r e a c t o r s (LWRs) . I n view of t h e plutonium basis of t h e

LMFBR fue l - cyc le and t h e admitted s p e c i a l f langers of plutonium, such

Q suggeot ion would appear i napp l i cab le . Moreover, t h e a n t i c i p a t e d

c o s t s of malevolent a c t i o n s a g a i n s t LWRs and t h e i r a n c i l l a r i e s have

never been p resen ted t o t h e p u b l i c i n any o f f i c i a l government pub l i -

c a t i o n . Thus t h e g e n e r a l problem of t h e expected c o s t s of crime,

t e r r o r i s m , e n d war fa re vis-a-vis f i s s i o n powered e l e c t r i c i t y gener-

a t i n g Dlants 1s addressed f o r t h e f i r s t t ime, t o t h e a u t h o r ' s bnow-

ledge, in the present study.

Another hypo thes i e t o e x p l a i n t h e absence o f t h i o t o p i c i n the

? ra f t E3 l e t h a t t h e even t s t o be d e a l t w i t h are "not r e a d i l y s u b j e c t

t o q u a n t i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n t t (cl'. p. 7 - 6 5 ) . It may be r e p l i e d t h a t

on a ma t t e r o f t h i s importance, e s t i m a t e e must be rleveloped on t h e

best a v a i l a b l e basis even i n the absence of d e t a i l e d theory which

would permit more p r e c i s e p red ic t ion . It is a p p r o p r i a t e t o base

Drovis iona l e s t i m a t e s on assumptions which would r e c e i v e wide accept -

ance a8 reasonab le o r conse rva t ive , and then t o exp lo re t h e s e n s i t i v -

i t y of c o s t f i g u r e s t h u s d e r i v e d t o mad i f i ca t iona i n t h e assumptiona.

The major theme of t h i s pape r i s t o i l l u e t r a t e t h a t r e a d i l y d e r i v e d

an8 r easonab le e s t i m a t e s of l?7re ly events , and t h e i r Costs , compel

t h e conclus ion That t h e t r u e p r i c e of f i s s ion -qene ra t ed e l e c t r i c i t y

i s v a s t l y h ighe r than t h e r e p r e o e n t a t i o n s of t h e d r a f t ES.

S t i l l a n o t h e r hypo thes i s is t ha t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h o s t i l e ac t s

is not the concern o r a r e a of exper t iRe of t hose proposing t h e LMFBR

program, but is r a t h e r t h e r e s y o n s i b i l i t y of o t h e r governmental bodies

such a s those concerned w i t h l a w enforcement and n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y .

T h i s view would imply t h a t s u i t a b l e members of t h e Departments of

J u s t i c e , Defense, and o t h e r ao;encies be oeaigned t o develop f o r e c a s t s , 9

V. 1 2 - 5

- 3 -

c r ranges of f o r e c a s t s cont ingent on vHrlous aesumptiona, f o r

i n c l u s i o n i n t h e f i n a l d r a f t e

A f o u r t h viewpoint is t h a t s u f f i c i e n t safeguarde a g a i n s t a n t i -

s o c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s can be a p p l i e d wi th an ongoing, p o s t hoc approach,

as s u f f i c i e n t l y numerous I n c i d e n t s occur t o e s t a b l i s h l e v e l s f o r

a c t u a r i a l es t imat ion . I n t h l e contex t i t l e well t o no te that a

8 i n g l e il e l i b e r a t e radiocontaminat ion incl i tent could permanently

evacuate a rnaJor metropolis. It t h u s r e p r e s e n t s a Class of' evente

which i s b e s t ciealt wi th on a to ta l -prevent ion b a s i e . Ample prec-

edent f o r such a n approach r e s i d e s i n t h e U . S . ' s development of

s t r a t e g i c m i s s i l e f o r c e s t o t o t a l l y n e t e r a n unacceptable n u c l e a r

attacb from overseae.

S t i l l o t h e r r a t i o n a l e s f o r avoidance of t h e t o p i c of r a d i o a c t i v e

malevolence are aiecuseed i n my paper of t h a t name, which i s a t t a c k e d

a s an appen8ix (1). These include t h e not ion t h a t t h e deployment of

power r e a c t o r s can s a f e l y proceed while t h e problem i s being s t u d l e d ,

unexamined f a i t h i n t e c h n o l o g i c a l moflif i c a t i o n s such as increased

safeguards and underground siting, r e l i a n c e on human n a t u r e and s o c i a l

sc ience , t h e un J u e t i f l e d e x p e c t a t i o n of 8deqWte insurance coverage,

an? t h e o b j e c t i o n t h a t o t h e r power sources a160 p r e s e n t risfts. A l l

such arguments have s p e c i f i c flaws, and a l l do v i o l e n c e t o a basic

p r i n c i p l e : That t h e a n t i c i p a t e d c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of t h e program,

and a l t e r n a t i v e s t o it, should be ? resented t o t h e p u b l i c i n as com-

p l e t e a form as n o s s i b l e p r i o r t o i r r e v e r s i b l e commitment. Soc ie ty ,

which u l t i m a t e l y foots t h e b i l l f o r a l l t h e e r r o r s of t e c h n o l o g i s t s ,

should not be heli t hoetaqe t o t h e i r unquant i f led optimism.

The e s t i a a t e s which fo l low a r e q u a n t i f i e d , and t h e i r ess i inpt ions

a n p r r e n t o r r e a d i l y rlenuced. It i s c e r t a i n t h n t they can be improved;

V.12-6

- 4 -

it i s very unliTpely t h a t t h e y can be reduced e i t h e r i n theory o r

i n p r a c t i c e .

Warfare

I t w i l l be assumed that f o r t h e next century t h e United S t a t e s

w i l l be a t w a r 20% of t h e time, OF l e s s than h a l f t h e observed in-

c idence s l n c e t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e Second World War. It w i l l be

f u r t h e r aesumed t h a t , d u r i n g h a l f of %he y e a r s i n which we a r e car-

r y i n g on h o e t i l i t i e e , s u c c e s s f u l a c t i o n 6 by enemy m i l i t a r y f o r c e 8

( o r t h e i r a g e n t s in this count ry) a g a i n s t U . 3 . n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y w i l l

be t o t a l l y prevented.

is assumed tha t annual ly , a s i n g l e 1000 m e (megawat t -e lec t r ica l )

nilclear power r e a c t o r is ii l r e c t l y rleetroyed by convent ional explos-

For t h e remaining t e n y e a r s p e r hundred, it

i v e s (bon%Fng, rnisslles); a second l e eabotaged, reeul t ine ; i n melt-

?own; and independent ly , a single large American met ropol i tan a r e a

i s renr7ered u n i n h a b i t a b l e by t h e d e l i b e r a t e d- isperelon of r a d i o a c t i v e

m a t e r i a l s d e r i v e d from f i s s i o n - r e a c t o r f u e l . Le t u s f u r t h e r assume

t h a t once F e r century , a s i ~ g l e fue l - reprocess ing p l a n t (FFIP), plu-

tonium f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t (PFFP) , o r r e t r i e v a b l e s u r f a c e rad io-

a c t i v e waste s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y (RSSF) is e x p l o e i v e l y des t royed and

i t s c o n t e n t s d i s p e r s e d by wlnct. Thus, t h e minimum per-century c o s t s

expected from w a r damage t o American f i s e i o n power component8 may be

e s t i n n t e d a t 424 b i l l i o n s o f r7011aP6 i n p r e s e n t currency, as summar-

ized i n Table 1.

This perhaps s u r p r i s i n g t o t a l is reached d e s p i t e t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e

c h a r a c t e r of t h e assumptions ss c?escribed above. Moreover, t h e l i e t e d

c o s t s do not presuppose t h e use of n u c l e a r weanone by our a d v e r s s r i e e .

Mediczil c o s t a a r e t o t a l l y excluded, as a r e expendi tures for fiecontam-

i n n t l m (whqre noeslble) and l a t e r entombment and monitoring of rup-

V.12-7

- 5 -

t u red atomic power s t a t i o n e .

Table 1.

Cost of United S t a t e s r e a l p roper ty damage, p e r century, i n p re sen t d o l l a r s , a t t r i b u t a b l e t o warfare i n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h nuc lear f i s s i o n energy product ion ( p r o v i s i o n a l e s t ima tes )

It em C o s t

Tota l l o s e of twenty 1000 MWe n u f l e a r power p l a n t s 0 '$500 mil l ion each

$ 10 b i l l i o n

C i v i l i a n proper ty damage from p a r t i c u l a t e and v o l a t i l e rad ionucl ide r e l e a s e s from t e n exploded r e a c t o r s , p lus d i a a e t e r ae rv ices and r e l o c a t i o n expenses 8 $10 b i l l i o n p e r event

100 b i l l i o n

4 b i l l ion C i v i l i a n proper ty damage from v o l a t i l e r ad ionuc l ide r e l e a s e s from t e n power r e a c t o r meltdowns, 8 $400 mi l l i on per event

Rebuilding OR new s i tes of t e n major American metropolisee, 8 $30 b i l l i o n each2 300 b i l l i o n

C i v 11 ian proper ty ti amage r e s u l t a n t from explos ive d i spe r s ion of r a d i o e c t i v i t y a t one nuc lea r fue l reproc e e8 ing p l a n t , plutonium f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t , o r RSSF

1 0 b i l l ion

Tota l m i n i m u m war-related c o s t s $424 b i l l i o n

1, .Radiocontaninat ion a t the s i t e s i s aseumed t o preclude ealvage and re-uee of r e a c t o r components.

2. Predica ted on a f leprec ia tea (actual market va lue) ea t imate of r e a l p roper ty p e r c a p i t a of $12,000, and average d iep laced popula t ion of 2.5 mi l l i on pereono p e r event. The e s t ima te l a conserva t ive i n t h a t no l o a e of personal proper ty o r commercial i nven to r i ee is assumed. I n a c t u a l i t y , radiocontaminat ion would o f t en preclude sa lvage o r r e s a l e of such goods. An a d d i t i o n a l conserva t ive f a c t o r i s t he d i s r ega rd of nationwide d. isrupt ions t o be expected from t h e l o s e of Pey c i t i e s , e .g , , New YorF o r Washington, D. C.

v. 12-8

- 6 -

Te r ro r i sm

Small groups of p o l i t i c a l ex t remis ts , o r even inflividuale,

a re capable of d i s p e r s i n g r a d i o a c t i v i t y throughout l a r g e urban

areas, f o r c i n g t h e i r abandonment temporar i ly o r permanently, 1

Even w i t h f a i r l y 7rompt reoccupancy, major c o a t s woulil be incur red

throvgh evacuation, temporary q u a r t e r i n g expenses, i d l ed product ive

capac i ty , neglec t , and uncont ro l led f ires. Containere of long-lived

nuc l ides such ae plutonium could be blown up by convent ional explos-

l v e n , burned on r o o f t o p s , or dispensed a8 aeroeole and dispersed by

wind and v e h i c l e t r a f f i c .

powder could be a t t ached c o v e r t l y t o t h e undercar r iage of a pub l i c

t r a n s i t veh ic l e , and d isseminate h igh ly carc inogenic p a r t i c l e s

a long a known r o u t e i n a c i t y . One pound of plutonium 239, evenly

d ispersed , could bring t h r e e equare milee of l and up t o t h e contam-

i n a t i c n l e v e l (0.35 microcurie pe r equme meter) s e t by t h e AEC f o r

t h e de te rmina t ion of an ' ex t raord inary nuc lear occurrence' f o r t rans-

u ran ic a lpha emi t t e re (Regulat ion 140.84). Some expe r t s familiar

w i t h plutonium b e l i e v e t h a t a more r e a l i s t i c l e v e l f o r p u b l i c . h e a l t h

concern is O.O1pCi/m , 35 t imes l e s e , o r an even lower va lue (2).

About f i f t e e n pounds of Pu-239 o r 22 pounds of 239Pu02 would e u f f l c e

f o r t h e cons t ruc t ion of a crude atomic bomb (3).

A l eaky con ta ine r of plutonium-oxide

2

Table 2 summzrizes t h e reaeonably expected c o s t a t o America

from t e r r o r i s t e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h e nuc lear power induet ry over one

1. Domestic n o l i t l c a l t e r r o r l c t e would presumably be l o a t h t o i n f l i c t l a s t i n g damage on the country which they are a t tempt ing t o even tua l ly tape over and run. However, subverslvee a l igned w i t h a fo re ign enemy would be under no such f e l t r e s t r a i n t . Moreover, those who d i s p e r s e r ad ionuc l ides could g r e a t l y underest imate t h e durat ior . of t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e i r deeda.

V.12-9

- 7 -

century. Once again, conservatism uni ler l ies t he bases f o r t h e

e s t ima tes i n Table 2. It l e assumed t h a t i n d u s t r i a l sa feguards

succeed i n y e v e n t i n g a l l a t tempts by t e r r o r i s t s t o induce meltdowns

of power r e a c t o r s by sabotage during 96 out of each 100 years.

t h e remaining f o u r years , sabotage-meltdowns are assumed t o occur

a t t h e r a t e of one pe r year. Two major American metropol ises , o r

t h e i r equiva len t , are assumed t o be contaminated t o evacuat ion l e v e l 8

by t e r r o r i s t s each century.

f i f t y yeapa, a r e assumed destroyed by nuc lear weapons cons t ruc t ed

o r i t iver ted by t e r r o r i s t s . Once p e r century, a fue l - reprocess ing

I n

Two o the r major urban a reas , one each

p l a n t , PFFP, o r RSSF is assumed t o be explos ive ly destroyed by

t e r r o r i s t s . Smaller ex t r emis t ac t s of radiocontaminat ion and o t h e r

a s s a u l t s on nuc lear f a c i l i t i e s (ire assume6 t o i n f l i c t l o s s e s , includ-

ing decontamination c o s t s , of $1 m i l l i o n p e r annum. These assumptions

g i v e r i s e t o the fol lowing summary.

Table 2.

Cost of United E ta t e s rea l proper ty damage, p e r century, i n p r e s e n t d o l l a r e , a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t e r r o r i s m i n I n t e r a c t i o n wi th nuc lea r f i s s i o n energy product ion ( p r o v i s i o n a l estimates)

Item - cost - Tota l l o s e of f o u r 1000-We nuclear $ 2 b i l l i o n power p l a n t s @ $500 million each

C i v i l i a n proper ty damage from v o l a t i l e r ad ionuc l ide r e l e a s e e from f o u r power r e a c t o r meltdowns, 8 $400 mil l ion p e r event

1 . 6 b i l l ion

Rebuilding on new s i t e s of two major American metropol ises abandoned due t o 60 b i l l i o n t e r r o r 1 s t rad i o c ont amina t 1 on 8 $30 b i l l i o n each

Rebuilding on o r i g i n a l s i t e s of two major American metropol ises destroyed by p r i v a t e l y cons t ruc ted o r pur lo ined nuc lear weapons G p $30 b i l l i o n each

60 b i l l i o n

v.12-10 n

- 8 -

Table 2 (concluded

C i v i l i a n p rope r ty damage r e s u l t a n t from exp los ive r l i spere ion of r a d i o a c t i v i t y a t $ 1 0 b i l l i o n one n u c l e a r f u e l r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t , plutonium fuel f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t , o r R93F

Smal le r ex t r emie t alesaults i n v o l v i r g radioac t i v i t y , i nc lud ing A ec ontaminat ion c o s t s , @ $1 m i l l i o n p e r annum

100 m i l l i o n

T o t a l minimum t e r r o r i e m c o a t s $133.7 b i l l ion

- C r i m e

I n c o n t r a s t t o t e r r o r i s t s ' under ly ing d e s i r e f o r p o l i t i c a l

change, the mot iva t ion of c r i m i n a l s may be assumed t o be p r i m a r i l y

f o r money.

m a t e r i a l s mainly f o r e x t o r t i o n and t o secu re non- in te r fe rence from

l a w enforcement agencies .

Thus c r i m i n a l s would seeb c o n t r o l over r a d i o a c t i v e

Table 3 p r e s e n t s i n summary form p l a u s i b l e minimum domest ic

c o e t s from a cen tu ry of c r i m i n a l i n t e r v e n t l o n e i n t o the n u c l e a r

power indus t ry . On E9 page 4-5-15, it i s envis ioned that, ae p a r t

of the W B R program, a6 many a8 576 P i l o g r a m of plutonium w i l l be

shipped a e oxide i n a s i n g l e veh ic l e .

t h e c o s t summary of Table 3 is t h a t one such sizable ehipment p e r

c e n t u r y w i l l be d i v e r t e d t o oq5anized c r i m i n a l s , and r e t a i n e d sub-

sequen t ly a t one o r more unbnown loca t ione . A t a l a t e r date, the

assumption is made tha t it w1l:L be used t o evacuate through r ad io -

contaminat ion a sinrgle major Arnericnn metropol is . It l e f u r t h e r

assumed t h a t t h i s event convinces t h e f e d e r a l government t o maPe

c o v e r t e x t o r t i o n paymente t o the criminal oynPicate of $500 m i l l i o n

p e r annum. Some of t h e m a t e r i a l l e preeumed t o be s o l d t o o t h e r

The bey aeswnption under ly ing

c r imina l s . This r e s u l t s i n a d ? ~ l t l o n a l n a t i o n a l c o e t s due t o black-

- _- _ _ _ _ _ ~~ - - _ _ ~ ~ _ _ _.

J

v.12-11

- 9 -

mail, h i g h e r law-enforcement c o s t a , and inc reased requi rements for

r a d i o a c t i v e monitor ing and decontaminat ion of $500 m i l l i o n p e r year.

These c o s t s , a l l of which could stem from a s i n g l e sizable d ive re ion ,

are g iven in t a b u l a r form: .

Table 3 Addi t iona l c o s t s t o t h e United S t a t e s economy, p e r century , i n p r e s e n t d o l l a r s , a t t r i b u t a b l e t o c r i m i n a l a c t s i n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h n u c l e a r f i s s i o n energy product ion ( p r o v i s i o n a l e s t i m a t e e )

Item

576 be;. Pu equ iva len t 0 $lo/g

Cost

$ 5.76 m i l l i o n

Rebui ld ing on new s i t e of one major American me t ropo l i s abandoned due t o 30 b i l l i o n c r i m i n a l rad iocontaminat ion by plutonium

Governmental e x t o r t i o n o r ransom payments r e q u i r e d t o a v e r t t h r e a t e n e a f u r t h e r d i s p e r s i o n s o f plutonium 5 0 b i l l i on 8 $500 m i l l i o n p e r y e a r

Arlai t ional annual c o s t s of e x t o r t i o n payments, increased law-enforcement expend i t u r e s , i nc reased r a d i o a c t i v e mon 1 t o r 1 ng and d ec on t amina t 1 on 8 $500 m i l l i o n p e r y e a r

T o t a l minimum crime c o a t s

50 b i l l ion

4b 130,005,760,000

GeoDol it l c a l R a m i f i c a t i o n s

Given t h e mul t i -na t iona l usage of f i s s i o n power p l a n t s , the

p r o v i s i o n s of t h e p r e s e n t Nuclear Non-Pro l i fe rc t ion Trea ty w i l l no t

prevent f o r e i g n n3.t ions from c o v e r t l y e toc*pi l ing plutonium and

o t h e r r a d i o a c t i v e ma te r i a l s . The widespread t r a n s n a t i o n a l a v a i l a -

b i l i t y o f t h e s e substanceo w i l l no doubt g i v e r i s e t o a p a t t e r n of

i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n e analogous t o t h e p r e s e n t we l f a re payment

syetem in t h i s country. Unr?er t h i s eystem, the haves donate rt

c e r t a i n amount of t h e i r weal th t o the have-nots, Lest the have-nots

commit l a r c e n y ana o t h e r cr imes t o provide f o r t h e i r m a t e r i a l wants.

v.12-12

- 10 -- S i m i l a r l y , poor n a t i o n s , possessed of t h e means t o evacuate

o r d e s t r o y Wnohington, D.C. convenient ly concealed i n a Georgetown

a t t i c , would be most 1i 'l .ely t o u t i l i z e t h a t l a t e n t power t o procure

a d n i t i o n a l m l l i t a r y and economic a s s i s t a n c e from the United S t a t e s .

It may be countered that America's n u c l e a r a r s e n a l could iiemoliah

any smal le r n a t i o n posing such a chal lenge. Yet it is e q u a l l y

cer ta in that t h e nerve c e n t e r of t h i s na t ion , and perhaps s e v e r a l

o t h e r American c i t i e s , would a l s o be emptied if such an exchange oc-

curred. The i m p l i c a t i o n suggested by t h i s a n n l y s i e l e that t h e

development and c i r c u l a t i o n of u l t r a t o x i c m a t e r i a l s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l

trade c r e a t e s a rough p a r i t y of power among a l l organized groups

which have a c c e s e t o t h e i r use a6 weapons. Table 4 summarizes

reasonable i n t e r n a t i o n a l - r e l a t e d c o s t s t o t h e h i t e d S t a t e s p e r

c e n t u r y i n c i d e n t t o t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f r a d i o t o x i n e i n a plutonium-

based energy economy.

Table 4

Addi t iona l c o s t s t o t h e United S t a t e s economy, p e r century , i n p r e s e n t do1lnr6, a t t r i b u t a b l e t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l p r e s s u r e s genera ted b y t h e permeation of t h e g l o b a l governmental power s t r u c t u r e b s r e a d i l y concea lab le , s t o r a b l e , and t r a n s p o r t a b l e '

w i t h long-l ived b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y

Item

D i r e c t a 8 4 i t i o n a l m i l i t a r y and economic a s s i s t a n c e t o f o r e i g n na t ions , 0 $8 b i l l i o n p e r y e a r

Adfli t ions t o U.S. a r s e n a l necessary t o d e t e r u n l imited rad ionc t ive e x t o r t ion from o t h e r na t ione , Q $1 b i l l l o n p e r year

Addi t iona l c o s t of i n t e r n a t i o n a l n u c l e a r m a t e r i a l s account ing and s a f e p a r d s ( t o U.S. ); a d d i t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g and data a n a l y e i s ; @ $1 b i l l i o n p e r year

T o t a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l - r e l a t e d c o s t s

u l t r a t o x i c m a t e r i a l s

C o s t

$800 b i l l i o n

100 b i l l i o n

100 b i l l ion

$ I t r i l l i o n

n

V. 12-13

- 11 - Table 5

Summary of per -century c o s t s t o t h e United S t a t e s due t o a n t i s o c i a l e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h e n u c l e a r f i s a i o n power inf iue t ry , i n p r e s e n t d o l l a r s

Item - c o s t - Warfare $ 424,000,000,000

T e r r o r i s m 133,700,000,000

C r i m e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l a d J u s t n e n t s

130,00~,760,000

1,000,000,000,000

Grand t o t a l (minimum)

Discuss ion

The f o r e g o i n g estimates are a?.rr!ittedly t e n t a t i v e , b u t t h e y are

q u i t e u n l i b e l y t o prove t o be t o o hlgh.

s e r v a t i v e assumpt ions u n d e r l y i n g them, and due t o o m ~ s s i o n s of some

c o e t s , t hey are a lmos t c e r t a i n l y t o o low, Four s i g n i f i c a n t sources

of a c i d i t i o n a l ex>ense, n o t Inc luded i n the above a n a l y s i s , are: (A ) Medical c o s t a of c a r i n g f o r the a d d i t i o n a l i l l n e s s e s and b i r th

d e f e c t s r e s u l t a n t f rom r a d i a t i o n exposure; (B) Cos t s of F rov id ing

Because of t h e v a r i o u a con-

adequa te uncontzmlnated food, ' water, and manufactured goods i n a

geogranhy which must accommosate t o numerous l a rge and omall areas

of r ad iocon tamina t ion . (C) The p s y c h o l o g i c z l s t r a i n on t h e nverage

c i t i z e n of a d a p t i n g t o such a n environment , and the a n t i c i p a t i o n of

y e t ' f u r t h e r d i s r u n t i v e inc i i l en t s . (D) The reduced e f f i c i e n c y and

qualit17 of governance t o be expec ted when c i v i l s e r v a n t s and legis-

l a t o r s work unae r the s p e c i a l t h rea t of r a d i o a c t i v e e x t o r t i o n , o r

succumb t o i t a cor rupt , lng p r e s s u r e s .

The minlnum t o t a l c o a t of a n t i s o c i a l i i i t e r i r en t ions i n v o l v i n g

r a d i o a c t i v i t y is f c r a s i n g l e n r t i o n and c e n t u r y i n excesn of one

V . 12-14

- 12 - and one-half t r i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s . By c o n t r a s t , t h e e n t i r e con-

s t r u c t i o n c o s t of the 550 LMFBRs, 28 f u e l reprocess ing p l a n t s , and

28 f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t s a n t i c i p a t e d by t h e year 2020 could be

borne by a l e s s e r sum.

of fiesion-dependent e l e c t r i c a l gene ra t ing capac i ty is probably

double whct i t has been thought t o be.

t h a t t h e $50 b i l l i o n d iscounted n e t c o s t saving expected from ths

W B R program over the i n t e r v a l 1974-2020 i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i v e

t o the approximately $500 b i l l i o n c o s t s t o be expected over that

46-year i n t e r v a l from malevolent a c t s and t h e i r eequelae ( c f . pp.

1.7-8, l.ll-3)e

such a $50 b i l l i o n eavings could be v i t i a t e d by t h e c o s t of f i v e

rllajor a c c i d e n t s spread over 46 years , an average of one $10 b i l l i o n

mishap every n ine years.

One 'c lear impl ica t ion Is that t h e t r u e cos t

Another impl ica t ion i s

I r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e d e t a i l s of t h e present study,

Conclusions

1. A g e t a i l e d , q u a n t i t a t i v e , and f u l l y j u s t i f i e d d i scuss ion

o f t h e t o p i c of a n t i s o c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s and t h e i r c o s t s i s essen-

t i a l f o r t h e f i n a l draf t of the Environmental Statement on the

l i q u i d metal fas t breeder r e a c t o r program.

2. Unless such a d i scuss ion can be founded upon premises that

a r e both more de fens ib l e and cons iderably more o p t i m i s t i c than those

which have been employed he re in , t h e LMFBR program and i t s a s s o c i a t e d

expansion of LwRs should be placed i n abeyance.

should be l i f t e d only upon t h e c l e a r a t ta inment of massive r educ t ions

Such a ouspenslon

i n t he p r o b n b i l i t y o f human a n t i s o c i a l behavior, and/or similar re-

il.uctions i n t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of laGt ing h e a l t h damage resul . t ing from

exposure t o i on iz ing r a d i a t i o n .

V.12-15

References

1. DeNibe, Lo Do Radioact ive Malevolence. Sc ience a Pub l i c Affairs ( B u l l e t i n af the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s ) , X., February

1974, pp. 16-20. *

2. Geesaman, D. P. Plutonium and Publ ic Health. Paper

4e l lve red a t t h e Univers i ty of Colorado, Apr i l 1970, p. 1-16?.

Radiat ion Stanctarde Tampl in , A. R., & Cochran, T. Bo

for Hot P n r t i c l e e . Poe i t i on paper, Natural Resources Defense

Council, Waehlngton, D. C., 1974 ($3) . 3. Taylor, T. B., quoted i n "AEC Doubts A-Bomb Could be

Homemade," Los Anaeles Times, March 14, 1974; "Homemane A-Bomb

P e r i l Ci ted, I' Washington, D.C. Star-Newe, Apri l 7, 1974.

D r . Lo Douglne DeNibe Vice-Pres ldent Zero Populat ion Growth,

Loa Angelee Chapter 2315 Westtvood Boulevard LOB Angelee, C a l i f . 90064

V . 12-16

L. DOUGLAS DeNIKE

ADIOACT VE MALEVOLENCE

“The likely interaction of nuclear technology and the human predisposition to evil have been discussed here. It would seem that unacceptably great misuses of radioactivity, cannot be prevented at acceptable cost in a world committed to fission energy. The conclusion generated by available evidence and theory is that we must look elsewhere for primary power sources. For the near future, some will disparage the clear indications that society is too immature io accommodate the nuclear presence. Others will hope for a “moral breakthrough,” while a few will conspire to bring dire events down upon us.” L. Douglas DeNike, a clinical psychologist, is vice president of Zero Population Growth, Los Angeles.

The toxicity and persistence of radioactive substances has radically altered the power balance between large and small social units. It is now possible for a few persons to force the evacuation of entire cities through the dispersion of plutonium or high level reactor waste. These materials are rapidly increasing in quantity and availability, conrdinate with the growth of nuclear power. Thus it would seem of the highest importance to scrutin- ize the safety of the nuclear industry from human maleficence.

Ionizing radiation causes tissue damage insensi- bly, persistently and at a distance. This imbues it with an unsurpassed threat value for criminal misuse. Recent violent crimes and terrorist atrocities suggest very strongly that a few persons will commit the most heinous deeds within their power. Their eventual employment of radioactive materials appears virtually certain.

Many believe that the irradiation perils inherent in the theft, storage or dispersion of radionuclides would automatically deter potential troublemakers. The facts of physics and psychology indicate otherwise. Evildoers will learn that alpha and beta emitters, while deadly in the environment, require only lightweight shielding which would present no problems of bulk to thieves. Even spent reactor fuel and high level waste, which emit gamma rays and require massive shielding, could be seized in pre-packaged and portable form aboard a transport truck. 16

More simply, such a shipment could be destroyed by explosives detonated from a safe distance. On the psychological side, malefactors ignorant of radiation hazard, deliberately misled concerning the nature of their hijacking assignment, or fanatical for their cause could assume risks of radiation exposure inconceivable to an informed person.

I n any human organization, the possibility exists for outright criminality or the negligent failure to safeguard against it. I n the nuclear energy industry, several incidents have already occurred despite extraordinary precautions:

e In August 1971, an intruder penetrated past guard towers and fences to enter the grounds of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant at Vernon, Vermont. He escaped after wounding a night watchman.

I n November 1971, arson caused $5 to $10 million damage at the Indian Point No. 2 plant a t Buchanan, N.Y., just prior to its completion. A maintenance employee was accused of the crime.

e In February 1973, the Atomic Energy Com- .mission’s former top security officer, William T. Riley, was sentenced to three years’ probation. An investigation revealed that Riley had borrowed $239,300 from fellow AEC employees and had failed to repay over $170,000. He used a substantial portion of the money for race track gambling.

I n March 1973, a guerrilla band took temporary possession of a nuclear station in Argentina.

e In August 1973, 21 “extremely harmful” cap- sules of iodine-131 were stolen from a hospital in A.rcadia, California.

A certain irreducible number of such events is bound to occur. As the Riley case illustrates, there are limits to employee testing, screening and surveillance. Moreover, no screening program will obviate the fact that during transient intervals normal people do abnormal things. Persons under pressure may experience dark moods which prompt bizarre or desperate schemes. For example, if a virtuous but unstable employee came to believe that the perils of nuclear energy had to be demonstrated to the public by a dramatic occurrence, he might become motivated to create that occurrence. Disgruntlement or boredom can lead to pointless vandalism or lapses in security precautions, increas-

V . 12-17

than for females. It is interesting to note that the relatiye probability of leukemia in individuals less than 6 years of age has not changed substantially

ever, it hhs increased markedly. A special function has been derived to repre-

sent the mean probability of males and females within any age group contracting leukemia relative to the total probability estimated from .all age groups for that sex (H (P,) / n and H (Pj) /n, where n is the number of age groups). These are presented in Figure 2 for males and females in each year from 1950 to 1970. If a linear relationship is assumed for the observed increase in both cases, estimates for slope of each curve show that current doubling time of the leukemia incidence rate for males is 10 years and for females, 30 years. The observed increases, however, particularly for the maIe, appear in part to be non-uniform.

If the actual curve of best fit is examined relative to the number of atmospheric tests [ 7 ] which have been conducted up to any particular point in time, a n interesting similarity is evident. In the absence of full information on test yields, the total number of tests at any time may be taken to arbitrarily represent the total relative fallout effect on individuals in any population sub-group of the world. A comparison of the curves suggests the possibility of a cause-effect relationship. The ap-

since 1 % SO. For the over 60-year’ age group, how-

Fig. 2-Relative probability for incidence of leukemia in any age group as a mean of the probahilitics for cvery age group, 1950-1970 (GI.

For the over 60-year age group the relative probability of leukemia has increased markedly.

parent reduction shown for the rate of incidence since 1962 could result from the limited number of tests that have been held since the 1958 moratorium and conclusion of the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The significantly increased probability for leukemia in the over-60 age group is consistent with the concept that incidence results from an accumulated effect. Two points should be emphasized however. Although the rate of incidence of leukemia is increasing, the factors quoted are statistically weighted and the probability of a n individual contracting leukemia remains extremely small. Sec- ond, the apparent increase in the rate of incidence of leukemia since 1950 may also be related to a number of other causes. For example, industrial activity, a n increase in the use of x-rays, or changes in lifestyles may all be contributing factors.

Nonetheless, the present rate of increase would appear to be approaching a risk level which gives cause for further investigation. There is evidence to suggest that the increase may be related to radioactive causes. Some doubt must therefore exist that hitherto assumed negligible quantities of radiation are not, in the long term, biologically in- significant. Thus there is a need to clarify the significance of prolonged exposure to low-level radiation as a contributing factor in the increase in the incidence of leukemia.

NOTES 1. For a full list of publications on measurements of

radioactive fallout in Australia, see “Report of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee” (Canberra, Australia: The Commirtee, Feb. 1971).

2. “Report of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Com- mittee,” May 1971.

3. “Environmental Effects of Producing Electric Power,” Hearings before Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Jan. 27-30 and Feb. 24-26, 1970. 91st US. Cong., 1st Session. Part 2, Vol. 2; and “Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,” National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council Advisory Com- mittee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (the BEIR report), Nov. 1972.

4. A. M. Brues, Science, 128 (1958). 693. 5. National Radiation Advisory Committee, “Report to

the Prime Minister” (Canberra, Australia: The Commit- tee, Nov. 1965).

6. “Causes of Death.” Commonwealth Bureau of Cen- sus and Statistics. Bulletins 1-8 (Canberra, Australia: The Bureau).

7. World Armaments and Disarmaments, 1972 SIPRI Yearbook (Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Re- search Institute. 1972). p. 462.

Fe6runry 1974 Science and Public Affairs 15

ing the chance of accident or malfeasance. Those with hidden aberrations may be blackmailed into nefarious complicity by the threat of exposure; even “pure” employees may be subverted with fabricated evidence. Thus, the nuclear energy field will continue to incur sudden unexpected losses due to the vagaries of human behavior.

Vulnerable Targets Nuclear power plants are the most vulnerable mil-

itary targets in any country that uses nuclear energy. Actions against such installations would be consistent with belligerent aims to inflict casualties, deprive an enemy of electric power and deprive an enemy territory, thereby reducing the need for occupation and retarding postwar recovery. Even if mutually declared non-targetable by the combat- ants, nuclear power plants might be ruptured ad- ventitiously in wartime by unintentionally incapaci- tating cooling systems by bombing, say, dams. Hence in the next war involving a nuclear power nation, military actions are likely to cause major releases of radioactivity. Simple abandonment of nuclear power plants in war might lead to eventual catastrophic meltdowns if vital residual cooling systems were no longer attended by knowledgeable pencnnel.

Naval attacks could destroy coastal or offshore nuclear power stations. In this regard, the peak fission product inventory of a large reactor is sufficient to contaminate tens of thousands of cubic miles of water in excess of permitted AEC tolerance levels.

The greatest concentrations of long-lived radionuclides are stored in near-surface “tank farms” near fuel reprocessing plants. Conventional bombing of such areas would contaminate them sufficiently to preclude human approach and make it impossible to prevent further spread of massive quantities of radioactivity. One motive for such an attack would be to enjoin the enemy from utilizing his radioactive wastes for warfare. The presence of plutonium-239 in stored reprocessing wastes dictates that it be isolated from the environment for about 250,000 years. On the conservative assumption of one, two-year war per century in a given locality, plutonium-bearing wastes will remain military targets during roughly 5,000 years of actual warfare.

Political extremists might be drawn to nuclear sabotage, theft, terrorism and extortion. Because of the international character of subversive move- ments, lax nuclear precautions in a single nation constitute a threat to all. Even perfectly maintained domestic safeguards do not preclude smug- gling: the southern border of the United States, for example, is crossed yearly by roughly 360,000 illegal entrants and daily by aircraft transporting marijuana.

The principal methods of subversive attack on nuclear power stations would involve incendiaries &-id explosives. Plausible approaches exist so that

v. 12-15

determined insurgents could destroy a nuclear power plant without even entering it. For example, a logical target would be the cooling system, specifically the intake piping which runs hundreds of feet outside the plant to a large body of water. Saboteurs could drop improvised time-delayed depth charges onto cooling intakes from a small boat. With scuba equipment, underwater demoli- tion activities could be carried out unobserved from the surface. Floating bombs introduced into cooling pipes could travel unimpeded to the screen-well located close to the power plant, where their detonation would send a shock wave through the plant’s piping. If the attack succeeded in destroying all of the intake pipes or their pumps, means would be available to remove fission product afterheat for o n b about one day. During this interval, the AEC claims that adequate emergency measures could be taken to prevent a meltdown disaster.

The most vulnerable radioactive target would be the spent-fuel pool, in which used fuel assemblies age for several months prior to being shipped for reprocessing. Aeriul Attach

Assaults from the air might involve dropping in- cendiary or explosive substances from hijacked or rented aircraft. More desperate agents might load a plane with explosives and power dive into the plant. Attacks by berserk military aircraft are a remote but definite possibility, and these might be equipped with sophisticated munitions.

This brings to mind the large number of citizens who, through military training, possess sabotage skills. A retired Green Beret colonel has given secret testimony to the AEC that he could readily sabotage the San Onofre, California, nuclear power plant located 4,400 yards from the western White House a t San Clemente.

Criminal Activity The chief interest of criminals in nuclear power

plants would be to gain control over radioactive materials, rather than to destroy the facilities. The private manufacture of atomic explosives is within the capability of many groups once they possess the requisite 11 pounds of plutonium-239. The serious implications of this fact have been discussed elsewhere.’ Here it suffices to point out that inferior, but still usable for weapons, plutonium is produced in nearly every nuclear reactor. It is shipped from reprocessing plants as nitrate solution in lots exceeding 100 pounds.

Underworld fabrication of atomic bombs is more difficult and less likely than the simple use of stolen plutonium as a contaminant. Plutonium-oxide dispersion could raise lung cancer hazard to, unacceptable levels throughout an entire city. The‘ possessor of metallic plutonium need only expose it on the roof of a tall building to release oxide particles into the air by pyrophoric combustion. One pound of the metal thus dispersed could theo-

February 1974 Science and Public Allairs 17

V. 12-19

retically bring 110 square miles to worrisome radioactive levels, or 3 square miles to the level used by the AEC in determining an “extraordinary nuclear occurrence.”2 Such deposition could necessitate evacuation, extremely expensive decontamination or the permanent use of face-mask respirators.

Each 1,000 megawatt-electrical nuclear power plant annually produces over 80 million curies of long-lived gamma emitters. One percent of these could theoretically contaminate 500 square miles to levels that would require eva~ua t ion .~ Once known to possess such a deterrent, a criminal gang would be virtually immune from prosecution. Arm- ed with plutonium or high level waste in storage, organized crime might demand federal assurances of non-interference with their operations. Punish- ment for non-cooperation might be the loss of Wash- ington, D. C., as a habitable center. Nuclear thieves could demand large sums of cash, control over policy or special concessions from national governments. One can imagine the plight of an administration seeking to mediate the demands of several radioactive blackmailers-large or small in number, foreign or domestic, criminal or altruistic.

States and cities could be threatened with radio- contamination of essential public facilities: capitol buildings, city halls, police stations, hospitals, water and sewage treatment plants. Simple disposal of radioactive material down a toilet could create a sanitary emergency by shutting down sewage treatment facilities. Attacks on workplaces would pose the threat of extremely costly contamination of equipment, manufactured goods and foodstuffs. Such losses would not be covered by most property insurance policies, which specifically exclude damage from nuclear radiation.

Any location which attracts the bomber of today will attract the nuclear thief of tomorrow. Places of public assembly such as theaters, stadiums and transportation terminals would be likely targets for nuclear terrorists, blackmailers or hoaxers. I n the future, any wealthy, powerful or well-known person could receive real or crank threats from those who claimed possession of radioactive substances. Public officials subject to grudge attacks would feel obliged to use radiation detectors to monitor their homes, autos, offices and mail. Once sizable quantities of nuclear material had been diverted to the underworld, no imaginable precautions would prevent its widespread criminal use.

Thieves of radionuclides could induce or coerce a n ignorant person to subdivide them for resale. They could then be purveyed anywhere in the world, to anyone possessed of the asking price. In this regard, the Nixon administration’s plan to export nuclear power technology to 19 nations presents grave risks. The foreign sale and subsequent diversion of nuclides potentially presents almost the same danger as the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The kidnapping of a nuclear scientist is no more difficult than the procurement of special nuclear

materials. Even an extremely loyal employee might surrender top secret information were he, she or a family member to be abducted by ruthless criminals. To preclude misleading information, criminals might kidnap two or more experts, whose separately coerced accounts could be checked for consistency. Of course, the possibility of Ellsberg-type leaks or even voluntary collaboration of nuclear personnel with criminals can never be completely ruled out. Thus, the safety of the “atomic age” from criminal domination must be judged in light of the questions: Does security depend on secrecy? How likely is such secrecy to be permanently kept?

Hoodlums, domestic subversives or foreign agents may attempt to incriminate innocent third parties for acts of nuclear violence. By deliberate fabrication of clues, malefactors may hope to escape the blow of retaliation and divert the same onto a rival or suspect group. This possibility suggests special perils in connection with smoldering international conflicts. A small nation or faction might arrange nuclear power plant sabotage in the United States in such a way as to make another nation appear responsible. If the dispersal of several large amounts of radioactive materials of mysterious or misleading origin occurred in a short period of time, the nation might feel impelled to retaliate against its most visible enemy with a missile strike. The risks of error would be high, and the consequences, monumental. Pxychosocial Aftermath

One immediate evacuation-related problem, following a large radioactive spill, would be the evacuees’ anxiety concerning their degree of radiation exposure. Facilities would be required to deal with hypochondriacal complaints of radiation sickness as well as the medical injuries of actual victims. Some exposed women may request therapeutic abor- tions. I n the wake of the emergency, other issues would arise. A strong public demand, impossible to grant, might be to shut down all nuclear plants a t once. Real estate values close to nuclear facilities, especially downwind, might be severely cut. Massive litigation and agitation for indemnification could be expected. Evacuees would have to be maintained, relocated and reemployed. Persistent contamination of substantial areas would necessitate bypass transportation routes, new water supplies and sources of agricultural commodities.

Never before have large inhabited zones suddenly become unusable without visible damage. The administrative problem of keeping people out of such areas might not be solved completely by the fear of radiation. Near the periphery of these areas, persons might attempt to loot and transport materials, some of which might be contaminated. Vagabonds and desperadoes, relatively unimpressed with official warnings, might take up residence within interdicted zones and mount forays there- from. Thus, these fenced-off areas might pose continuing headaches.

18

v . 12-20 n

Objections and rejoinders to the above are as follows :

1. The limited value of quantitative studies. To some, the foregoing statements would be valued only as preliminary to detailed quantitative studies of the probability and magnitude of damage to be expected from each type of radioactive malcf’ 1 icence. Precision in such studies is precluded by two basic considerations.

The number, motivation and capability of nuclear malefactors will vary with economic, social and geopolitical conditions as well as with the “state of the art” of sabotage, hijacking, etc.

0 The first instances of radioactive violence and their insuppressible media coverage will inspire imi- tative attempts that will make obsolete all pre- existing calculations of likelihood, as we have seen with aircraft hijackings.

The truly relevant questions for security analysis appear to be: Is each scenario possible, in the United States or abroad, assuming normal precautions versus adversaries undeterred by the possibility of capture, irradiation or even death? If it is possible, can it be rendered essentially impossible at a sustainable cost to industry and society?

The most promising approach to answers appears to be gaming analysis, in which offensive and defensive teams compete in simulation to probe the strengths and weaknesses of security systems and personnel.

2. T h e limits of industrial safeguards. Nuclear power plants’ security systems include a superfi- cially impressive array of physical barriers, armed guards, procedural plans and electronic surveillance. Such precautions no doubt go far toward prevent-

ing illicit acts by employees or interlopers. How- ever, sophisticated attacks by aircraft could be opposed only by ringing each nuclear installation with surface to air missiles and interdicting overflight. In order to similarly protect cooling intakes, all boats and scuba divers would have to be kept a t a safe distance. Even these expensive measures would not protect against military attacks.

The adequate safeguarding of radioactive shipments presents even less wieldy problems. Armed hijackers could in principle overpower armed guards and immobilize the cargo by shooting truck tires or derailing a train. The massive bulk of lead- lined spent fuel casks would not prevent spillage if explosives or thermite were used. The AEC’s latest attempt to bolster transportation safeguards is altogether inadequate relative to attacks of para- military strength or greater.4

3. The false panacea of undergrounding. Under- ground emplacement of nuclear power plants un- questionably would augment their resistance to aerial attack and improve the containment of radiation following a major accident. Because of the shortage of top-quality geologic formations, undergrounding could approximately double construction costs and raise the price of nuclear electricity by 50 percent. Moreover, it would be uneconomic for each power plant to have its own nearby underground reprocessing and fuel fabrication facilities. In their absence, the hazards associated with long- distance transport of spent fuel would remain. If several power reactors were concentrated underground in a single area so as to justify having their own reprocessing plant, such a complex would be a tempting target for attack with nuclear weapons.

Coolliil: towers, I’rricli I lottot i i titiclciir power p lr~r i t i n I’ronsylvrtnia.

February 1974 Science and Public Allairs 19

v .12-21

A major percentage of electrical power might thus be lost in a single strike.

It is doubtful whether undergrounding, a t whatever practicable depth, could positively exclude malefactors or prevent the atmospheric release of nuclides following attack or major accident. An underground nuclear power station would have to maintain several connections with the surface. In- truders still might enter, and the volatile 20 percent of fission products still might leave following rupture through elevator shafts, stairwells, air conditioning ducts and sizable freight entrances that are big enough to accommodate spent fuel casks.

The wartime advantage of undergrounding fades with the recognition that nuclear explosives could destroy even a greatly hardened site. A direct atom bomb hit on a surface nuclear power plant would actually result in less onsite contamination, since most of the material would be carried up to the stratosphere by the rising fireball. Once ruptured, any nuclear power plant would be eventually infiltrated by groundwater, whose percolation would carry radiation into the large body of water that supplied the plant’s cooling.

4. The unjustified reliance on human scruples. Conscience might prevent all but one in a million persons from committing radioactive atrocities. That would still leave 3,800 people in the world who could endanger most of the others. However, circumstances enable normal human beings to ration- alize vicious deeds. An attacker either subjectively dehumanizes his victims, invokes the right of ven- geance or justifies his behavior as part of a larger noble cause, such as “ending the war.”s

5. The false hope of prevention through social science. It has been suggested that physical or psychological profiles might be constructed to identify potential nuclear criminals. Such profiles have been of some value in screening possible airline hijackers at the ticket counter or boarding gate. HOW- ever, future atomic felons do not so cooperatively present themselves for advance scrutiny. Thus, any screening instrument would have to sift, a t great expense, major segments of the population. Prob- ably even a very large net would not catch all the fish. The validation of the screening procedure would be a major undertaking in itself. In a free society, no prior restraint could be placed on those identified in the screening as high risks.

6. So far, so good. Reliance on a good past record ignores the automatic multiplication of malfeasance opportunities as the nuclear industry pro- liferates. Moreover, new technological innovations may pierce formerly impenetrable barriers. The remote-controlled drone airplane, which could put a crude guided-missile capability in criminal hands, is an example.

7 . The false hope of insurance. As AEC estimates of possible damage in a radioactive release have risen to $17 billion, utilities’ total liability for a single nuclear power plant disaster is limited by the Price-Anderson Act to less than $600 million. 20

Private insurance against radio-contamination is largely nonexistent, and the present annual limit of Small Business Administration disaster loans is $4.3 billion.

8. The fallacy of comparative risk. American society accepts the 57;OOO fatalities and 2 million disablements that annually result from US. highway travel. Are radioactive disasters acceptable by comparison? Auto accidents are not subject to sudden orders-of-magnitude increases; casualties from radiation are.

No other risk presents the prospect of long-term incapacitation of sizable inhabited land areas and watersheds, injecting an element of uncertainty into all planning for land use.

No other hazard poses a distinct threat to the health and genetic integrity of future generations.

No other hazard, save that generated by the international nuclear industry, quietly undermines our entire system of national defense by making the United States vulnerable to anonymous attack from within.

Since 350,000 Americans die annually from cancers, perhaps additional cases of radiation-induced cancer would be inconsequential on a percentage basis. However, since one out of four U.S. citizens is presently destined to contract cancer, we should not be eager to add unpredictably large doses of carcinogens to our environment.

Another comparative-risk argument invokes the threat to industrial civilization in the absence of an inexhaustible energy source, presumably provided only by nuclear fission. Granted that a long- term power source is indispensable, potentially infinite energy may be obtained yet from the varied effects of the solar beam, the Earth’s heat, and the fusion of light atoms.

NOTES

1. Ralph E. Lapp, “The Ultimate Blackmail,” New York Times Magazine, Feb. 4, 1973: Robert B. Leachman and Phillip Althoff, eds.. Preventing Nuclear Theft: Guide- lines for Industry and Gooernrnent (New York: Praeger, 1971).

2. This level for transuranic alpha emissions is 0.35 microcuries per square meter, as given in USAEC Rules & Regulations Section 140.84. Nov. 28. 1970.

3. Gamma deposition of 1.400 curies per square mile would deliver a first-year dosage of about 50 rem. This is ten times the annual maximum permitted to atomic workers in restricted areas.

4. US. Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Division, “Fuel Cycle Safeguards,” Nov. 6, 1973.

The minimum number of armed guards that must ac- company shipments of special nuclear material (SNM) in a railroad car or separate vehicle remains at two. The still-required prominent identification numbers on top of the vehicle enable easy identification by searchers and also enable easy identification and pursuit by aerial at- tackers.

The general theme of the transportation rules is to withstand small assaults with pistols but not to withstand, let alone repel, significant armed attacks. A single armed guard monitors transfers of SNM.

5. H. Nwitt Sanford and Craig Comstock. eds.. Sanctions lor Eoil (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971).

v.12-22

UNITED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O.C. 20545

DEC 3 1 1974

Dr. L. Douglas De Nike Vice President Zero Population Growth Los Angeles Chapter 1720 Pontius Avenue, Office 205 Los Angeles, California 90025

Dear Dr. De Nike:

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1974 commenting on the Atomic Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement on the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LME'BR) Program. The Statement has been revised where appropriate in response to the many comments received, and a copy of the Final Statement is enclosed for your information.

Your paper "Antisocial Interventions Against the Proposed Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program, (Provisional Cost Estimates)" assesses the consequences of successful theft in terms of property damage with costs expressed in dollars. The assessment is based on assumptions that two major metropolises, or their equivalent, will be contaminated to evacuation levels each century, and two other major urban areas will be destroyed by nuclear weapons constructed or diverted by terrorists, one each fifty years. Smaller extremist acts of radio-contamination and other assaults on nuclear facilities are assumed to inflict losses, including decontamination costs, of $1 million per annum. It is further assumed that once each century a shipment of 576 kilograms of plutonium will be stolen by criminals, used to force evacuation through threat of radio-contamination of a single American metropolis, and form the basis for extortion payments by the federal government and other costs totaling one billion dollars per year. The cost totals based on these and other similar assumptions are presented in the discussion as "the minimum...for a single nation and century."

V . 12-23

D r . L. Douglas De Nike 2

It is noted t h a t t he assumptions used i n the assessment are o f fe red without j u s t i f i c a t i o n o r foundat ion. be equa l ly de fens ib l e , inc luding some t h a t would r e s u l t i n n e g l i g i b l e cos t s . P ro jec t ions i n t o the f u t u r e are tenuous even when based on copious h i s t o r i c a l da ta . When the d a t a is spa r se o r , as i n t h i s case, p r a c t i c a l l y non-exis tent , any p ro jec t ion i s q u a l i t a t i v e and h igh ly uncer ta in . It is "oncluded t h a t such p ro jec t ions should no t be incor - pora ted i n t o cos t -benef i t ana lys i s , and t h i s po l i cy w a s followed i n prepar ing t h e F i n a l Statement.

Although t h e i n a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t t he consequences of f u t u r e an t i - soc ia l acts precludes t h e i r use i n cos t -benef i t ana lys i s , t he development of f u t u r e AEC safeguards w i l l t ake i n t o account the need t o provide l e v e l s of p r o t e c t i o n commensurate wi th the p o t e n t i a l consequences of c r e d i b l e a n t i - s o c i a l a c t s , o t h e r than acts of war. Sec t ion 7 .4 .8 of the F i n a l Statement descr ibes i n d e t a i l t he approach t o development of f u t u r e safeguards .

A wide range of assumptions would

P r o t e c t i o n , o f U.S. nuclear f a c i l i t i e s aga ins t w a r t i m e a t t a c k is the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t he defense establ ishment and t h e armed fo rces . such an a t t a c k x igh t occur , i t is not poss ib le ' t o p r e d i c t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o r frequency of t h i s occurrence. A s pointed out i n Sec t ion 7 . 4 . 4 . 1 of t h e F i n a l Statement , i t is be l ieved t h a t t he o v e r a l l consequences of a massive s t r a t e g i c a t t a c k would mask any incremental e f f e c t s r e s u l t i n g from nuclear f a c i l i t y damage.

We apprec ia t e your i n t e r e s t i n AEC safeguards a c t i v i t i e s and t h e LMFBR Program, and t r u s t t!iat the F i n a l Environmental Statement , which conta ins an expanded d iscuss ion of safeguards mat te rs , w i l l a l l ev ia te your concerns on t h i s s u b j e c t .

While

S ince re ly ,

M - L J mes L. Li erman

W s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

Enclosure: F i n a l Environmental Statement, LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)

V.13-J

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20250

Apr i l 22, 1974

Mr. J. L. Liverman Biomedical and Environmental ’ 6

Research and Safe ty Programs U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545


This is i n response t o your le t ter of March 1 4 t o D r . Fred H. Tschi r ley regarding t h e Draf t Environmental Statement, WASH-1535, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program.

The genera l tone i n many sectid,ns of t h i s s ta tement leaves one wi th t h e impression t h a t s t eps”can be taken t o p ro tec t t h e environment. Y e t , l i t t l e i s s a i d regarding t h e s p e c i f i c s t e p s t h a t - w i l l b e taken. page 4.2-80. Another example appears on page 4.2-83. It would be much b e t t e r i f t h e s ta tement showed s p e c i f i c a l l y . w h a t is going t o b e done t o p r o t e c t t h e environment.

One s p e c i f i c example of t h i s appears on

S ince re ly ,

I’ , - . , /

H. L. Barrows Acting Assistant Adminis t ra tor Nat ional Program S t a f f

V.13-2

UNITED STATES

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

3 1 1974

M r . H. L. Barrows Acting Assistant Adminis t ra tor Nat iona l Program S t a f f A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Serv ice United S t a t e s Department of A g r i c u l t u r e Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear M r . Barrows:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 22, 1974 on t h e Atomic Energy Commission's Draf t Environmental s ta tement on t h e Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program. The Statement has been r e v i s e d where a p p r o p r i a t e i n response t o t h e many comments r e c e i v e d , and a copy of t h e F i n a l Statement is enc losed f o r your information.

Regarding t h e concern of t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Research S e r v i c e t h a t l i t t l e is s a i d regard ing t h e s t e p s t h a t be taken t o p r o t e c t t h e environment, i t should b e noted t h a t s t e p s taken f o r f u t u r e LMFBR power p l a n t s w i l l depend g r e a t l y upon t h e n a t u r e of t h e p l a n t s i t e and t h e s p e c i f i c p l a n t d e s t g n , ' e s p e c i a l l y t h e type of cool ing system s e l e c t e d . a d d i t i o n , as s t a t e d on pages 4.2-2 and 4.2-3 of t h e D r a f t Statement:

I n

"Each W B R power p l a n t w i l l be l i c e n s e d according to t h i s e s t a b l i s h e d procedure, which r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e e lec t r ic u t i l i t y owner and o p e r a t o r of t h e p l a n t submit t o t h e AEC a Pre l iminary Safe ty Analysis Report (PSAR) and an' "Appli- cant's Environmental Report -- Const ruc t ion Permit Stage." The PSAR must c o n t a i n evidence t h a t t h e proposed p l a n t can be b u i l t and opera ted without undue r i s k t o t h e h e a l t h and s a f e t y of t h e publ ic . The Environmental Report must i n c l u d e d e t a i l e d ana lyses of p o t e n t i a l environmental impacts t h a t might r e s u l t from c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of t h e p l a n t ; i t must a l s o p r e s e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of o t h e r f a c t o r s as r e q u i r e d by NEPA. These documents are reviewed by t h e AEC, and s u i t a b i l i t y of t h e p l a n t on t h e proposed s i t e is judged from t h e s tL2dpoints of s a f e t y and envi ronuenta l impact.''

n

V.13-3

M r . H. L. Barrows 2

Thus, i t i s seen t h a t t h e measures t h a t environment w i l l b e determined on a case-by-case b a s i s f o r f u t u r e LMFBR power p l a n t s .

be taken t o p r o t e c t t h e

We hope t h i s information i s s u f f i c i e n t l y responsive t o t h e po in t s you r a i sed . t h e LMFBR Program.

Thank you again f o r your c o m e n t s and for your i n t e r e s t i n

S incere ly ,

A eL s L. Liverman General Manager

f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

Enclosure : F i n a l Environmental Statement, LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)

V.14-1 0 JAMES 1. B A R K E R

bnwhing Engimr

10 Waldm A v m m Jrkho, L I., N. Y. 11753

SPECIALTIES Tdephoru 516 WE 14151 N d u r T s c h n o l ~ y

k a t and Mass Transfer Isotope Separation

Thoretical and Economic Analyua

MEMBER A.N.S., A.1.Ch.E.. A.C.S.

A.A.A.S.. N.Y.A.S.. Tau Beta Pi

Sigma Xi, Phi Lembde Upsilon

Apri l 2 2 , 1'974

Off i ce of t h e A s s i s t a n t General :;anagar Biomedical a i d Gnvironnental P.ssearcli and Safe ty Programs U.S.A.E.C. I:'ashington, D. C , 20545 Re: ?AS!-I-1535

Dear S i r s :

1. I t h i n k it i s unfor tuna te t h a t more time v3s not sl1ot:ed f o r revbe;r o f t h e d r a f t statenlent. Ny conments a r e t h e r e f o r e hu r r i ed and no t as complete a s I would l i k e them t o be.

reS3urces was dismissed so r e a d i l y on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e L:IFE:l can func t ion on t h e a v a i l a b l e t a i l i n g s icrom. t h e d i f f u s i o n p l a n t s . I sus2ec t t h a t t h e uranium resources oI' t h i s ; la t ion a r e n a y f o l d l a r g e r than t h e c u r r e n t o f f i c i a l es t imates . would have an important bear ing on t h e econonic c rossover t i c e , a l e s s f r e n e t i c schedule f o r LFIF3R deve1o:;nent could 5e adopted i f it could be shown t h a t more uranium e x i s t s w i th in cur borders . I a l s o , i n c i d e n t a l l y , f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o tlntlerstand why, if uranium i s a v a i l a b l e cheap (or cheaper) e l sevhere in t:ie riorl?, we cannot exchange separative work or o t h e r t c c h o l o z y o r goods o r s e r v i c e s Cor uranium which we could s t o c k p i l e here i n t h e U.S. ; thereby conserving our uranium resources . P ro jec t Iniicpendence i s not incompatible wi th s t o c k p i l i n g ; i n f a c t , I t h ink q u i t e the r e v e r s e i s t r u e .

2 . I th ink it i s unfor tuna te t h a t t h e ques t ion o f urariiun

Since l a r g e r resources

3 . I be l i eve t h a t t h e r a d i a t i o n dose r a t e s a r e unreasonably low, and t h e r e f o r e uneconomic, i n conparison with t h e dose r a t e s from n a t u r a l and o t h e r man-made r a d i a t i o n s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e dose r a t e s does not make sense t o me, e i t h e r . The dose r a t e s and t h e dose f r o n t h e p l a n t s shculd inc rease , whereas t k a t f rm t h e t r a c s T o r t a t i o n segment i s r e l a t i v e l y t o o IiigI-, 'iaking t h e L?4F:3R l e s s economically a t t r a c t i v e i s not a se i i s jb le d i r e c t i o a i n which t o move, i n my opinion, and a more econoric d i s t r i b u t i o n of doses i s c a l l e d f o r .

Yours t r u l y ,

James J. Barker

V. 14-2 n

UNITED STATES

A T O M I C ENERGY C O M M I S S I O N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

QEC 3 1 1974

Mr. James J. Barker Consulting Engineer 10 Walden Avenue Jericho, L. I., N. Y. 11753

D e a r Mr. Barker:

Thank you for your letter of Apr i l 22, 1974 commenting on the A t o m i c Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement on the Liquid Xetal Fas t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program. The Statement has been revised where appropr ia te In response t o t h e nany comen t s received, and a copy of the F ina l Statement is enclosed f o r your information.

Your comments on uranium resources suggest t h a t you may have overlooked information presented In sec t ions 8A.1.1.2, 8A.l.l.6, 8A.1.1.8 and in Appendix I11 B t o Chapter 11 of t h e Draf t Statement. has been augmented i n the F ina l Statement and w i l l be found in sec t ions 6A.1.1.2, 6A.1.1.8, 6A.1.1.9 and 11.2.3. In b r i e f response t o your s p e c i f i c po in ts , w e be l ieve t h a t the fore ign uranium supplyldsmnd s l t u - a t i o n w i l l be t i g h t and t h a t i t would be unwise t o r e l y heavi ly on imported uranium f o r f u t u r e U.S. requirements. The ultimate a v a i l a b i l i t y of uranium from r e l a t i v e l y high grade resources in the U.S. I s , of course, uncertain. be l i eve i t is a t least prudent t o pace LMFBR development on the assump- t i o n t h a t high grade resources w i l l not be overly abundant and t h a t lower grade resources may prove to be environmentally and economically unacceptable.

This in fornnt ion

Based on the information cu r ren t ly ava i l ab le , however, w e

With regard t o your conuaent on dose rates, i t was not our in t en t ion to obta in uneconomic andlor unreasonably low r a d i a t i o n dose rates. model LMFBR p lan t rad ioac t ive waste management systems were described which are thought t o be economically feasible and realist ic and t o produce r ad ia t ion doses t h a t would be as l o w as prac t icable . energy cen te r s wgdd g rea t ly reduce t h e r ad ia t ion dose due t o t h e t r anspor t a t ion segment by t h e t ranspora t ion of spent f u e l between reactors and reprocessing p l an t s , and of f r e sh f u e l from fab r i ca t ion p l an t s t o reactors.

Rather,

Use of nuclear

n

V.14-3

Mr. James J. Barker 2

We hope th i s infortiation is adequately responsive to your comments. Your interest i n the LMFBR Program is appreciated.

Sincerely,

i es L. Liverman General Manager


Enclosure: Final Environmental Statement,

U E B R Program (WASIl-1535)

I

Subjec t i Conmentr on the l i q u i d !!ectal T s s t 3 r e c h r rlc'ctor Frogral: , %raft 3 i v i r o n x e n t a l I n x ~ c t S t a te:ncn t , !AKE-? 535

Centlenen I .

?%cvlous coainitnunts ? revent PB f r m being presetit a t the hearing on 21: X y i l 137h. At t h a t time I shall 5 2 glaii t o fu rn i sh such ar'.d..tiofisl Ln.Por1atii.n as I w n which may nTo*re h e l p f u l i n ?rewring t h e f i n a l SIS ori t h h i. .port3nt p r D & r a m

I sFal1 bc o u t o f t h e c o u n t r y un tS1 a?nut ?.6 !~!ay 1?7b,

Yours vzry t r d y ,

Hanil ton Trca!!way

V.15-2

Comments on Draft Enviromental Impact Statemect , UASH-1535 1, Statement of Scope of Comments

The d r a f t Environmental Im2act Statement, he re ina f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as EIS, WASH-1535, was prepared 2s a r e s u l t o f the &cision o f t he U.S. Gourt of Appeals, D.Z. J i r c u i t i n S c i e n t i s t s I n s t i t u t e fp Public Information, Inc. v Atomic Znerzy Conmission, dated 12 June 1973. not conoletely c l e a r as t o &+at it expected the e w i r o m e n t impact statement t o cover acd accomlish.

The Court's o?inion is

I n its swmary s'atenent, t h e Court says:

.... Taking i n t o account t he magnitude of t h e ongoing Pederal investment i n t h i s Drogram, tho controversial environnental e f f e c t s a t t enden t upon fu tu re widespread dealoyment of breeder r eac to r s should t he program f u l f i l l present expectations, tho accelerated pace under which t h i s pm,.-ram 'has moved beyond pure s c i c n l i f i c resezrch toward c rea t ion of a viable , c m g e t i t l v e breeder reactor electric eper3T industry, and t h e 7anner in which investment i n this new technolozy is l i k e l y t o res t r ic t fu tu re a l t e r n a t i v e s , we hold t h a t the Commission's pro,mn comes within both t5e l e t t e r and ssirit of Sec t ion 132(C) and t h a t a d e t a i l e d statement about t h e nroq, its environmental impact, and a l t e r n a t i v e s the re to is ?resent ly repuiredl ley 'ke draft EIS does not provide that .

n

2/

I n its opinion it recognizes many f a c t o r s including s i zeab le i r r e t r i e v a b l e conmitnents o f resources, a r a d i c a l cha.nge i n t he nanner i n which our e n t i r e nation produces e l e c t r i c i t y , unique and un9recedented environnental hazards, t h e ~ o s s i - b i l i t y t.hat these n i l 1 be less harmful than ex i s t fng fossil f u e l generat icg plants , the slowing dom of the devoloynent o f o t h e r nen technologies and t h e controversy surrounding the commitment t o Dursue, he LYE2 pro,pam as a solut ion t o t h e enerry s u p l y problem of t h i s :&ife enphasizing t h a t it h a s not Ln its opin:on quzstioning the wisdon or' the ?rozram, it Leaves t h e Inference t h z t i t s wisdom would be testell by r e q u i r i n s f u l l d isclosure t o the pu3llc and t o o the r e n t i t i e s within t>v governnent o f a l l enviromental e f f e c t s l i k e l y t o stzm f ron agency actior,.A The drar't 213 falls s h o r t of t h i s .

The EIS is massive. I n t he l i n i t e d time a v a i l a b l e f o r revfew and conments it is d i f f i c u l t f o r it to be digested and thought through by a s i n g l e mind. It I s c l e a r from a read-ing thereof t h a t thi-s has not as y e t been done. is necessary before a f i n a l draft is issued i f it is to accomplish the objec- t i v e s of ID.; azd t h e Court's Oecision,

This

~ ~ ~ ~

JJ EXS, ti,lSFI - 1535 p 1.1-4 2/ Xatiopal 3nviromar,%a1 2 o t e c t i o n Act, 42 USC Sec. 4331

hereinaTlter r e fe r r ed t o as ?T3?A y Slip O ~ i X i O r ? , ?age 2. 4f slip opinion pase 35. 9 S l i p opinion page 37.

V.15-3

-2-

NEPP, is foxnard. looking. It subs t i t u t ed v is ion and , ,resight f o r 20/20 hindsizht . It is the e f f e c t s t h t c a n be foreseen by looking a t the consequences of tod2y'n ac t ions and the a l t e r r 3 t i v r s t h ~ r c t o which must be emmined an4 he ld up to y b l i z Inmeic:Yns. i n t o t h e planning ?recess f o r Federal ?ro,nrammingr. more i n t h e breach than i n I t s use docs not lessen its ef fec t iveness and importance nhen pronerly USEL. i nves t iga t ion of t h s a l te r r la t ives . "?-at i n v e s t i s t i o n rr,ust 're as thorowh as t h e inves t iga t ion and fornula t ion of t h e pro,cram which the Agency seeks to implenent. progran and the a l t e r n a t i v e s thereto. i n t h e EIS. be presented in a ncnncr whlch Tern i t s the revicuer t o sit i n t h e za3e Fosition as those who made the ana lys i s . so that he can ;sscss the reasons f o r thc conclusions reached on each e lcwnt and also detorn ine whether any elexents bave keen o n i t t e d o r have been given too l i t t l e o r too auch cons l le ra t i Jn . It follors t h a t the a l t e r n a t i v e s r,ust be given t h e save de ta i l ed trerrtncnt as t h e ?ro,gan tho k c n c y seeks t o implement;,: n t h i s Case t h e LYE3 '3rograa. C'IS, XiSK-1535 s e e m t o recognim t h i s need.2 It f2ll.5 s h o r t of t h a t object ive o r has f a i l e d t o present the information i n a manner which r ead i ly demonstrates t h e de t a i l ed considerat ion given t h o nany a l t e rna t ives . AS previously noted within the t i n e l imi 'bt ions a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s can not t o reviewed i n detail. be conf imd to one o f these t o denlonstrate what should be done with respec t to each before a final ZIS is issued.

:;T'. h t r o d u c c d a bzau t i fu l tool T h a t it has been hmored

"tie hea r t of t ha t planring process is t he

"he cosz-'cenefit amlysis p o v l d e s a basis €or evaluat ing the 3st z n s l y s i s tdces a c e n t r a l ? s i t i on

I n order t h a t oqe m y review the cos t bene f i t ana lys i s it xust

He nus t be ab le t o f o l l o v it step-by-step

Our comxents K i l l , therefore ,

The d r a f t EXIS seems t o contain many assunpt ions which may o r nay not have been evaluated I n d e t a i l before they bcamc concluslons on which the d r a f t was b s e d . large. be c l a r i f i e d i n the final &aft. It is hoped t h a t comaents of o t h e r i n t e re s t ed parties w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t l y d ive r s i f i ed t n t h i s respec t t o cover subs t an t i a l ly a l l o f these assumptions so that the final 3I3 w i l l provide greater c l a r i t y with respect to each.

There are many conclusions &awn i n the report seemingly as t r u i s m and often without f a c t u a l support . clear up sone of tho problems i n t h i s r e spec t when the final &aft is ?reFred. Other susgost tons here in w i l l a l s o he lp c l a r i f y t h i s aspec t of t he problem i n t h e final draft.

T'e r.un3ar of those assuspt ions throughout t h e t e s t i s extremefj Corrnents can only be made on sone of these so tbt t h e i r status may

?::ore ca re fu l cross-referencing would h e l p

The most glarin,p example of a misleading conclusion i s t h e s t a t enen t i n t h e summar that f o s s i l fue led p l an t s burning coal , oil and gas a r e . f u l l y deve1oged.u Nothing mould te f u r t h e r f r o m t he t ru th . pulver ized coal cyclone f u r m c e has Seen brought to a high s ta te o f devclocnent and commercial operation. high s u l f u r k,i$ 2.*,'i c o d a t acZ2ntablc l e v e l s of s u l f u r , KOx, m d ash crcl.ssions. Research and developnent on a mn!p of ?.uxiliary s y s t e m t o v o v i d c adequste pol lu t ion cont ro l effectLvely t o t h e s teax ,oenorators is still i n p r o g e r s . It is conclusions of t h i s type irhich have lead tho preparrrs of t h i s &-aft t o adopt projcc thns th35 f a l l sho r t of r e a l i t y i n t e s t i n g the L"1Fi33 program under the s tandards s e t by IT3F.L

It is co r rec t t h a t the

It, however, is i x a p b l e a t ? r e sen t of burning

V.15-4 n

-3-

2, The Purpose of t he EIS

This br€nys us t o the core of t he problen. Is it t h e purpose o f t h i s Is it 3I.S to analyze t h e e f f e c t of the LW33 ?rogaR on t h e envirotim-mt?

t h e objoc t ive t o deteroine the s l ace o f the LI‘!E3? i n t he z i x of fu tu re sources of e l e c t r i c enerTj? as a research and development oro jec t o r is it a n ansessnent of t h e environmental inpact of t he dcveloyaent of a new i n c h s t r i a l complex?

Is t h i s an assessment of its’ environrental imyict

I n one way o r another the ?IS s e e m t o a t tack all of these questions. It apDears unfortunately t o ? ? w a s t r a i g h t l i n e from the assum?tion t h a t the b r s e t e r r eac to r is t h e mjor long t e rn so lu t ion to our energy su?ply t o the conclusion t h a t it is t he bes t so lu t ion t o those rroblexs. This Assunnption and conclusion are t h e ones whlch give t h e Tost t rouble . Actually t h e breeder reac toz is one o f a mix o f e n e r g conversion :levices xhich w i l l cons t i t u t e t h e lon:: range so lu t ion t o our em?= needs. pared t o h ~ l ? more accuristely pinnoint i ts point o f ent ry and e x i s t i n t h e mix. Instead it s&a?ts w i t h t he assurn$ion t h a t tk.a t h e sche3,ules es tab l i shed ir. 1963, prior t o t h e ar?option of TZn.i, are still coctrolling. Those f iecis ions and t h e comi tnen t s lased thereon kave not been t e s t e d by the s tandards in- posed by lZ?A. “?-at nus t be one o f t h e objec t ives of t he f inal d r a f t of t h e 21%

Tke 31s s:7oulO have been ?re-

XASH 1535 dDes not accomplish th i s .

The LYiW proagan is still a rssearch and developnent proDgram. Its place I n t h e supp1.y of t h i s countr j ’s energy needs should be dcternined by a cost- bene f i t ana lys i s comFring it with each and every energy profiuction and con- vers ion research and deve loyen t ?yobmn I n a manner t o ? e m i t t he evaluation o f t h e place, if any, of e w h i n t h e complexities of the n ix both with respec t t o t h e p robab i l i t i e s of each becominz a ce r t a in ty a t some Toint i n t i n e and t h e i n t e r n a l rste of r e tu rn t o the economy which each will generate. evaluat ion o f +,he a v a i l a b i l i t y of e x h as t o t i n e nus t also take in to account t he na t iona l goal of e n e q g se l f - suf f ic iency at an early ?ais an& nzy sub- s t a n t i a l l y a f f c c t t h e w i n t o f e n t q of L!33 I n t h e nix. ge te rn ins t ian of t h e i n t e r n a l r a t e of . re turn or’ e a c h research and developregt ? ro ,pn should l ead t o t)?e nos t economical use of our rec.3urces considering Coth the ir . tar- nalized an3 e x t e r n a l k a d cos t s 5”nnrated b-7 each. ??lis I s sound ecCnmicS. It reduces the ?rohzbilit:r of a ?cistake In tF.e ?lannIsg process t h a t would be economically ca tas t rophic In t h e years ahead. It is not only 7ossible but probablo t h a t when t h i s evaluat ion is nade, sans foregone conclusions, Lx.32 may f i n d its blace I n bolnt of t h e usurped by encr.3y convexSon ?roceoses which a r e both Tore r c a c ’ i l y ~ p a i l a 5 l e and less cost ly . T h i s is not t o say that t h e L Y f b r ?rozram ray hdve no place i n t h e Cwelo2rnent of enerr- supvly sources in t h i s country, but it does say t h a t its ?lace should be deternined I n an order ly manner making use of t h e bes t t o o l s now ava i l ab le f o r t h a t purpose.

The

3. Assumptions -. a. Load Est lna tes

Perha?s t h e assua!,ttons which should f i r s t be reexamined are those r e l a t i n g t o t h e load estiir3tss, p a r t i c u h r l y a f t e r 1990. i n t he s tudy are +aken from 3 ?revious project ion made by A X . 2

The @)recasts used As ind ica ted

US\%, Vuclear Power 1973-2000, 3enort i-I.4SH-l139(p), 1 2 / 7 . n

v. 15-5

-4-

ft is, l i k e , populat ior . .yAs shown i n ?Lyre ?.l-la i t i s or" the exDonoztia1 forn. This is subjec t t o connidcrablc question. t o follow a curve of t he fon? of

K

ny o thers , based on Drojec+ons 0- energy use 9)9r a p i h and

Long range growth is nore l i k e l y

F(x) y a l + m E

which is -tho well known S curve where the value of y becomes asym;?totfc t o some l i n i t I.; at szne fu tu re time X . 3 e r e a r e zood r a s o n s uhy the grcKth of t h e use of e l e c t r i c i t y skou ld begin t o ap?roach soze l i n i t i n t h i s C O W ? ~ J about t h e yar 2020. Zhzre is genera1 agreenent now t h a t tho populatior? u:ll l e v e l off a ' k u t t h a t t i n e , B ?redic t ion the author nade i n l a t e 1926 i n a study f o r t he I l l l ~ o l s Co-.T.erc; Zmaission. T h r e t s a l s o good reason to bel ieve t h a t avsrage p s r capi ta uscige xlil a l s o a??rolch a r.aximun l e v e i by t h a t t ine . meet t h i s co-untry's :e?k "?and a t t h a t t i n e ~111 3a i n t h o order 05 ki?39 t o 4500 GiSavat.ts. uatts. energy cosv3rsion Tethocis required t c meet, t h e dcjnzn2s. if a cozplete e l e c t r i c econony u l t i m t e l y shakes o u t of the present energy s i t u a t i o n , t h e Taxinurn system capaci ty requirezents could reach 2,000 t o 10000 Gigawatts Sy 2020. I n t h a t event it m y be des i rab le t o speed up t h e fusion research ?ro,mn i n oroferencc t o concentrating )ion on a more i n t e r - mediate a?proach. It ray a l s o be desirzble to s?eed '-lp o the r o? t ions , such as IS33. It is, t 'nerefore, des i rah le that the 21s ex?lore seve-ral p s s t b l c upper l l n i t s on e l e c t r i c ,qor;th r a the r t k n the s ing le load ??ojcction used i n t h e draft s ta tenent .

It is sngeested t h z t t he mex:mu~ systex cn-city requ5red t o

Zrice e l ~ s t i c i + y .r.zy kr i zg t h i s l i n L t as l o w as 3750 Si=&-

C n the o t h s r hand, n e s e re3uc.i req1:irer:ents 9ioould subs t a n t i a l l y al ' fcct the mix of

b. The Outlook f o r Foss i l %els

The fu tu re n i x of fossil fue l s is i m s c a w b l y i n e r ro r , It a s s m e s t h a t t he use o f na tura l gas t o Senerate e l e c t r i c i t y w i l l g r s 2 ~ 3 l l y i rxreaoe until about 1900 b3rSz-e declirizg. This is doubtful . An end use con t r c l policy is now evolving f o r t h i s Frecious ratural zesource. conservation Shoi:l2 so03 Treclucie ? t s sse as a :Tiler fuel i x l u ? i n g e l e c t r i c generation. %tu ra l g a s should p r o k b l y ceaso t o DP used f o r t h i s ?ur?ose by 1930 and its r o l e i n t h e generat ion of e l e c t r i c i t y t h e r e a f t e r should 3e negl igible .

Snlightenea

There shoulc! zlso be a gradrial decl ine i n tho use cf o i l t o generate e l e c t r i c i t y . Zcorionizs, yczcci ty , p re fe ren t i a l x e s an2 technological changes should reduce its role i n energy cor,vcrsion n ix r a p i d y a f t e r 1970.

This l eaves coal as t he pr inc i?a l expanding f o s s i l f u e l source koth i n n e d i a t d y ar.d i n the I on5 r u n . As soon cs t he prcs;nt a r t i f i c i a l l y inJuccd shar tage of t h i s abundsnt f u e l shakes o u t i ts ava i l a - s i l i t y and cos t w'~11 nake it t h e most s ign i f i aa r , t r"0:isil f u e l source ir. t he gcncmtion o f electr!.c!.t;., provided we solve s p e a d i l y tke ?robI.exs of clean coa'zustion. massive coal fuele.3 g c ~ e r a t i r i ~ connlexes shouli! l e v e l 0 7 e a s t of t h e !lisslssinpi and p e r h n s zn equal p m b r i n t h e ;ieste-m Statc?s. po l lu t ion f r e e p1ar . t~ are bJlt t o ZroAuce e l e c t r i c i t y f r o r . mal i ts use in t h e gemra t ion n i x wtll e x p a d ranlrll;rz

?ive t o s ix

Cnse a new ZenerztLon o f

3 . z t expznsion is c r s e n t i a l t o e:!er;y

V.15-6

salf-;::f ?.c%ewy :n t F i s wuntry. of coal fue led ener,g conversion ?l?-r.ts is nuch c lose r than tk draft ZIS assumes. It is tho fallurc t o exa.r,ine thorouchly the r ,osit ion of c o d i n t h e mix which leads to J questionahlo conclusion i n the cost-bzcef i t a s l y s i s . h e f a l l n c l es i n t h e conci usions are unfo r tumte ly buried i n t h e cost-benefit technique used i n t h e d r a f t ZIS.

“5.e a n t l a b i l i t y of a new ger?eration

C. Energy Sources Fix ’ - The s c v e n l assuzptioris t h a t l ead t o t h e f i n a l conclusion rezardlng

t h e pos i t ion of the 3733 i n t 5 e e?.erzy mix a r e the nost quest icnable of al l . The assux.nptions used :.n earl ier s tud ie s B r e Dicked u? and used without ocr icus re-e:ani.ution. panded use of cca l i f r e s a r c : ? and hvelocment results i n both lower cos t s t e a m g e n c n t i o n facil?.ties a x d 1o:ic-r cos t coa l gradaction. Yo considerat ion I s given t o the 7ossi’t;:lit:r o f l oce t ing l a r ~ e electr ic generat ing com;?lexeo i n t h e ,great coal f!.elds xith eithei- cxtizi hlzh volt3,:c k C o r 32 tra::szlssion corr idors to th -? load c z n t s r s a l though these seem to bc a long t h e more 2roFjlSle a l t e rna t ives . :G!ost in ;orknt , hovevnr, i s t h e fa i lure . t o t e s t t h i s research and develoment ?~oject, i.e. tha i!<?3, s g s i n s t t h e o the r research ard development pro jec ts t o de t emine the p l w e of .each i n t h e futuro energy nix. This is what t h e final ZIS must focus uFon. 3y m y of i l l u s t r a t i o n t h e remainder o f these cozments w i l l ’ focus on one of these research 2nd development pro,mns which is now xuch nearer t o commercid operatLon than t h e C b ! ? 3 3 .

?Yo corxidsrrrtion is glven t o t he n r o b b i l i t y of %cea.Lij ex-

‘It must be emphasized a t t h i s voint thzt assunpt ions and conclusions which consider tb t nuc lew generat ion 5 3 t he only viabld a l t e r r a t i v e i n t he electric energy mix and t h a t t he only question t o be resolved i n the cos t / bene f i t anrlysis is how nuch w i l l be sup-,lied by EE?X fue led generat ing p l an t s are highly questionable.

It is a l s o Important to point out here t h a t t h i s hypothesis and t h e conclusions reached provide no solution f o r the i sned i s t e ener3T problen, do not consider t he s t i r rulus of t h e realignment of f u e l prices on so lv ing t h e i a m d i a t e problem znd fail t o r e c o g i z e t h e a f f e c t of a so lu t ion t o the immedizte prDblems on t h e lor,t: range nix of energy convsrsion methods. These f a c t o r s should be f u l l y considered i n t he final draft of the EIS.

4. A Viable Xesearch and Developnont Al te rna t ive - Fluidized-3ed Combustion

Of a l l of the research and development pro,-ms now i n one s t age o r another of in?lementatlon the f luidbed-ked furrace and s t e m generator is t h e most advanced. perimental fur race Pas been operated successful ly uc3er laboratory condi t ions demonstrating capibil . i t ;r t o meet t h a a i r m l l u t i o n enissron limitations u t i l i z i n g high s u l f u r high 3tu coal as 3 fuel. constructio2. :oncept1xil d e a i s s of a s t e m ,venerator co rnyFb le i n s i z e t o t h e proposed exFerimental U:I??Z inr,tall3t:Gn are avxilableeJ %e XIS g ives only passin,: r e c o q A t J o 2 t o t h i s fact i n a one pra,Ta?h s ia tcnent re5ardir.g its passlbilit f e., . advanced t h a n t he L81:W9 ya,mn. If Zivo:: appropr ta te caphdsis at t h l s tine In t h e research and develo?ncnt nicture t he first brei! scala stam generator could be i n f u l l comerc ia1 operat ion p r io r t o 13% and a whole new Seneration

Xost of t h e research work has bezn cornpletcd and t h e ex-

A prototype u n i t is under

cu*l ’ Th-. fluidized-kcd combustion ?roapn is much f i i i r thor

V.15-7

-6-

of fluidtzed-bed e l e c t r i c p w e r pla3t.s u t i l i z i n z hizh sulfur, high 3 t u bituminous coal located in t h e m j o r c o d srod'xing a r e a s near t he mines could be con t r ibu t inz t o the ener;y self-suff ic iency goals of t h i s country by t h e mid-19?0°'s. I t is nccordin7ly necessary .chat t h e f inal SIS inciulle a new cost /bencfi t a n a l y s i s compring these ?ro,gmns. .

This is t h e only 31D Dro,mrn now nea r i rg f r J i t i o n which o f f e r s a reasonable p r o s w c t o f resuning the dcwnmrd treed i n t h e cos t o f steam generators f o r t he e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y indastry. is l i k e l y t o involve a mintmun o f salfur reaoval oroblens i n t5e s t ack 72s because a l n o s t a l l sulfu-r is removed i n the fu r r ace be;'-. and coal c leaning pro5lep.s a r e niniTise2. comolexes i n t h e coal f i e l d s f u e l t r a n s p o r k t i o n is rccluced and ash d i s ? o ~ a l and surface r e s t o r a t i o n a r e f a c i l i t a t e d .

It is a l so t h e only one which

Fly ash rexoval 3y l oca t ing larze generatiRg

The imyortant thir?g i n t h i s cost ,henofit a n a l y s i s i s t 3 a t i t be completed i n d e t a i l on a year 3j yezr 'asis s o t h a t each a s s x p t i o n arrd each concl.;sion can be reviexed, a l t o r w t e s cor.siaere3 2nd +he o?t?nun s i x detemincd. s t e a d of discount icg c x h of t h e cos ts en3 bene f i t s en te r ln= t h e future strcan a t an assumed i n t e r e s t r a t e , utrich nay o r ?a)- not b s r e a l i s t i c :r, t h e fu tu re , t h e intermil r x t e 05 r e t u r n should. b=! calculated f o r each proogrm f r o n ths corn p l e t e@: 'ax o f cos t s and b e n s f i t s f o r each y c i r i n t he ?erioc! f ron 1974 t o 2020. t h i s method of eeononic evaluatioc. p r o f i t a S i l i t y ranking f o r each reseercn a r d deveiopaent ?ro,garn. I n -.king t h i s a n a l y s i s t h e c r i t i c a l k r i a b l e s i n eac5 ?ro:rm should 'se subjected t o s e n s i t i v i t y t e s t i p g 3y varyin; these c r i t i c z l va r i ab le s through a range o l op t imis t i c , r.ost ? r o b 5 l e , rnininum o r 9ssstmistic. %is would give a range of l n t c r r a l F A t e of r e tu rn valiies f o r each ?ro,rraJ. If each is fc11.y documen+,ca t h e final rankin,o o f each ?roga.x both as t o z s t i o n a l T r o f i t a b i l i t y znd t k e phasing of i t s entry an? e x i t I n t h e Tix will be,:; .-llI+L%ated an& the ?~crohybiliky o f a gross e r r o r i n t3:p choice w i l l be 1essaned.J'Tk.s i n f o n a t i o n t h u s developed s5onld provide c o n F r i s o n s of these 3?tD y o g w ~ s which can be readily evaluated bj a l l ?a r t i e s .

k-

~ c h progzm will have a d i f f e r e n t k t c r n a l r a t e of r 9 t u - n under PIIS xi11 give a r e l a t i v e r?a%ionel

The i n t e r z a l r a t e o f r e tu rn is deterrrSr.ed by ca l cu la t ing t k a t 21s- count r a t e a t wh:ch the ?resent value of the c o s t s and S e n e f i t s f o r t h e proFam a r e equal; i r e . the c?iscorint r i t e a t which t h e difference between ?resent value of t h e coa t s and t h e present value of t h e b e n e f i t s i n zero.

14/ I n any r?ztional 7lan;ling e f f o r t a m s s i v e mis take can be d i sa s t e rous t o t h e econo;ly 3s ?. x?&31e. 2 . 2 -i.k'~3?2:; ilrea,-fy rede in t h e enerzy f i e l d zdequately de.r,onst=t.c t h i s . I n t he f i r d l ZIS every e f f o r t must be made t o mininise t h i s FossLbility.

V.15-8 n

-7-

5. Other Research and Development Alternatives.

Since thc re a r e several o t h e r rescsrch and devnlo?mnt a l t e r n a t i v e s which may a lso be conpet i t ive as t o t i n e , ccononics and environiental risks an3 burdens, each such project s5ould t e evaluated i n the .sane manner and by the samc techniques as suggested i n zaragra?h 4 a'tove fo r t h e f lui2ize. l -24 conbustion o f high s . i l fur , M.gh 3 t u coal. The f i m l 213 should tnen provide t h e dcvolo?nental guifance f o r all energy research program that is today almost t o + a l l y lackin;.

6. The Fir21 31s

The forezoing recomzndations a r e d i r ec t e? t o t h e nrep3ration o f a firal E I S which w i l l nrovi2e the ,ouidanca sought by +he court . It 1s r ea l i zed tkat t h e recoincen3ed cost /bcnsf i t teckr,iGue is X f f e r c n t than t h a t which has been adonted by t 5 o X'>oiic Lnergy ioraiss!.on i n fts &.lclincs f o r t h e p r e p r a t i o n of such s t u 3 l t . s . s u l t f m the ?firnxe of issu1r.e a construct i3n pw-qnit nhere tbe a l t e r z a t i v e g under consideration are -a>ble of cross-ccr.wrasion without probable L ~ r g c s c a l e oversizb,ts. such is not the si tuatior, :n preFaarin3 cost/Denefit s t u d i e s o f energy conversion research and develo?xent prograzs wbere the on ly t h i n s i n connon is t h e i r e l e c t r i a l out?ut. ?he i n y t s a r e totally d i f f e r e n t , widely separated as t o t h e , ecomnics ar,d ?roLable f ru i t fon . Thlis d t f f e r e n t techniques a r e e s s e n t i a l to F ~ G ~ U C ~ a meanir;gful rc -su l t . p lus the cnviroznenta,l. r i s k s and burdens acalysis rscoa?,ended herein would then meet tFi2 needs o f t h i s ; u r t i c u l a r ZS. infornat ion uhfch i s necessary t o ?,omit the r,ublic, through its e l ec t ed ar.d appointed r e F r e s e n h t i v e s , t o chtemine t h a t n ix o f energy s u p ? l y syste3.s It considers most des i r ab le and aost l i k e l y t o xeet t h i s ccuntry's en;rm requirexents on a t i x e l y ksis, e f f e c t i v e l y and e f f i c i e n t l y , within a n economy o f aSuxlance and self-suff ic iency. provided thn means of answerizg but i n resSon3ng t o ?E?A it is e s s e n t i a l that one use the co r rec t t oo l s , i n t h i s case the tools which will Frovide a n e f f e c t i v e neans o f rankfnz a l l o f e n e r g cowers ion research and Cevelo?- ment ?ro,mns i n a manner t 9 permit t h e i r evaluation on t he Insis of nzitional p r i o r i t i e s .

T5:osc g u i z e l i n e s 7 . 3 ~ ?rcvlGe a saTf i c i en t ly accurzte r z -

The cos t bene f i t ana lys i s

The JiS would then proviB5 t h e

This is t he question which ? P A

Hamilton Treadway Attorney-at-Iaw

v. 15-9

UNITED STATES

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. O.C. 20545

3 1 1974

M r . Hamilton Treadway Attorney-at-Law P. 0 . B o x 88 Augusta, West V i r g i n i a 26704

Dear M r . Treadway:

Thank you f o r your le t ters of A p r i l 1, and A p r i l 2 i which provided comments on t h e Atomic Energy Commission's D r a f t E n k r o n m e n t a l Statement on t h e Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program. The Statement h a s been r e v i s e d where a p p r o p r i a t e i n response t o t h e many comments r e c e i v e d , and a copy of t h e F i n a l Statement is enclosed f o r your i n f o r - mation. The o t h e r e n c l o s u r e t o t h i s le t ter provides f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e p o i n t s you r a i s e d .

Your interest i n t h e L W B R Program is a p p r e c i a t e d .

S i n c e r e l y ,

+.r- tnes L. Liverman

i s t a n t General Manager v$.;or Biomedical and Environmental

Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosures: 1. AEC S t a f f Response t o S p e c i f i c

2. F i n a l Environmental S ta tement , Comments


V.15-10

ENCLOSURE I

AEC STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS BY M R . HAl-IILTOEJ TREADWAY

1. Comment:

The Draf t Environmental Statement does not comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion regarding the necessary scope and depth of t reatment of t he LPfFBR Program, i ts environmental impact , and a l t e r n a t i v e s the re to .

Response :

Although the AEC apprec ia tes the s u b s t a n t i a l thought and e f f o r t t h a t have obviously gone i n t o the prepara t ion of your comments, w e are unable t o agree with your i n i t i a l conclusions t h a t t h e Draf t Statement does not provide de t a i l ed information on t h e LIIFBR Program, i t s environmental e f f e c t s , and a l t e r n a t i v e s . Statement t o set f o r t h a l l re levant information and t o i n d i c a t e where new information is needed o r under development. This e f f o r t included 50 man- years of AEC and AEC cont rac tor ac t iv i t ies and t h e expendi tures of approximately $1,800,000. We bel ieve t h a t t h e Draf t Statement w a s an extremely comprehensive examination of t h e an t i c ipa t ed environmental e f f e c t s of t h e IlfFFBR Program and t h a t i t w a s f u l l y i n compliance wi th t h e Nat ional Environmental Pol icy A c t of 1969 and r e s u l t i n g government guide l ines and court i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r t he prepara t ion of environmental statements. A t the same t i m e , t h e AEC recognizes t h a t many ques t ions were submitted on the Draf t Statement ( see Appendix t o t h e F ina l Statement) . We have attempted t o answer these quest ions as completely as poss ib l e i n the response t o these l e t te rs and through appropr ia te r ev i s ions t o t h e text of t he F ina l Statement. We hope t h a t a reading of t h e material the re in w i l l s a t i s f y you t h a t our eva lua t ions have been complete and f u l l y responsive t o the i s sues ra i sed .

The AEC has made every e f f o r t i n t he Draf t

2. Comment:

"The cost-benefi t ana lys i s provides a bas i s f o r eva lua t ing t h e program and the a l t e r n a t i v e s there to . That ana lys i s takes a c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n in t h e EIS. I n order t h a t one may review t h e cos t b e n e f i t ana lys i s i t must be presented i n a manner which permits t h e reviewer t o s i t i n t h e same pos i t ion a s those who made the ana lys i s . i t step-by-step s o tha t he can assess the reasons f o r t he conclusions reached on each element and a l s o determine whether any elements have been omitted o r have been given too l i t t l e o r too much considerat ion."

H e must be ab le t o fol low

Response:

The assumptions, major r e s u l t s , and f ind ings r e s u l t i n g from parametr ic s t u d i e s of important f ac to r s and conclusions have been included i n Sect ion 1 1 . 2 . The AEC f e e l s t ha t the bases f o r conducting t h e cost- bene f i t ana lys i s h v e ;:e3pr1 tliJreu(;lL . presented and t h a t reviewers have a l l re levant information ava i lab le .

n

V.15-11

- 2 -

3. Comment:

' I . . .a misleading conclusion i s t h e s ta tement i n t h e summary t h a t f o s s i l fue led p l a n t s burning coa l , o i l and gas are f u l l y developed."

Response :

We agree t h a t a success fu l outcome of cu r ren t R&D i n t h e areas of pre-, co-, and post-combustion coa l t reatment and of f luidized-bed combustion and b ina ry cyc le development w i l l l ead t o f u t u r e fos s i l - fue l ed power p l a n t s t h a t w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f i c i e n t and environmental ly acceptab le than the average p l an t of t h i s type now i n ope ra t ion . Sec t ion 6A.2.1.3 f o r d i scuss ion of t h i s p o i n t . ) It should be noted , however, t h a t t he competi t ive p o s i t i o n a l l o c a t e d t o f o s s i l f u e l s i n t h e cos t -benef i t ana lys i s w a s no t pes s imis t i c . F o s s i l f u e l p r i c e pro- j e c t i o n s were conserva t ive ly low. The h ighes t coa l c o s t u t i l i z e d i n t h e cos t -benef i t ana lys i s (50.9 cen t s /mi l l i on Btu a f t e r t h e yea r 2005) i n the Draf t Statement is about 10 cen t s /mi l l i on Btu less than the March 1974 average coa l cos t .*

F o s s i l fue led power p l an t pene t r a t ion i n t h e cos t -bene f i t s t u d i e s w a s cons t ra ined t o a l e v e l h igher than would be i n d i c a t e d by s e n s i t i v i t y s t u d i e s which allowed unconstrained nuc lea r - fos s i l compet i t ion. It is improbable, a t least a t t h i s po in t i n t i m e , t h a t f u t u r e technologica l improvements could compensate f o r t he a c c e l e r a t i n g high c o s t of f o s s i l f u e l s .

(See

4. Comment:

"The E I S should have been prepared t o he lp more accu ra t e ly p inpoin t i t s ( t h e LMFBR's) po in t of en t ry and e x i t i n t h e m i x . I n s t ead i t starts wi th t h e assumption t h a t t he t i m e schedules e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1966, p r i o r t o t h e adopt ion of NEPA, are s t i l l c o n t r o l l i n g ... The LMFBR program is s t i l l a research and development program. Its p lace i n t h e supply of t h i s country 's energy needs should be determined by a cos t -benef i t a n a l y s i s comparing i t wi th each and every energy product ion and conversion research and development program.. . I '

Response :

A s discussed i n Sec t ion 11, t h e r e are two major f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e need f o r t he LltFBI: and the timing as t o when i t w i l l be needed f o r e n t r y i n t o t h e energy economy. These are the a v a i l a b i l i t y of uranium resources and the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a l t e r n a t i v e technologies f o r pr'oducing e l e c t r i c i t y . I f f u r t h e r exp lo ra t ion f a i l s t o i d e n t i f y s i g n i f i c a n t amounts of s u f f i c i e n t - ly high grade uranium resources , and assuming $ning of low grade resources

* E l e c t r i c a l \ !or ld , J u l y 15, 1974 , p. 8.

V. 15-12 n

- 3 -

such as s h a l e is environmentally as w e l l as economically unacceptable , then deple t ion of usable uranium reserves could occur by t h e end of t h e century--unless a breeder r eac to r economy is es t ab l i shed .

Thus, t h e r e is a real need on t h i s b a s i s no t t o delay t h e LMFBR. S imi l a r ly , as discussed i n Sect ions 6 and 11, t h e r e is no assurance t h a t environmentally acceptable a l t e r n a t i v e energy sources based on e s s e n t i a l l y "limitless" f u e l , such as s o l a r energy and nuc lear fus ion w i l l be ava i l - ab l e when needed ( i f at a l l ) i .e . , by t h e t i m e t h a t uranium o r e c o s t s , a v a i l a b i l i t y o r environmental c o n s t r a i n t s would preclude continued r e l i a n c e on non-breeder r eac to r s . The cu r ren t s t a t u s of t hese technologies and experience i n developing new complex energy sources s t rong ly i n d i c a t e s t h a t n e i t h e r s o l a r energy nor fus ion can be expected t o supply s i g n i f i c a n t amounts of e l e c t r i c i t y u n t i l a f t e r t h e t u r n o f - t h e century , i f then. Some t i m e a f t e r t h a t , i f t hese technologies are success fu l , i t may become f e a s i b l e t o "phase out ' ' breeder r eac to r s . In the meantime, as d iscussed i.n t h e enclosed F ina l Statement, t h e r e is a t i m e window i n which LNFBR's w i l l be e s s e n t i a l i f t h e Nat ion 's energy requirements are t o be m e t .

With regard t o your comment on cos t -benef i t ana lyses , it is n o t f e a s i b l e t o compare research and development programs i n t h e cos t -benef i t a n a l y s i s approach. Rather, i t is necessary t o p r o j e c t t h e success fu l commercial in t roduct ion of an a l t e r n a t i v e energy product ion system wi th appropr i a t e j u s t i f i e d cos t da t a and allow t h e cos t -benef i t ana lys i s procedure t o determine t h e ex ten t and r a t e of i n t roduc t ion of that p a r t i c u l a r energy production system i n t o t h e e x i s t i n g energy product ion m i x . f o r a l l e x i s t i n g energy production systems inc luding f o s s i l f u e l s , conver te r r eac to r s , and hydroe lec t r i c power and f o r t h e LMFBR based upon s e v e r a l p ro jec ted da tes of i ts in t roduc t ion and upon its expected cos t s . The r e s u l t s a r e provided i n Sect ion 11.2. As discussed above, o the r a l t e r - n a t i v e energy production systems a r e not p ro jec t ed t o be introduced i n s i g n i f i c a n t q u a n t i t i e s t o make a meaningful con t r ibu t ion t o t h e r e s u l t s of t h e cos t -benef i t ana lys i s , nor a r e t h e r e sound p ro jec t ions of c o s t d a t a a v a i l a b l e f o r them. However, a segment of t h e pro jec ted energy demand i n t h e per iod through 2020 w a s reserved f o r unspecif ied energy product ion system t o account f o r cont r ibu t ions from.unspecif ied sources .

This w a s done

They t h e r e f o r e w e r e no t t r e a t e d i n d e t a i l .

5 . Comment:

"The f u t u r e mix of f o s s i l fue l s i s inescapably i n e r r o r . I t assumes t h a t the use of n a t u r a l gas t o genera te e l e c t r i c i t y w i l l g radual ly i n c r e a s e u n t i l about 1980 before dec l in ing . This is doubt fu l . An end use c o n t r o l po l icy is now evolving €or t h i s precious n a t u r a l resource. Enlightened conservat ion should soon preclude i t s use as a b o i l e r f u e l inc luding e l e c t r i c generat ion. Natural gas should probably cease t o be used f o r t h i s purpose by 1980 and i ts r o l e i n t h e genera t ion of e l e c t r i c i t y t h e r e a f t e r should be neg l ig ib l e .

V.15-13

- 4 -

There should a l s o be a gradual d e c l i n e i n the use of o i l t o gene ra t e e l e c t r i c i t y . Economics, s c a r c i t y , p r e f e r e n t i a l uses and t echno log ica l changes should reduce its r o l e i n energy conversion mix r a p i d l y a f t e r 1980. "

Response:

The assumptions i n Chapter 9 of t h e Draf t Statement concerning use of n a t u r a l gas (somewhat less than a 10% inc rease between 1972 and 1977-78, and a d e c l i n e t h e r e a f t e r ) were based on s e v e r a l f a c t o r s and are supported by s e v e r a l of t he r e fe rences l i s t e d i n t h a t chapter . t hese f a c t o r s tends t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t he most l i k e l y f u t u r e r o l e of o i l and gas i n e lec t r ica l genera t ion would be cha rac t e r i zed by a r ap id dec l ine i n new p l a n t s fue led by o i l o r gas , bu t t h a t e x i s t i n g and planned p l a n t s would cont inue t o u s e these f u e l s over t h e i r normal l i f e t i m e s .

The aggrega te of

The AEC ag rees t h a t n a t u r a l gas and o i l are prec ious and scarce resources which have much g r e a t e r va lue i n uses o t h e r than as e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y b o i l e r f u e l s . i n g and planned e lectr ic genera t ion capac i ty from the use of these f u e l s t o a l t e r n a t i v e s . In f a c t , reduct ion i n the use of n a t u r a l gas and o i l as f u e l s f o r e l e c t r i c a l genera t ion is now a n a t i o n a l po l i cy , as s t a t e d by the Pres ident i n h i s energy message to Congress on October 8, 1974. Unfortu- n a t e l y ¶ s h i f t i n g of e x i s t i n g capac i ty from gas and o i l t o c o a l is no t a simple t a sk , no t only t echnologica l ly bu t from t h e viewpoint of ob ta in ing assured supp l i e s of coa l which can be burned i n an environmental ly acceptab le manner. The phasing ou t of o i l and gas as u t i l i t y b o i l e r f u e l s is l i k e l y t o be a gradual process which is n o t amenable t o sudden s h i f t s , even when seve re emergencies such as l a s t y e a r ' s o i l embargo make such changes d e s i r a b l e . Nevertheless , t h i s changeover i s a necessary a c t i v i t y and should be pursued t o t h e maximum f e a s i b l e ex ten t .

The f u t u r e mix of f o s s i l f u e l s is unce r t a in , depending upon how quickly t h e changes can be made. intended t o se rve more o r less as a n a r b i t r a r y r e fe rence mix on which t o base the cumulative impact c a l c u l a t i o n s , and the conclus ions of Chapter 9 vis-a-vis t h e n e t impact of t h e breeder economy are n o t a f f e c t e d by the assumed r e l a t i v e con t r ibu t ions of coa l , o i l , and n a t u r a l gas.

We a l s o support as r ap id a conversion as p o s s i b l e of e x i s t -

However, t he mix assumed i n Chapter 9 w a s

6. Comment:

"Once a new genera t ion of p o l l u t i o n f r e e p l a n t s are b u i l t t o produce e l e c t r i c i t y from c o a l i ts use i n the genera t ion mix w i l l expand r ap id ly . That expansion is e s s e n t i a l t o energy s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y i n t h i s country.

V. 15-14

- 5 -

The a v a i l a b i l i t y of a new genera t ion of c o a l fue led enerRv conversion p l a n t s is much c l o s e r than the d r a f t EIS assumes."

Response:

As was ind ica t ed on pp. A.2-41 and A.2-42 of the Dra f t Statement , t h e r e is a gene ra l consensus t h a t many of t he new developments r e l a t e d t o ''a new gene ra t ion of coal-fueled energy conversion p l an t s " can be opera t ing commercially by 1980, and c e r t a i n l y by 1985. Consider ing t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of necessary c a p i t a l , manpower, equipment, and water, i t is d i f f i c u l t r e a l i s t i c a l l y t o p r o j e c t a commercial-status d a t e ear l ier than 1980. F i n a l l y , i t is clear t h a t c o a l can be burned i n a m ~ r e environmental ly accep tab le way than it has

your let ter of Apr i l 15, 1974, are d i f f i c u l t t o envis ion , a t l ea s t i n t h i s century.

' been i n the pas t ; though "po l lu t ion free p lan t s , " mentioned on p. 4 of

7. Comment:

"There are good reasons why the growth of t h e use of e l e c t r i c i t y should begin t o approach some l i m i t i n t h i s country about t h e year 2020." The peak demand w i l l depend on assumptions i n popula t ion growth and o t h e r f ac to r s . " It is, t h e r e f o r e , d e s i r a b l e t h a t t h e EIS exp lo re s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e upper l i m i t s on e l e c t r i c growth r a t h e r than t h e s i n g l e load p r o j e c t i o n used i n t h e d r a f t statement."

Response :

The econometric model u t i l i z e d f o r t h e base energy demand p r o j e c t i o n is descr ibed f u l l y i n Sec t ion 1 1 . 2 . 3 of t h e F i n a l Statement. (The model d i d inc lude t h e lower p o w l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n which assumes t h e popula t ion w i l l reach a s t a t i o n a r y l e v e l i n about 70 years . ) a d d i t i o n t o the base e l e c t r i c energy demand s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e e n e r w demand curves were analyzed. The cos t -benef i t a n a l v s i s has been performed over a range of +20 t o -50 percent of t he base case e lec t r ica l demand i n t h e year 2000. were t h e r e f o r e assumed t o range between 7.1 and 11.7 t r i l l i o n Kwh i n the year 2000, and between 13.8 t o 33 t r i l l i o n Kwh i n t he yea r 2020. The lowest energy demand p ro jec t ion is commensurate wi th s u c c e s s f u l energy conserva t ion as descr ibed i n Sec t ion 6C.6 i n the F i n a l Statement . This case corresponds q u i t e w e l l t o t he low capac i ty p r o j e c t i o n s t o which you r e f e r on page 8 of your le t ter .

8. Comment:

I n

The r e s u l t a n t e l e c t r i c a l energy requirements

The f luidized-bed furnacels team genera tor RbD program is q u i t e advanced ( c e r t a i n l y more s o t!ian the L!!Fq? P r o T r n m ) , is less c o s t l v and p o t e n t i a l l v

V.15-15

- 6 -

hazardous and more f l e x i b l e than the LNFBR, and can meet a l l primary and secondary a i r pol lut ion regulations when using high-Btu, high-sulfur coal.

Accordingly, the fluidized-bed combustion program deserves a higher p r i o r i t y , amounting t o a crash e f f o r t t o complete development of the various concepts under study. I f this is done, a l a rge demonstration unit could be operating by ea r ly 1976, and the f i r s t l a rge commercial un i t s could be i n operation i n established bituminous coal f i e l d s by 1978 ( l e t t e r of 4/25/74) o r p r io r t o 1980 (letter of 4/15/75).

Response :

A summary of the fluidized-bed combustion concept is presented i n Section 6A.1.2.3 of the Final Statement, where i t is indicated t h a t technical f e a s i b i l i t y has been demonstrated, t ha t the process can u t i l i z e low-made coals, t ha t the po ten t i a l f o r large reductions i n SOx and NO emissions is s ign i f i can t , and t h a t pressurized systems may achieve thermaf e f f i c i e n c i e s of 45%. As far a s electrical-energy generation is concerned, an add i t iona l major advantage, r e l a t i v e t o conversion of coal t o f u e l o i l o r t o power (low-Btu) gas, is t h a t the cycle (coal mine t o bus bar) e f f i c i ency i s s ign i f i can t ly improved by avoiding the ineff ic iency of converting coal in a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l processes, which is t yp ica l ly about 30%.

Work i n t h i s area is a c t i v e and r a p i d l y accelerat ina. The Subpanel V report , t i t l e d "Coal and Shale Processing and Combustion Energy R6D Report," October 274 1973, prepared as a contribution t o WASH-1281 (ref. 47 of the Draf t Statement), notes the following:

a.

b.

C.

d.

e.

f .

This program is one of the major a l t e rna t ives .

Such b o i l e r s w i l l meet a l l environmental standards.

Projected u l t ima te thermal e f f i c i enc ie s are promising: (atmospheric system) and 47% (pressurized system).

40%

The U.S. balance of payments would be improved i n the l i k e l y event t ha t t h i s technology w e r e exported t o foreign countr ies , especial ly those with poor qua l i t y coal reserves.

Limestone and dolomite for su l fu r acceptance during cornbustion of high-sulfur coals is avai lable in l a r g e quan t i t i e s through most of the U.S.

Federal funding involvement is necessary, and an "acceleratedl orderly program" was estimated t o require (through Fiscal Year 1980) a t o t a l of $368 mil l ion, which would probably lead t o f u l l commercial availabilitv in 1981.

V.15-16

- 7 -

g. Developed fluid-bed b o i l e r s should capture a t l e a s t 25% of the market f o r new coal bo i l e r s ; t h i s rate of implementation would r e s u l t i n minimum i n s t a l l e d capaci t ies of 3000 MWe i n 1985 and 40,000 MWe i n the year 2000. procedure, i t w a s estimated t h a t f o r a 600 MJe plant operating a t a 70% load f ac to r , the c a p i t a l cost and e l e c t r i c a l energy generating cost of a fluid-bed bo i l e r plant would approximate 85% and 931, respectively, the corresponding costs of a conventional-boiler power plant.

Using a common-basis cost ing

h. The primary b a r r i e r s t o implementation are: sorbent regeneration and su l fu r recovery, f o r the system va r i an t s involving regenera-

. t ion; demonstration of high-temperature, high-pressure pa r t i cu la t e - removal technology f o r pressurized systems; and demonstrating the operabi l i ty on a large sca l e of the integrated b o i l e r systems.

A National Fluidized Bed Program has been established i n the Office of Coal Research (Dept. of the In t e r io r ) . Because of its concern with SOx and NOx emissions control, the E.P.A. recommended a F i sca l Year 1975 program i n t h i s area t o t a l l i n g $9.75 million,. Department's Office of Coal Research recommended f o r F i sca l Year 1975 a sum of $34.0 million f o r its Direct Boiler Combustion Propram. This program includes development of atmospheric fluidized-bed b o i l e r s (ult imately t o 800 Mll'e), of pressurized fluidized-bed b o i l e r s ( t o 500 We), and supportive laboratory and process-development-unit research. The t o t a l funding f o r F i sca l Year 1975 should, therefore , be 43 t o 44 million do l l a r s , an increase of about 140% beyond the FY 1974 t o t a l of $14.2 million. In addi t ion, the I n t e r i o r Department (EnerPv Research Program of the U.S. Department of the I n t e r i o r Draf t , Februarv 1974) projects a t o t a l funding requirement i n the subject area f o r the next f t ve years (FY 1975 through FY 1979) of $342.4 million. i-S provided, compares favorably with the $368 million recommended by $+panel V fo r an "accelerated/orderly program" through FY-1980,

&!a are i n e s s e n t i a l accord with your comment and f e e l t h a t the procram plan recommended w i l l lead t o fluid-bed b o i l e r power plants becominR an important contributor t o the Nation's e l e c t r i c a l power generation capacity i n the 1980's, though probably three t o four gears l a t e r than suggested i n your l e t t e r s . This does not imply t h a t other energy generation systems, including nuclear f i s s i o n reactors , w i l l not a l s o be needed.

In addi t ion, the I n t e r i o r

Thjs fundinp,

9. Comment:

'"The important thing i n t h i s cost-benefit analysis is tha t it can be completed i n d e t a i l on a year by year bas i s so t ha t each assumption and each conclusion can b e reviewed, a l t e r n a t e s considered and the optimum

V.15-17

- 8 -

mix determined. ... The in te rna l rate 'of r e t u r n should b e c a l c u l a t e d f o r each program from the complete stream of c o s t s and b e n e f i t s f o r each year i n the per iod from 1974 and 2020."

Response :

The AEC W B R Program is reviewed on a r e g u l a r b a s i s by t h e O f f i c e of Management and Budget and the J o i n t Committee on Atomic Energy. cos t -benef i t ana lyses of t he ETFBP, Program have been prepared.* Final Statement , which a l s o inc ludes cos t -benef i t s t u d i e s . con ta ins t h e rate of r e t u r n (% 15%) for t h e W B R Program under base cond i t ions i n Sec t ion 11.2.3.3.3.

Deta i l ed The

*1, USAEC - Cost-benefi t Analysis of t he 1J.S. Breeder Reactor Program WASH-1126 (Apr i l 1969) .

2. US.\EC - Upflntrd (1071)) C o s t Rc?_cfit ' , nn lvs i s of t he U.S. Breeder Reactor Program IUSli- l ld4 (Jctiiiiarv i J 7 - 1 .

V.16-1

A p r i l 21, 1974 HARVARD UNIVERSITY

THE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES I 6 DIVINITY AVENUE

CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSE?TS 02138

Ass i s t an t General Manager f o r Biomedtical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs U . 9. Atomic Energy Comies ion

Washington, D. C . 20545

Dear S i r , . I have been examining t h e Draf t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Xetal

The seve ra l v3luses of t h e d r a f t s ta tement -of fer an impreseively wide range of Fas t Breeder Reactor Program, and I have t h e fol lowing comments t o o f f e r .

information on t h e LMFER and on a l t e r n a t i v e froms of ensrgy production, present and p o t e n t i a l . However, i n my opinion, t h e information i s so presented a s t o be s l an ted i n f a v o r of t h e LKFER and aga ins t poss ib le a l t e r n a t i v e s . I n f a c t t h e f a s t breeder i s by f a r t h e most hazardous, and t h e most p o t e n t i a l l y po l lu t ing , means of producing energy on a l a r g e a c a l e , arcong a l l t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t a r e open t o u s . My own primary concern, a s e medically t r a i n e d biochemist, i s with t h e enormous t o x i c i t y of plutonium. There i s universa l agreement t h a t it i s one of t h e moat t o x i c substances known. Moreover t h e recent repor t by Arthur R . Tamplin and Thomas B . Cochran on "Eadiat ion Standards f o r H o t P a r t i c l e s " (Natural Resources Defense Council, Yashington, D. C . , Feb. 14, 1974) produces s t rong evidence t h a t t h e present t o l e rance s tandarde for plutonium and o ther s i m i l a r alpha emi t t e r s a r e f a r t o o permissive. They claim t h a t t h e maxircum permissible lung burden should be reduced by s. f a c t o r of 115,000. I would not claim cmpetence t o pass any judgment on t h & s exac t f i g u r e , but t h e svidence t h a t extremely small hot p a r t i c l e s have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s s i b i l i t y of inducing cancer i n a small region of lung ( o r o t h e r ) t i s s u e iTmediately surrounding t h e p a r t i c l e s e e m t o me highly persuasive. More reeearch i s obviously needed, bu t t h e v i s e course, i n t h e absence of de f in i - t i v e i n f o r m t i o n (which w i l l t ake a long time t o ob ta in ) i s t o assume t h a t t h e danger i s very r e a l , ar.d make our standarde of r a d i a t i o n exposure much more s t r i c t aocordbngly .

A l i q u i d metal f a s t breeder r eac to r of about 1000 MWe capac i ty w i l l con ta in something of t h e order o f a t o n of plutmium-239. The po ten t i a l cancer-inducing doae, f o r inha led p a r t i c l e s (probably i n t h e form o f h 0 2 ) may be of t h e order of a microg-It i s t h e r e f o r e obvious t h a t t h e plutonium i n the r eac to r must be kept r igourous ly out of contac t wi th t h e outs ide world, m d espec ia l ly with t h e b i o here . Furthermore t h i s must be t rue, not only while t h e p lu toniuz i s i n t h e reac T or , but throughout i t s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o and from t h e proceseing and reprocessing p l an t s , and during t h e long per iod, of t h e o tder of hundreds of cen tu r i e s , t h a t w i l l be requi red f o r b e s torage of rad ioac t ive wastes. Since t h e h s l f l i f e of plutonium-239 i s approxiEately 24,000 years , aad s ince s a f e storfige must be over a per iod of a t l e a s t 20 t imes t h e ha l f l#fe , t h e req&ired period i s around ha l f a mi l l i on yeare . This i s of t h e order of a geo l ig i ca l spoch; two o r t h r e e per iods of extended g l a c i a t i o n , and of subsequent r e t r e a t of t h e g l a c i e r s , have been experienced by t h e e a r t h during t h e l a s t ha l f m i l l i o n yea r s . The f a c t i s t h a t t h e problem of s to rage of rad ioac t ive wastes i s s t i l l unsolved; t h e r e have been many p r o p o s a u , bu t none t h a t i s r e a l l y safe or s a t i s f a c t o r y , even f o r t h e per iods of about 700 years t h a t wmld b e required f o r e torage of radionucl ides such a s s t ron- tiw90. I cons ider it i r r e spons ib l e t o plan a huge system of f u t u r e .nuclear f i s s i o n power p l an t s , when t h e problem of s to rage of wastes i s s t i l l unsolved, and t h e r e i s no r e a l so lu t ion i n s i g h t .

plutonium involves a l l s o r t s of hazards. These a r e discussed i n t h e d r a f t environmental s ta tement , but t hey a re played down i n a manner t h a t I conQider decept ive. The hazards t h e f t and sabotage. As t o ( 1 ) I t h ink it i s only r e a l i s t i c t o f i g u r e on a substan-

Apart from s to rage , t h e problems of s a fe t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of ma te r i a l s r i c h i n

a re of two general kinda ; ( 1 ) ordinary human ca re l e s sness , and ( 2 )

V.16-2

To Aseistant General Manager, A.E.C. 2

t i a l amount of care lessness and e r r o r i n t h e handl ing of t h e s e mater ia la . If many hundreds, o r perhaps a few thousands, of breeder r e a c t o r power p l a n t s come i n t o opera t ion wi th in t h e next f i f t y years , as t h e A.E.O. enviaagee, t e n s of hundreds of thousands of people a r e going t o be involved i n shipping, handling, and s t o r i n g t h e s e mater ia l s . Some of t h e s e people a r e going t o make mistakes, and a s t h e oper- a t i o n g e t s l a r g e r and comes t o seem more l i k e a mat te r of rou t ine , t h e number of mistakes w i l l g radual ly increase . Last y e a r more t h a n l l 5 , O O O ga l lons of highly rad ioac t ive mater ia l leaked out of one of t h e s torage tanka a t Hanford, and t h e l e a k was not discovered f o r more than 50 days. There had been o ther s e r i o u s leaks at t h e fianford p lan t before t h a t . If t h i s sort of t h i n g can happen now, when t h e development of nuclear energy i s s t i l l i n an e a r l y s tage , how many such e r r o r s can we expect i f t h e program i s a hundred f o l d l a r g e r than it i s today. To e r r i s human, bu t when t h e e r r o r s involve leakage of plutonium they become simply i n t o l e r a b l e .

As t o point ( 2 ) above, I be l ieve t h a t t h e hazards of t h e f t and sabotage a r e very g r e a t ; f a r g r e a t e r than t h e Draf t Bnviromental Statement admits. We l i v e i n an e r a of war and violence. 3sbotage of an i n t a c t nuc lear power p lan t may be d i f f i c u l t t o c a r r y out, but bold and determined f a n a t i c s , who a r e w i l l i n g t o s a c r i f i c e t h e i r l i v e s , can accomplish d e s t n m t i o n under c i rcunatances t h a t would seem inconceivable t o m o a t r a t i o n a l people. The Arab t e r r o r i s t s who recent ly k i l l e d 18 people i n a nor thern I s r a e l i town, and knowingly s a c r i f i c e d t h e i r own l i v e s i n doing so, a r e I be l ieve forerunners of many o ther s i m i l a r people, some of whom w i l l d i r e c t t h e i r h o s t i l i t y a g a i n s t t h e United S t a t e s . Furthermore some of them w i l l have t h e a b i l i t y and determinet ion t o b r a i n themselves highly i n t h e necessary technica l s k i l l s t h a t w i l l enable them t o dea l with t h e s p e c i a l problems fnvolved i n a t t a c k i n g nuc lear power p lan ts .

The plutonium f r o n e breeder reac tor w i l l he much more enriched than i n r e a c t o r s of t h e type c u r r e n t l y i n uae, and it could be made i n t o weapons grade mater ia l with only a moderate mount of chemical p u r i f i c a t i o n . I am c e r t a i n l y no expert i n t h i s f i e l d , but I knDw t h e t some p h y s i c i s t s who a r e exper t s a r e -1ery worried indeed about t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e f t of plutonium, followed by c landes t ine manufacture of nuclear weapons. If t h i s prospect i s r e a l , it i s indeed appal l ing .

g r e a t dea l of information about a l t e r n a t i v e forms of energy production, tends t o play down t h e i r e igni f icance and promise i n an u n j u s t i f i a b l e way. I n s p i t e of a31 i t s drawbacks, coa l can provide f o r ou r eergy needs f o r q u i t e a long time t o come. I ts mining and i t s use must be subjec t t o much s t r i c t e r envirnnmental safegueards t h a n i n t h e p a s t ; t h i s w i l l r a i s e t h e p r i c e of c o a l s u b s t a n t i a l l y , but we must be prepared i n any case f o r a r ise i n t h e c o s t of energy i n t h e years t o come. While re ly ing temporar i ly on coa l , a s wel l a s what o i l remains, we s h m l d push ahead wi th t h e utmost vigor on development of nuclear f u s i o n , s o l a r energy, geothermal energy, and o ther techniques t h a t a re l e s s p o l l u t i n g than nuc lear f i s s i o n . We should a l s o i n s t i t u t e a f a r reaching program of energy conservat ion, and e f f i c i e n c y i n t h e use of energy. The breeder reac tor should probably cont inue, as one research p r o j e c t among many; but i t s widespread uae on a commercial b a s i s should be ccn- s idered only a l a s t , r a t h e r desperate r e s o r t , t h a t we might f a l l back on i f a l l e l s e f a i l a . I do not be l ieve f o r a moment t h a t a l l a l e e w i l l f a i l .

t h a t I have w r t t t e n f o r a new i n t e r n a t i o n a l journa l "Environmental Conservation". It dea ls i n more d e t a i l with some of t h e poin ts I have discuspedd i n t h i s l e t t e r .

'

The dangers of t h e f t of plutoniua during shipment w i l l a l s o be extremely ser ious .

F i n a l l y I t h i n k t h a t t h e d r a f t Environmental Statement, al though it gives a

I enclose t h e page proofs of an a r t i c l e on t h e hazards of nuclear f i s s i o n power

Yours s i n c e r e l y

- 4 John T . Edsa l l , M. D .

Profesaor of Biochemistry, Emeritus I apologize f o r my perso% typing i n t h i s l e t t e r . I am a tout t o leave f o r Europe

and had t o type it while my secreaary i s away.

0

Hazards of Nuclear Fission Power and the Choice of Alternatives

V.16-3

32

JOHN T. EDSALL, M . D . (Harvard), Mem. Nat. Acad. Sciences c'I..ic c.';:,' , > J 1 A '

S W d L tl+L , , -.- . .-3

Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachuserrs 02138, U.S.A.

Presidenr. VI Inrernarional ConRress of Bioc/runiisrry; \ ' I

\ , Professor of Eiocliernistry, BiOkJgiCal Laborarories of Harvarrl Utriversity,

ENERGY NEEDS A N D NUCLEAR FISSION

Power from nuclear fission has been widely regarded as the chief future source of energy. The progressive depletion of the world's supply of oil, and still more of natural gas, is now in sight; and the continued utilization of coal on a large scale presents formidable technical and ecological problems. These issues have been sharpened by the partial cut-off of oil supplies to Europe and the United States from the Arab countries in October and November 1973. Voices urging a rapid development of nuclear fission power are becoming more numerous and urgent. At the same time, those who are primarily concerned with human health, and with the protection of the environment from contamination, are increasingly alarmed by the hazards of pollution from nuclear fission. The conflict has become particularly acute in the United States, where the per caput consumption of energy is far higher than anywhere else in the world, but similar issues are soon bound to arise in other countries.

People who stress the need for a vast programme of nuclear fission-plants, for example in the United States, point out that the consumption of electric power in that country has been doubling every decade for the last 30 years. They forecast a continued doubling in each of the two coming decades, regard this increase of power consumption as an essentially irresistible trend, and claim that nuclear fission is the only agency capable of meeting the need. Their opponents claim that the hazards of large-scale nuclear fission operations are intolerable, that there are other forms of energy production-solar energy, geothermal energy, and quite likely nuclear fusion-that could be developed to supply needed energy with far less pollution than nuclear fission would involve. They also point out that the people of the United States use energy with great extravagance, and that the use of energy can be substantially reduced, in many ways. without the sacrifice of vital needs.

I belong to the latter school. 1 shall argue here the case against building more nuclear fission-plants, and in favour of energy conservation and the development of alternative sources of energy. I shall try to make no claims that are not justified by known facts; but the reader should be aware, from the beginning, of my point of view.

Eminent scientists are to be found on both sides of this controversy. Thus Glenn Seaborg (as indicated by his statements while he was Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission) favours the building. of nuclear tission power-plants as a major source of energy; Hannes AlfvCn (1972) opposes it. Ordinary citizens ask how it is possible for supposedly objective scientists to draw opposite conclusions from the same set of facts. Some people have learned to distrust science, and scientists, because of such disagreements, but in doing so they misunderstand the nature of the problems.

A decision on building nuclear power-plants cannot be made intelligently without the knowledge of a great many scientific facts, but it is essentially a political and social decision. The range of relevant facts is enormous; it encompasses not only data from physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and meteorology, but also other less 'hard' data from the whole realm of human history and experience. Reliable scientific data are essential for making wise decisions, but, the relative importance of different categories of facts is a matter of judgment, where honest men can differ passionately.

My own judgment concerning the hazards of nuclear power is deeply influenced by my general estimate of human nature and behaviour, and by my reading of history. People have to operate nuclear power-plants, no matter how much automation we introduce. People are forgetful, often they are irresponsible, and quite a few of them suffer from deep-seated irrational tendencies to hostility and violence. One need\not be a student of psychoanalysis to be aware of these facts; one need only read the newspapers.

V.16-4

Also, as a student of history, I am haunted by the long record, extending over centuries and millennia, of the rise and fall of human societies, and of the collapse of social orders that had seemed stable and enduring- resulting in the periodic recurrence of dark ages in which the level of technology declines and communication between different parts of the world declines with it.

I believe that the confident advocates of the safety of nuclear power-plants base their confidence too narrowly on the safety that is possible to achieve under the most favourable circumstances, over a limited period of time, with a corps of highly trained and dedicated personnel. If we take a larger view of human nature and history, I believe that we can never expect such conditions to persist over centuries, much less over millennia.

33

THE BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL HAZARDS

THE FAUSTIAN BARGAIN

One of the ablest and best informed advocates of the nuclear fission power programme, Alvin Weinberg, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has stated our choices in terms of what he calls a ‘Faustian bargain’ (Weinberg, 1972). Mankind can receive an unlimited supply of energy from nuclear fission, which, he says, ‘when properly handled is almost non- polluting.’ In return for this great gift we must maintain incessant vigilance to guard against leaks and accidents, and we must maintain ‘longevity of our social institutions’ to a degree that is probably un- paralleled in history. Weinberg believes that we should accept the bargain. 1 hold, on the contrary. that this, like the original bargain made by the legendary Dr Faustus, is a pact with the Devil, and that we should resolutely refuse it (Edsall, 1972).

Use of nuclear fission energy involves a vast complex of operations-the mining of uranium, its chemical purification, the installation of the fuel rods in the reactor, and the safety precautions in the design and operation of the reactor itself; also the periodic removal of the intensely radioactive fission products from the reactor, their transportation by rail or truck to a reprocessing plant, and finally their storage. This storage has to be in suitable containers and in places where it is supposed that they can be safely left for periods of the order of 100,000 years, out of all contact with human or other forms of life. I shall point out below that there is no evidence that such places in fact exist. The hazards to mankind lie not only in possible leakage from the operating reactors themselves, or in the small but definite possibility of a catastrophic release of radioactivity; the hazards exist all along the line, from the initial mining of the uranium to the final-if indeed it is final-disposal of the envisaged huge quantities of radioactive waste.

Before discussing these various operations, consider what we know of the biological hazards of nuclear radiation. The upper extreme limits of exposure, for a nuclear fission power-plant, would be represented by a catastrophic release of a large fraction of the total radioactive material in the reactor. This is generally considered an extremely improbable but by no means impossible event, of which more is to be said later in this article. A study made for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1957) attempted in great detail to estimate the possible effects of such an accident, for a reactor producing 500 megawatts of thermal energy. The accident was estimated, under the worst circumstances, to lead to the deaths of some 3,400 people, and injury to as many as 43,000. Property damage, it was estimated,.could run as high as seven thousand million (7 x IO O) dollars, and there might be some restrictions on the use of land and crops, for variable periods,

,over areas which might be as great as 150,000 square miles (380,000 km*)). We should note that the reactors now being planned are approximately six times as large as the one for which these calculations were made. Fortunately, no such accident has yet occurred, and all estimates of the magnitude of such disasters are no more than informed guesses. If such an accident did occur, however, it would presumably rank among the major disasters in the history of mankind.

At the other extreme we must consider the biological effects of low-level radiation, below or near the level of the natural radiation background to which we are all exposed. The most authoritative report on the eKects of such radiation is probably that of a committee of the U.S: National Academy of Sciences, known for brevity as the BEIR Report (1972). The natural background radiation exposes an average inhabitant of the United States to about 100 millirem per year (mrem/ yr),* of which somewhat less than half is due to cosmic rays. Persons living at high altitudes. as in Colorado. may receive natural doses twice as large as those at sea-level, or more.

At present the chief exposure to man-made radiation is from medical and dental x-rays. In the United States, where such uses are common, average exposure from this source may be two-thirds of that from the natural background. The importance of restricting such medical uses to essential purposes. and of carefully shielding all parts of the patient (especially the gonads) (apart from those that are actually being examined by

* The rem is a unit of dose equivalent. I t is closely related to the rad, which is defined as a unit o i absorbed dose equal to 0.01 joule per kg in any medium. ‘To convert rads to rems one multiplics by certain factors depending on the relative biological effects of various types of radiation, hut for present purposes we can treat the rem and the rad as roughly equivalent.

n

V .16-5

34

x-rayb is obvious; but this .important point is only incidental to the problems that concern us here.

The BEIR Report (1972) discusses three major types of damage that arise from radiation-genetic damage, from gene mutations and chromosome aberrations; induction of cancer; and damage of various sorts during the early stages of development, to which the foetus and the young child are particularly susceptible. The Report, in accord with the judgment of the great majority of experts today, concludes that we must assume that there is no threshold value below which radiation does no biological damage; even the smallest increment of radiation in the environment must be expected to increase the statistical probability that a person exposed to it will suffer genetic damage, or develop cancer, or both. Direct experimental proof of this proposition is virtually impossible, as the expected effects are so small a t very low radiation levels. Impossibly large populations would have to be studied, a t very low levels, to obtain statistically significant results. Thus in practice by extrapolation we cal- culate the effects a t very low levels from the observed effects a t higher levels.

The BEIR Report concludes that the doubling dose for genetic abnormalities in Man probably lies in the range between 20 and 200 rem; that is, a lifetime dose of this order of magnitude, applied to the whole human population, would double the number of genetic abnormalities arising from all causes, including the natural background radiation. The present official limits for human exposure, as set by the Federal Radiation Council, are 170 mrem per year, or a total of 5 rem for a 30-years reproductive period. If the whole reproductive population of the U.S.A. (assuming 3.6 million births per year) received this dose, the report estimates that, a t equilibrium after several generations, there would be between 500 and 9,000 additional serious, dominant, or x-linked, diseases and defects per year. There would also be between 1,100 and 27,000 additional cases of congenital abnormalities and constitutional diseases that are partly genetic; and there might be an increase, of the order of 5 per cent, of general ‘ill health’ in the population.

All these estimates, as the BEIR Report is careful to point out, are highly uncertain, being based largely on extensive studies on mice, with the tentative assumption that mice and Men are not very different in their sensitivity to radiation. Moreover, at the present time, our exposure to man-made radiation (apart from medical x-rays) is far below the ‘allowed’ figure of 170 mrem/yr. The report estimates it as about 4 mrem/yr from global fallout due to weapons testing, and as about 0.003 mrem/yr from present nuclear power-plants. With respect to radiation-induced cancer, the BEIR Report estimates that additional exposure of the U.S. population to 5 rem over a 30-

years period could cause an additional number of deaths from cancer of the order of 3,000 to 15,000 annually. Earlier, J . W. Gofman & A. Tamplin, in a series of articles (cf. 1972), had come to a similar conclusion, but had predicted a much larger number of additional deaths from the increased radiation; they estimated at least 30,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 deaths annually. Some scientists, and others, sharply criticized them at the time for claiming that such an effect existed at all; but thecareful calculations of the BEIR Committee support their argument qualitatively, even though estimating a much smaller number of deaths.

Two things should be said, to avoid misunderstanding. The allowed total of 5 rem over a 30-years period, for man-made radiation apart from medical x-rays, is far above what people sre receiving today, as pointed out above. Even if radiation levels rose, so that an appreciable fraction of the population were getting as much as this, the average exposure for the entire population would still be considerably less. On the other hand, any rise of radiation levels, even a very small one, will mean that some people will die of cancer who would not otherwise have died, just as the descendents of some people, who might otherwise have been normal, will suffer genetic damage. The effects will be detectable only statistically; we shall not be able to say ‘This man (or woman or child) died because of the added radiation from such-and-such a nuclear power-plant.’ Nevertheless we must face the fact that we are paying with human lives for whatever benefits we get from the source of the radiation. How d o we strike a bargain, to equate the costs that we must pay with the benefits we get? This question is raised explicitly in the BEIR Report, whose authors conclude that an answer is far beyond their scope or competence. They urge, however, convincingly, that no increase in radiation levels is acceptable unless it can be shown unequivocally to yield benefits that justify it.

Dr E. J. Sternglass (1972 a), of the University of Pittsburgh, has claimed the existence of increased infant mortality in the neighborhood of nuclear power- plants, particularly in the directions (towards which the prevailing winds blow. There is indeed general agreemerit that the foetus and the very young infant suffer far more than the adult from a given dose of radiation; but a number of authors have sharply criticized the statistical evidence that Sternglass has presented. Some of the critics-see, for instance, Tompkins era/ . (1972)-have produced data on infant mortality around several nuclear power reactors that are apparently in direct conflict with the views of Sternglass. Many arguments, with some further data, are presented in the papers and the discussions in the same volume of Le Cam er a/ . (1972). M y own view is that Sternglass hasnot as yet madeout aconvincingcase,

V.16-6

35

but that his contentions are sufficiently disturbing to call for careful further study by statistical methods and other forms of inquiry. As the following discussion indicates, [ agree with the conclusion that the building of large numbers of nuclear fission-plants represents a n unacceptable hazard for the future of mankind, even if we are to dismiss completely the evidence presented by Sternglass.*

Thus the operations of nuclear fission reactors present us, on the one hand, with the possibility of occasional catastrophic accidents, in which thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people might be exposed, over a short time, to fatal doses of hundreds or even thousands of rems. On the other hand, as the number of nuclear fission-plants multiplies-the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contemplates the proposal that some 2,000 will be in operation in the United States alone by the year 2020-the total leakage of radioactivity may reach substantial levels, for which the people and other living organisations of the world will have to pay in increased deaths and disabilities. The risk that we shall have to pay a heavy price depends, not on the best performance of the most carefully shielded reactors under ideal conditions, but on the average performance of this prospective vast array of reactors, managed by fallible and sometimes careless operators, and subject to the hazards of sabotage and war.

THE FIRST STEP IN THE SEQUENCE: URANIUM MINING

Consider the first event in the total sequence of events in the production of fission power-the mining of uranium, and its residual products. Uranium miners are known to suffer from an increased risk of lung cancer from inhaled radon (for a critical evaluation see the BEIR Report, 1972); they are engaged in a hazardous occupation. After the preparation of purified uranium oxide from the ore, there remain great quantities of radioactive liquid wastes, as well as solid ‘tailings.’ In the Colorado River basin, for a t least a decade in the 1950s, the liquid wastes were simply dumped into the streams that fed into the Colorado River. Thus the inhabitants who lived downstream were subjected to 2 or 3 times the offi- cally permissible dose of radium (the dose limit set by the International Committee on Radiological Protec- tion). As to the solid tailings, Holdren & Herrera (1971) stated that, a t the time their book was written, some 30 million tons of tailings had accumulated; those a t abandoned mills alone contained enough

The book by Sternglass (19726) describes his views and the controversies in some detail. I note it here. partly because. it was the occasion for a very interesting and thoughtful review by Hoffman & lnglis ( I 972).

radium to exceed, by a considerable margin, the maximum permissible body content of radium for every person on Earth. Most of the piles of tailings were beside rivers and streams, where they could wash into the flowing water. By an almost incredible blunder. some 3,000 houses in Grand Junction, Colorado, were built on land-fill and concrete made up of such radioactive tailings. The facts were not publicly revealed until 1970; for years before that, and since, the people of Grand Junction were breathing radon derived from radium (half-life 1,620 years) in the land-fill below their feet (Holdren 6r Herrera 1971).

This shocking episode was presumably not due to conscious criminal intention on the part of anybody; it was simply a manifestation of human carelessness and irresponsibility. Possibly some of the contractors knew what risks they were imposing on the people of Grand Junction, but chose to disregard them in order to increase their profits; but one need not make such accusations. Throughout history the operators of every type of technology have made disastrous mistakes from time to time; bridges collapse, trains collide, and airplanes crash, from sheer blunder and miscalculation-or from shoddy design. The people who built the mine tailings into the city of Grand Junction were guilty of the same human failings that have plagued mankind from the start. The difference lies in the potential magnitude of the consequences; if a few dozen, or a few hundred, people die in a’plane crash, that is a tragedy; but it is a mere ripple in the onward flow of the affairs of mankind. If increased radioactivity permeates the environment, however, all mankind will have to pay the price, in increase of deleterious mutations and hereditary abnormalities, in increased cases of cancer, and in defects of development.

Certainly, in the handling of the liquid wastes and the tailings from the uranium mines, the dedicated supervisory priests whose watchful presence, according to Weinberg (1972), should be essential for prevention of damage, were in fact conspicuously absent. The nuclear scientists and engineers, who had so devotedly worked to develop safeguards for reactors and for many aspects of the nuclear industry, had not watched with comparable care over the mines and their products.

HAZARDS OF PRESENT NUCLEAR REACTORS: HEARINGS ON EMERGENCY CORE-COOLING SYSTEMS

A modern type of reactor may develop some 3.000 megawatts of thermal, or 1,OOO megawatts of electrical, power. The corresponding level of ridioactivity is of the order of 1.2 x 1 O 1 O curies, where I curie denotes 3.7 x 1Olo nuclear disintegrations per second. These quantities are so huge that the radioactivity must be

V.16-7 c3 rigidly contained within the reactor system; even the escape of as little as one tenthousandth (0.01 per cent) of this amount to the outer environment would represent a n unacceptable risk. It is of course supremely important that no major accident should occur in such a reactor. It could occur if the circulating cooling water were lost, so that rising temperatures in the intensely radioactive core would lead the whole structure to melt and collapse. This would probably lead to the release of intolerably large amounts of radioactivity. The AEC therefore requires that emergency core- cooling systems be installed on all reactors, to prevent such disasters.

Serious questions have been raised, however, concerning the safety of these systems, and these led to extensive hearings, beginning in January 1972, before a Hearing Board appointed by the AEC itself. Sixty citizens’ groups, known as the Consolidated National Intervenors (CNI), raised questions concerned with reactor safety; and the Union of Concerned Scientists, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, served as the technical arm of CNI.

The hearings, the transcript of which ran to some 20,000 pages, centred on the safety and adequacy of the emergency cooling systems. The testimony at the hearings raised some extremely disturbing questions concerning reactor safety. These have been set forth particularly by Daniel F. Ford & Henry W. Kendall, of the Union of Concerned Scientists-first in a short article (1972), and then in a much more detailed report (1973). The hearing record shows clearly that some of the best-informed experts-for instance Dr William B. Cottrell, Director of the Nuclear Safety Program of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Dr P. L. Ritten- house, who was in charge of the AEC’s Fuel Rod Failure Program; and Dr Morris Rosen and Mr Robert Colmar, of the AEC Regulatory Staff-had grave reservations concerning the safety and reliability of the ‘emergency corecooling systems in their present state. They expressed these concerns in their testimony, in spite of written instructions from the AEC to its witnesses to ‘never disagree with established policy’ (Exhibit 1013 of the hearings, quoted by Ford & Kendall, 1973). Dr Rittenhouse indeed ‘read into the record the names of 28 individuals whose reservations concerning emergency core-cooling performance had influenced his own views concerning the serious unresolved problems in this aspect of reactor safety technology’ (Ford & Kendall, 1973).

Moreover,. extensive as the hearings were, the Hearing Board arbitrarily refused to hear testimony on matters that would appear to be highly relevant. Thus, they prohibited testimony concerning the possible causes of loss-of-coolant accidents, on the somewhat peculiar ground that, once the Commission had postulated the occurrence of such an accident,

36

consideration of causes was irrelevant. Likewise they refused to consider testimony on the probability that such an accident might occur, or concerning the possibility that the reactor system might fail in a manner ditferent from the mode postulated by the AEC. For instance, the possibility that an accident might occur because of the failure of the reactor pressure vessel was ruled out from consideration as being (presumably) inconceivable, although i t seems clearly a conceivable possibility. (Concerning these matters, see Chapter I11 of Ford & Kendall, 1973.)

This is only a much-abbreviated and incomplete statement of the many disturbing issues that emerged from the hearings. (Other disturbing aspects of the nuclear safety programme are discussed by Gillette (1972).) At the time when this article was submitted (November 1973), the AEC had announced no final decisions concerning the issues raized at the hearings. There are powerful forces, in Government and in industry, pressing for the rapid development of nuclear power-plants, and they are reinforced by the current sense of urgency for the development of new energy sources, due to the cut-off of $oil from the Arab states to Europe and the United States. Nevertheless the AEC will fail in its responsibilities if it disregards the apparently grave deficiencies in the present emergency core-cooling systems, and proceeds to license reactors in haste.*

In any case, even if the emergency cooling systems could be shown to be adequate, fission reactors are dangerous. As the number of reactors increases, with a resulting great increase in operating personnel, the quality and sense of dedication of the operators is likely to decline; the number of leaks will surely increase, and the world-wide level of radioactivity will sloWly rise. Virtually every form of technology has gone through periods of slow decline, as its operations have become routine and the operators have become careless or complacent. In the United States we have witnessed such a decline in the operation of our rail- roads over the last quarter-century. In periods of war and social disintegration, such disintegration of advanced technology may be far swifter and indeed catastrophic. Nelson Glueck (1960), for instance, has described the superb systems of water-use and conser-

* I n late November 1973 the Union of Concerned Scientists released a detailed report (Ford er ol., 1973) on the nuclear fuel cycle and its hazards. In a press conference they, together with consumer advocate Ralph Nader, strongly criticized the AEC for what they considered its grave disregard of safety considerations in- the development of nuclear fission. This brought a sharp reply from the new chairman of the AEC. Dr Dixie Lee Ray, who was quoted as saying of these critics: ‘They have used innuendo and inaccuracies to build a case against nuclear power, largely on emotional grounds. We do not believe that the people will be fooled’ (quoted in Ncwswjeek, 10 December 1973, p. 138). This seems a pretty clear indication that the AEC intends to pursue its course in building nuclear fission-plants, regardless of the warnings of its critics.

V.16-8

vation developed by the Nabateans, and continued by the Romans. in the Negev desert, and the collapse of this technology with the disintegration of the Roman empire. Nuclear technology is not immune to such future disintegration; and the effects of such a decline will not be merely local, as with the water of the Negev, but may liberate radioactivity so as to imperil mankind in general.

THE BREEDER REACTOR AND ITS DANGERS

It is proposed to replace the present uranium water reactors by fast breeder reactors which are hailed by the AEC as the great hope of the future. The breeder reactor seems at first sight to be a bargain, as it produces more fuel than it consumes, and holds out the prospect of providing mankind with practically unlimited supplies of energy; but its prospective dangers are immense. The proposed breeder would have a power density of the order of 400 kilowatts per litre- 10 to 12 times that of the light water reactors now in operation. This heat-flux is to be carried off by molten sodium, flowing through the core at about 5 cubic metres per second, and emerging from the core intensely radioactive and at a temperature near 550 "C. The core of such a reactor is to contain about a ton of plutonium-239, one of the most toxic substances known, which is powerfully carcinogenic even in minute doses and persists with a half-life of 24,000 years.

The hazards of the present reactors will be multiplied m a n y f o l d ~ n the breeders; an explesion in a- fy t

~ I I i h s e d e r could make t3ousandS of square miles(iunn- .aabi table for many years, and could endanger the lives

and health of millions of people. Yet the AEC has proposed that as many as 2,000 such breeders may be built and in operation in the United States by the year 2020. As is pointed out in a searching critique by Lovins (1972), the projected breeder system by 2020 would require dairy 100 railway cars loaded with casks of spent fuel, on their way to and from reprocessing plants (see also Tinker, 1973). The radioactivity of the spent fuel a t the time of shipment from the reactor site, after a cooling-off period of 30 days, would be some 500 million curies for the fuel of a single reactor. The risks of accident during shipment, between the reactor and the processing plant, add another alarm- ing dimension to the problem of nuclear safety.

--_ __ ---- --. __ C

THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES

There is, in fact, no safe place known for the storage of the radioactive wastes that are produced in such huge quantities by reactors of the present type, and

37

Q will be produced, as indicated above, by the proposed breeder reactors. To achieve a safe period of storage, one must place these materials where they will be out of contact with mankind, indeed with the living world in general, for a period of the order of at least 20 half- lives of the radioactive material. For Plutonium-239, with its halflife of 24,000 years, the required period of storage is roughly half-a-million years. This is of the order of a geological epoch; the last glacial period, which buried much of Northern Europe and North America under ice, came and went in a far briefer time. How can we give assurance of safe storage, even for a few centuries, much less for half-a-million years ?

In 1971 the AEC believed it had found such a safe place in underground salt-mines in Kansas, supposedly free from leakage of water and contact with the outside world. Within a year, geologists had shown that in fact the region was full of holes, and certainly was not safe for storage. The AEC then abandoned the plan, and no satisfactory alternative has yet been proposed.

In 1972 James Schlesinger, then Chairman of the AEC and now Secretary of Defense in the U.S. Government, suggested in a speech that we might get rid of radioactive wastes by shooting them off in rockets to the sun. He did not say what would happen if some of them fell back to Earth by mistake, nor did he estimate the consumption of energy and of material for the rocket caseings that this would involve. Others have suggested burying the radioactive wastes in the ice of Antarc- tica, where their heat would cause them to melt their way down until they hit bottom (Zeller et a/ . , 1973); but in fact we do not know what will happen to the ice of Antarctica over the next half-million years, and must regard the safety of the scheme as highly dubious. Actually, there is as yet no proper solution to the problem of radioactive wastes, and there is none in sight. To urge a huge development of nuclear fission reactors, when this problem remain unsolved, seems to me highly irresponsible.

Fantastic suggestions have been put forward.

HAZARDS OF THEFT AND SAROTAGE

Apart from the ever-present dangers of accident and carelessness, the fissionable material in these reactors. and that contained in the shipments of radioactive wastes, is vulnerable to theft and sabotage. We live in an era of violence, war, and widespread revolutionary activity; there I S no indication today of the 'longevity of social institutions' that Weinberg (1972) postulates as an essential component of the 'Faustian bargain.' The recent wave of aerial hijackings h a \ terrifying to many people, but its hazards are trivial compared with the potential dangers involved in the

f \ V.16-9

/possible placing of explosives by spies within a nuclear fission-plant; a well-placed charge of explosives, in the midst of one of these huge concentrations of radioactive material, could blow into the air enough radioactivity to be carried over many thousands of square kilo- metres and perhaps render large areas unihabitable for

/

enormous. The temptations to theft will be particularly strong

if the breeder reactors come into operation. The concentration of plutonium, in the material of the breeder reactors, will be sufficiently high to allow its conversion into plutonium of nuclear weapons' grade by relatively simple techniques. Thus the hazard involved in the spread of nuclear weapons to the countries not now posessing them would be greatly increased. This and other related hazards have been pointed out already by several authors; they are well summarized in a recent article by Ralph E. Lapp (1973).

In short, by developing a large-scale system of nuclear fission-plants, we shall be giving hostages to terrorism. The advocates of the construction of these plants see them as being managed in an ideal world, what AlfvCn (1972) has called 'a technological paradise.' Like AlfvCn, I see the real world as a very different place, in which we must allow not only for human carelessness, but for the irrational violence that is always present as an element in human nature, and is displayed by some people in extreme and uninhibited form. I would consider it highly irresponsible to make plans based on the assumption that everybody will behave rationally. One need only look at the Near East today, a t south-east Asia, or at the situation in Northern Ireland, to realize the intensity of irrational violence which may break out anywhere at any time.

Some people may wish to believe that the very fear of such disasters may cause mankind to become sober and careful. Weinberg (1972) illustrates this point by the example of the dikes of Holland, which must be perpetually guarded and maintained, generation after generation, to preserve the country from flooding. This very example, I believe, refutes his argument. In the closing months of the Second World War, the retreating Germans unhesitatingly destroyed much of the dike system, with consequent flooding and devas- tation which took years to repair. Likewise the dikes in North Vietnam, which are equally vital for the security of the country, were repeatedly bombed by United States' planes in the summer of 1972. Although the government of the United States stated that the bombing of the dikes was accidental, the dikes were not treated as being off-limits to the bombers. These examples offer little or no hope that the contending forces in a future war would refrain from attacking

nuclear fission plants in the enemy country, and thereby releasing vast quantities of radioactivity.

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY, AND MODES OF ENERGY CONSERVATION /-.

fJh& What, t h e n m w e do about the 'energy crisis'? In .

so far as a crisis exists, it has come about primarily because people chose to ignore the facts about the steady depletion of our energy resources. Experts have warned for years that the world's supply of oil was shrinking, but nearly all policy-makers Lhase to disregard the warnings. Coal supplies are still available, in quantities that would last a few centuries at the present rate of consumption. However, the deep mining of coal is expensive and hazardous to the miners, and surface stripmining ruins the environment -unless expensive steps are taken to restore the mined land to good condition. Moreover, the burning of coal produces pollution, unless the pollutants are removed before they escape into the atmosphere; and this, too, is an expensive process. These facts, combined with the increasing shortage of oil, have furnished the most powerful arguments for those who propose a vast programme of nuclear fission-plants. Yet the hazards of such plants, on the grounds that I have stated above, appear to me to render such a programme unacceptable.

There is no fully satisfactory solution to this problem. Every possible choice carries its attendant evils, and we must therefore aim at the choice that minimizes those evils, both in the near future and for generations to come. For the present we must choose, among available techniques, those that are most effective and least damaging; and we must a t the same time move vigorously to increase efficiency in the use of our present energy resources. We must greatly intensify research on possible future large. scale sources of energy that are relatively non-polluting- notably nuclear fusion, solar energy, and geothermal energy. And there are other smaller but nevertheless useful ones, such as harnessing the tides, winds, and even waves of the ocean.

As to the immediate future, I believe that we must continue to rely primarily on fossil fuels-and this may mean chiefly coal-for the next twenty or thirty years. If this requires more strip-mining, there should be rigorous laws, rigorously enforced, for restoration of the land after mining, while strong anti-pollution measures should be required for factories that burn coal. Power will therefore become cpnsiderably more expensive; we should face that fact, and pay the price. The rise in the price of power will in itself compel more efficiency and economy in its use.

V . 16-10

Numerous steps can be taken in this direction. None of the proposals suggested here is new: indeed all have k e n widely discussed-see, for instance, the recent paper of Hirst & Moyers (1973), and particularly the book on 'Energy and the Future' by Hammond et ai. (1973) which gives an admirable factual survey of the present and prospective methods of energy production and conservation.

Several of the following proposals, which seemed remote to most people only a few months ago, have now become matters of urgent concern with the developing fuel crisis:

1. Consider the design and operation of all types of power-producing machinery, and redesign them in order to strive for optimum efficiency. In the days when we believed that we could spend energy freely, efficiency was often not a prime consideration. Now it is. 2. Insulate buildings better, to reduce the energy consumed in space heating, which is approximately 18 per cent of total current energy consumption in the United States (see Hammond et ai., 1973). 3. Increase the use of public transportation (trains, buses, etc.) to carry commuters between cities and suburbs; discourage the use of private cars, by increased taxes on fuel and by greatly increased charges for the parking of cars in the centres of cities. (A man who parks his car in a city centre is renting an extremely valuable piece of real estate.) Ban cars entirely in much of the interior of cities. This will save energy and also reduce air polkition. 4. Set a sliding scale of costs with rates charged for use of power increasing as the amount used increases. This will tend to promote both efficiency and economy. It will, as one instance, force the owners of large business buildings to turn off their lights a t night, instead of letting them burn as they commonly do at present. 5. Divert to civilian purposes a large fraction of the vast amounts of energy now used to keep the arms race going. This would obviously be desirable for other reasons. This proposal may seem Utopian in the present state of the world, but it may look much more realistic within another decade or so. 6. Develop a population policy that will lead, as rapidly as possible, to zero population growth, and indeed ultimately to a slow decline of human population to a lower and more stable level than we have today. This is of course a long-term proposal. Initiation of such a policy will have no dramatic effects within the next decade or two, but in the long run it is probably the most important factor of all.*

'See the P m e d i n g paper hy Professor Paul R. Ehrlich.-Ed.

/ '

39

PROSPECTS FOR OTHER, LESS POLLUTING, FORMS OF ENERGY

No form of energy production can be wholly non- polluting, but some are far preferable to others. if they prove feasible and adequate, nuclear fusion, solar energy, and geothermal energy, would all be much superior to the major sources of power available today.

(a) Nuclear Fusion: - As yet, no one can say for sure that energy from fusion will ever be comnier- cially practicable. Nevertheless, the progress of recent years is such that expert engineers believe that the prospects are decidedly promising (Gough & Eastlund, 1971 ; Post, 1971 ; Hammond et al., 1973). The funds at present going into fusion research in the United States are relatively modest. It would be a sensible gamble to increase them several-fold, at once, with further large increases to follow in the coming years. If the gamble pays off, we shall have a practically infinite source of energy, with relatively low pollution hazards; it would then render all nuclear fission-plants obsolete. If the gamble fails to pay off, we have lost nothing but some money and the time spent by some investigators. In any case, the research is likely to be a good investment; it is almost certain to yield valuable information and practical devices that will probably more than repay the cost of the investment. (b) Solar Energy: - The total energy-flow from the sun is of course incomparably the largest ultimate source of energy on Earth. On a sunny day, the rate of influx of solar energy at the Earth's surface, in temperate latitudes, is of the order of one kilowatt per square metre (Glaser, 1972; Hammond et al., 11973). Hitherto its employment has been limited, although it has been found useful for space- heating under suitable conditions, and this use now appears to be capable of being greatly extended. Most experts in the past have discounted the possibility of using solar energy on a large scale for the production of electrical energy, but there is now a great renewal of interest in the subject; many promising approaches are under consideration (NSF/NASA Energy Panel, 1973; Hammond et al, 1973), and research on solar energy appears to deserve active support and greatly increased funding. If it can be successfully used on a large scale, it would undoubtedly be the least polluting form of energy production. We are not as yet justified in making enthusiastic claims for solar energy, but we would be grossly remiss if we did not vigorously prosecute research in this field. (c) Georherntal Dtergy: - The heat of the interior of the Earth has been tapped i n a few places, as in Iceland and in one small region of Italy, to produce

V . 1 G - 1 1

40

energy in a form useful for, Man. It seems unlikely that it can ever provide a large fraction of our energy budget, but it can probably be tapped to a far greater extent than seemed possible until lately (Hickel et a/., 1972; Hammond et a/., 1973). Lt may prove to be in the end a useful auxiliary source of energy, and research in this field certainly deserves

%Ue\ active support. The same must be I'DM of some at least of the other, minor sources of energy.

I t seems apparent that, a t least in the United States, we urgently need a National Energy Authority to study the whole field of energy production and use, to promote research in every at all promising aspect of the field, and to formulate the choices among which we must decide on the best measures to be taken for economical and efficient use of energy as well as for its large-scale production. The final decisions on those choices must of course be made by the Congress and by the people of the United States. Moreover, since the problem is world-wide and transcends all national boundaries, 1 believe that we shall also need an International Energy Commission, as AlfvCn (1972) has suggested.

At some later period, in spite of our best efforts, it might conceivably prove that nuclear fusion, solar energy, geothermal energy, and all other techniques, will be inadequate to meet our needs. In that case we might ultimately be forced to utilize fission energy on a large scale. In view of what I have already said, I find the prospect appallingly dangerous. If mankind is to w\ embark on such a n enterprise, $e should do so with full realization of the awful responsibilities it entails, for us and for hundreds or thousands of future generations. Such realization does not exist today. I believe we should hold off for a t least a generation, accepting all the trouble that such a decision will involve, and make a supremely intensive effort to develop other, far less hazardous, large-scale sources of energy. The prospects for success now seem hopeful, and the survival of mankind will be far more secure if we draw our future energy supplies from these less polluting sources.

SUMMARY

Nuclear fission reactors are widely regarded as the chief energy source of the future. This article holds that the hazards of such reactors, in comparison with other prospective energy sources, are unacceptably high. The biological effects of ionizing radiations, as analyzed in the recent BEIR Report (1972) of a committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, are briefly reviewed; the effects include genetic mutations, induction of cancer, and developmental abnormalities. Hazards are encountered at many stages in the process

of nuclear power production: in the mining and processing of uranium, in the design and operation of the reactors, and in the handling, shipping, and storage, of the huge quantities of radioactive wastes produced by the reactors. Grave questions have been raised concerning the safety of the emergency core-cooling systems of present reactors; and the planned breeder reactors, which will contain great quantities of plutonium-239, are likely to be even more hazardous. Storage of radioactive wastes, away from all risks of environmental contamination, in order to be acceptable must be secure for about half-a-million years. No place on Earth has yet been found for which such safety can be guaranteed. Hazards of theft, sabotage, and war, are formidable threats to the future of nuclear fission power.

Use of fission power is not compulsory; present supplies of coal are adequate for two or three centuries, though its mining and use will require drastic steps to protect the environment, thereby raising costs. Alter- native, and far less dangerously polluting, sources of large-scale energy production exist or can be developed: notably solar energy and probably nuclear fusion, where intensive research gives high promise of adequate systems for large-scale energy production within 20-30 years. Geothermal energy, though more limited in amount, is also promising. Great savings can also be made by reducing the extravagant use of energy, especially in such countries as the United States; and various conservation measures are indicated.

References

A L F V ~ N , H. (1972). Energy and Environment. Science and Public A.fairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), 28(5) , PP. 5-8.

The Effects on Populations of Expo- sure io L o w Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, Division of Medical Sciences, National Academy of Sciences: National Research - , , /;.'----..

EDSALL. J. T. (1972). Nuclear Energflwith a reply b ; ,y 'VS ,x / 7 FORD, D. F. & KENDALL, H. W. (1972). Nuclear safety.

Environment (St. Louis), 14 (7). pp. 2-9 and 48. FORD, D. F. & Kendall, H. W. ( 1 973). An Assessment of the

Emergency Core Cooling Systems RiilemakinK Hrarinx. Union of Concerned Scientists, P.O. Box 289, M.I.T. Branch Station, Cambridge, Massachusetts 021 39: [216] pp. [numbered separately for each chapter], duplicated from a typed original.

FORD, D. F., HOLLOCHER, T. C., KENDALL, H. W., MAC- KENZIE. J. J., SCHEINMAN, L. & SCHURGIN,A. S. (1973). The Niiclear Fuel Cycle. A Survey of the Piihlic Henlth, Etivironmeniol atid Naiional Secitrity Aspects of Niiclear Power. Union of Concerned Scientists, P.O. BOX 289, M.I.T. Branch Station, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139: vi + 207 pp.

BEIR REPORT (1972).

Council, Washington, D.C.: 217, pp. ' .- A. M. Weinberg]. Science, 178, p. 933. L.

.2_1

V. 16-12

GILLETTE, R. (19 . Nuclear safety. [A series of four articles in] Science, 177, pp. 77-16, 867-71, 970-5, 1080-2.

GLASER, P. E. (1972). Solar Energy-an option for future energy production. Physics Teacher, 10, pp. 4 4 3 4 .

GLUECK, N. (1960). Rivers iti the Desert: A History of the fi/ Negev. Gfove Press, New York: xvi -1 303 pp., illustr. -

FJ\ovR GOFMAN, J. W. & TAMPLIN, A. (1972). Epidemiolog$! studies of carcinogenesis by ionizing radiations. Pp. 235- / 68 and discussion, pp. 269-77 in Le Cam et a/. (q.v.).

GOUGH, W. C. & EASTLUND, B.J. (1971). The prospects of fusion power. Scienrific American, 224, pp. 50-64.

HAMMOND, A. L., METZ, W. D. & MAUGH, T. D., I1 (1973). Energy and rhe Future. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.: xii + 184 pp.

HICKEL, W. J. (1972). Geothermal Energy. Report ‘obtainable from the U.S. Government Printing Office,’ but author has so far been unable to obtain a copy.

HIRST, E. & MOYERS, J. C. (1973). Efficiency of energy use in the United States. Science, 179, pp. 1299-1304.,

HOFFMAN, A. R. & INGLIS, D. R. (1972). [Review of) ‘Low- Level Radiation’ by E. J. Sternglass. Science and Public Afairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), B ( I O ) , pp. 45.52.

HOLDREN. J. & HERRERA, P. (1971). Energy. The Sierra Club, San Francisco & New York: 252 pp.. illustr.

LAPP, R. E. (1973). The ultimate blackmail. New York Times Magazine, 4 February.

LE CAM, L. M., NEYMAN, J. & SCOTT, E. L. (Eds) (1972). Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on

41

h I ~trratical Statistics arid Probability. Effi~cts e/ Pollution on Health. University of California Press, Berkeley: xviii I 599 pp.

LOVINS, A. B. (1972). The case against thekast breeder reactor. Science and Public Affiiirs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), 29(3), pp. 29-35.

National Resource. Report obtainable from the Depart- --.- NSF/NASA ENERGY PANEL (1973). Solar energy as u ---

(US), 68, PP. 1931-7. STERNGLASS, E. J. (l972a). Environmental radiation and

STERNGLASS, E. J. (19726). Low-level Radiation. Ballantine

TINKER, J. (1973). Breeders: risks Man are not run.

TOMPKINS, E. A., HA~MILTON, P. M. & HOFFMANN, D. A. \3 (1972). Infant mortality MLhrq,. .nuclear power ’ reactors.

U.S. ,ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (1957). Possibilities and Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear Power Plants. A report of 32 typed pages with 9 appendices: not a publication, though the author has been able to obtain a copy personally.

WEINBERG, A. M. (1972). I institutions and nuclear ’ ./

ZELLER, E. J., SAUNDERS, D. F. & ANGINO, E. E. (1973). Putting radioactive wastes on ice: a proposal for an international radionuclide depository in Antarctica. Science and Public Afairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), 29(1). pp. 4-9 and 50-52.

human health. Pp. 145-232 in Le Cam et a/. (q.v.).

Books, New York: x -1- 214 pp.

New Scieniist, 57, pp. 473-6. ‘9

Pp. 279-89 in Le. Cam et al. (q.v.). r- Theoretical L*“ Uh

...- - - --

energy. Science, 177&*:i. -.. . -... . .e-; ;t .--

I

I

,

V.16-13

UNITED STATES

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

BLC 3 1 1974 John T. Edsa l l , M.D. Professor of Bioclieidstry , Emeritus The Bio logica l Laborator ies Harvard Universi ty 16 Div in i ty Avenue Cambridge, Massachrrsetts 02138

Dear D r . Edsal l :

Thank you fo r your le t ter of Apr i l 21, 1974 commenting on the Atomic Energy Commission's Draf t Environmental Statement on the Liquid ?:eta1 Fas t Breeder Reactor (UlFBR) Program. The Statement has been rev ised where appropr ia te i n response t o the many comments received, and a copy of t h e F ina l Statement is enclosed f o r your information. AEC s t a f f responses t o your s p e c i f i c conments are a l s o enclosed. More d e t a i l e d information concerning your comments and concerns on Plutonium Toxic i ty is presented i n Sec t ion 4.7 and Appendix 1 I . C of t h e F ina l Statement.

Your letter and the a t tached a r t i c l e , "Hazards of Nuclear F i s s ion Power and the Choice of Alternat ives" express concern over t he hazards of t h e f t of materials r i ch i n plutonium, and the hazards of sabotage of f a c i l i t i e s o r t ranspor t containing such mater ia l s . AEC safeguards have been e f f e c t i v e i n prevent ing such acts i n the p a s t , and, notwithstanding a poss ib l e growth i n the i n t e n s i t y of t e r r o r i s t and o the r i l l e g a l a c t s , i t is be l ieved t h a t s t rengthened safeguards measures can b e developed and implemented t o assure the s z c u r i t y of f u t u r e commercial f u e l cycles such as the LIFBR. Sect ion 7.4 i n t he F ina l Statement has been ex- t ens ive ly rev ised i n response t o many safeguards-related comments received. It is hoped tha t your c a r e f u l reading of t h i s s ec t ion , as w e l l as of the information i n Sec t ion 5 . 4 . 2 on the soc io -po l i t i ca l impacts of f u t u r e safeguards, w i l l a l l e v i a t e your concern.

Your i n t e r e s t i n the LllFBR Program and comments on WASH-1535 are appreciated.

S incere ly ,

u s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

Enclosures : 1. AEC S t a f f Response t o Comments 2. Fina l Environmental Statement,

LHFBR Program (IJMH-1535)

V.16-14

ENCLOSURE 1

AEC S ta f f Response To Comments By John T. Rdsall. M.D.

1. Comment (page 2): Alterna t ive Energy Sources

The s igni f icance and promise of a l t e r n a t i v e sources of energy are played down i n an un jus t i f i ab le way; coa l can provide our energy needs f o r some time.

Response :

As discussed i n the "Perspectives" sec t ion of Section 6 of the enclosed Final Statement, the AEC believes tha t each a l t e r n a t i v e technology option has been f u l l y evaluated and presented i n an appropriate l i g h t in term of its a b i l i t y t o supply s ign i f i can t amounts of energy in the time period under consideration. in Section 6 , which has been revised t o r e f l e c t the comments received on t h e Draft Statement. Possible increased wage of coal , aa suggested in the le t ter , is a l s o discussed i n Section 6 , as are t h e seve ra l o the r technologies mentioned.

2. Comment (page 2): Alterna t ive Energy Sources

Each option is thoroughly t r ea t ed

Other energy a l t e rna t ives should be developed and a program of energy conservation should be i n s t i t u t e d ; widespread use of the breeder on a commercial bas i s should be considered only as a last resor t .

Response :

The energy requirements of t h i s Nation are so l a rge and pressing t h a t no s i n g l e method cur ren t ly ava i l ab le f o r meeting our needs, nor any system expected t o become ava i l ab le by the end of t h i s century, is completely adequate to do the job. tioned as 'lsolutionsl ' t o the energy crisis, such as s o l a r energy, geothermal energy, nuclear fusion, and even the breeder reac tor , f a l l into t h i s category. It w i l l take the combined cont r ibu t ions from a l l these energy sources plus the more conventional systems such as f o s s i l fueled power p lan ts t o s a t i s f y our e l e c t r i c i t y requirements. Atomic Energy Commission believes t h a t the LNFBR is the most promising energy source i n terms of its likelihood f o r providing s u b s t a n t i a l amounts of e l e c t r i c i t y in the r e l a t i v e l y near term time period r e l i a b l y , s a fe ly , economically, and i n an environmentally acceptable manner. For this reason the AEC has provided s u b s t a n t i a l support t o LMFBR development, bu t i t recognizes tha t o the r energy supply systems are also required and supports t h e i r development.

All of the technologies o f t en men-

The

The ob jec t ive of the LMFBR program is t o develop a broad technological and engineering base with extensive u t i l i t y and i n d u s t r i a l involvement leading t o the establishment of a commercial breeder industry.

V.16-15 0 2

A t t he t i m e t h i s is achieved, a c t u a l deployment of t he LTfFBR o r any otlicr energy opt ions then a t the poin t of commercial usefulness w i l l depend on the r e l a t i v e merits of each a l t e r n a t i v e option. which opt ions t o use w i l l then be made by the e lectr ical u t i l i t y . i ndus t ry based on the t echn ica l , economic and environmental s i t u a t i o n p reva i l i ng a t t h a t t i ne . an t i c ipa t ed t h a t t he re w i l l be a mix of technologies used i n the f u t u r e t o generate power.

The dec is ions on

As with present e lectr ical production, i t is

3. Comment (from enclosure) : UlFBR Plant Safety

The letter ootes t h a t an enclosed ar t ic le dea ls i n more d e t a i l wi th po in t s i n t h e letter. On page 33 of the a r t i c l e i t is s t a t e d : t h e confident advocates of the s a f e t y of nuclear power-plant base t h e i r confidence too narrowly on the s a f e t y t h a t is poss ib le t o achieve under the most favorable circumstances, over a l i m i t e d period of t i m e , wi th a corps of h ighly t r a ined and dedicated personnel. I f w e take a l a r g e r view of human na tu re and h i s to ry , I be l i eve t h a t w e can never expect such condi t ions t o p e r s i s t over cen tu r i e s , much less over mil lenia ."

"I be l i eve t h a t

Response:

The gene ra l approach towards assur ing t h a t nuclear p l a n t s are s a f e is summarized i n Sec t ion 4.2.7.3. As is evident from t h i s s ec t ion , and o t h e r s e c t i o n s of the F ina l Statement, care is taken t o assure t h a t any poss ib l e r i s k s r e l a t e d t o nuclear r eac to r s are kept as low as p r a c t i c a b l e and low r e l a t i v e t o many o the r s o c i e t a l r i sks . i n Sec t ion 4.2 .7 .5 , a key aspect of design is the requirement t h a t the p l a n t be a b l e t o s a f e l y withstand acc idents , even though ex tens ive measures are taken t o prevent acc idents from occurring. Ce r t a in ly these practices do not reflect a narrow v i e w of t he s a f e t y t h a t can and is being achieved.

A s discussed

4. Comment (from enclosure) : LMFBR Plan t Safe ty

On page 37 of the enclosed article it is s t a t e d : r e a c t o r s w i l l be mul t ip l i ed many-fold i n t h e breeders ; an explosion i n a f a s t b reeder could make thousand of square miles uninhabi table f o r many years , and could endanger the lives and h e a l t h of mi l l i ons of people."

"The hazards of t he present

Response :

We are aware of no information to support t h i s statement. camparision of breeder r eac to r s and LWR's is contained i n Sec t ion 4.2.7.4 of the Final Statement. b reeder is i n Sec t ion 4.2.7.8. reactor s a f e t y s tudy headed by Dr . Norman Rasmussen of XIT shows t h a t major reactor acc iden t s , i f they occur, would not lead t o the d i r e consequences t h a t people have been l e d to bel ieve. u n l i k e l y events.

A more d e t a i l e d

A d i scuss ion o f explosion p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e The r ecen t ly i ssued d r a f t r epor t of the

I t a l s o shows such acc idents as highly

V .1 6-1 6

3

5. Comment (pages 1 and 2) : Radioactive Waste Management

It w a s s t a t e d t h a t "the problem of s to rage of r ad ioac t ive wastes is s t i l l unsolved" and t h a t i t i s " i r r e spons ib l e t o p lan a huge system of fu tu re nuc lear f i s s i o n pcwar p l a n t s , when the problem o f s to rage of wastes is s t i l l m s o l v e d , and t h e r e is no real s o l u t i o n i n s i g h t . " Concern over t he probable r e s u l t s of human ca re l e s sness w a s expressed and the exper- i ence wi th the Hanford was te s t o r a g e tank leaks as an example of t he consequences of human ca re l e s sness w a s c i t e d .

Res pons e :

The near-term waste management program t h a t has been adopted by t h e M C f o r h igh- leve l waste calls f o r r e t r i e v a b l e s u r f a c e s t o r a g e as descr ibed i n Sec t ion 4.6.3.1 i n the F ina l Statement. The AEC be l i eves t h i s t o be a s a f e and r e l i a b l e system for waste s to rage . A t t he same t i m e , a comprehensive a n a l y s i s of poss ib l e u l t ima te d i sposa l a l t e r n a t i v e s is being c a r r i e d out . There are enough promising u l t ima te d isposa ls concepts p re sen t ly be ing eva lua ted t h a t t h e prospec ts f o r developing an acceptab le u l t ima te d i sposa l method wi th in a per iod measured i n decades is probable. The t i m e requi red f o r development and implementation of most of these concepts has been es t imated t o be i n t h e range of 20 t o 30 yea r s . Thus, s a f e methods f o r handl ing and s t o r i n g these high-level wastes w i l l be provided for and t h e implementation' of concepts for u l t ima te d i sposa l is i n s i g h t .

Regarding the Hanford waste tank l eaks , t he IIanford s i t e was o r i g i n a l l y s e l e c t e d because of t h e s o i l condi t ions and t h e dry desert c l imate which provided f o r e x c e l l e n t r e t e n t i o n of any l i q u i d leaks i n t h e s o i l i m e d i - a t e l y ad jacent t o the leak . The l eaks from t h e Hanford waste tanks , a l though r ece iv ing wide p u b l i c i t y , have not r e s u l t e d i n exposure t o any member of t h e pub l i c . Furthermore, t he p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t any member of t h e p u b l i c w i l l b e exposed t o r a d i a t i o n i n t h e f u t u r e as a r e s u l t of t h e s e i n c i d e n t s is e s s e n t i a l l y zero.

6. Comment (pages 1 and 2): Tranepor ta t ion Accidents

The problem of ord inary human ca re l e s sness i n the sh ipping of ma te r i a l s r i c h i n plutonium is no t d i scussed proper ly i n t h e F i n a l Environmental Statement f o r the'LMTBR Program. Many people w i l l be involved i n t rans- p o r t a t i o n f o r t he LMFBR f u e l cyc le i n t h e f u t u r e and some of t hese people are going t o make Inistakes.

n

V.16-17

4

m p o n e e :

The problem of human e r r o r is c e r t a i n l y of concern and a c t i o n wi l l be taken t o minimize its occurrence and t o mi t iga te the consequences of human e r r o r i f i t should occur. It should be noted t h a t packages for t h e t r anspor t a t ion of r ad ioac t ive materials are manufactured and t e s t ed to very high s tandards, and m u s t be capable of withstanding severe acc idents , without r e l eas ing any r ad ioac t iv i ty ( sze Sect ion 4.5 of the F ina l Statement). of these packages would appear t o be i n s e a l i n g before shipment. Regu- l a t o r y s tandards and requirements as descr ibed i n Appendix 1I.M have been promulgated t o assure t h a t human e r r o r s do no t lead t o s i g n i f i c a n t r a d i a t i o n doses if such errors should occur. These r egu la t ions include q u a l i t y assurance inspec t ions of packages and r ad ia t ion monitoring p r i o r t o shipment. I n add i t ion , before de l ive r ing a package t o a carrier f o r t ranspor t , the sh ipper must determine t h a t no "s igni f icant" loose rad ioac t ive contamination is on the outs ide of t h e package, t h a t the r a d i a t i o n levels on t he su r face of the package and a t a d i s t ance of 3 f t from the package meet t h e spec i f i ed regula tory levels, and t h a t t h e marking and l abe l ing comply with the requirements. sh ipper a l s o must c e r t i f y i n wr i t i ng on the shipping papers t h a t t he r ad ioac t ive materials are properly c l a s s i f i e d , descr ibed, packaged, marked, and labe led and are i n proper condi t ions fo r t r anspor t according t o t h e appl icable WT regula t ions .

The main opportuni ty fo r human e r r o r i n the t r anspor t

The

In conclusion, it is recognized t h a t the problem of ind iv idua l human error cannot be eliminated completely. a major extent, and a well-designed and r igidly-enforced system of checks and c e r t i f i c a t i o n s , as discussed i n t h e F ina l Statement, can be employed t o pro tec t t he hea l th and safety of the public .

However, it can be reduced t o

V.17-1

I

Allegheny Power Service Corporation Pan of the Allegheny Power Syatem

Cabln Hill. (3reensburg;Pa. 15601 (412) 837-3000

April 22, 1974

Office of the Assistant General Manager for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Programs U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Sir:

Attached are comments concerning the WASH-1535 Draft Environ- mental Statement on Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program, dated March 1974. Reactor supported by the AEC, a Utility Sponsor Group and General Atomic Company, my comments are directed toward utilizing the GCFR as a viable alternate breeder technology.

As a participant in the review of the Gas-Cooled Fast Breeder

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WASH-1535.

Very truly yours,

GCFR Program7Review Committee I

Attachment

V. 17-2

COMMENTS ON WASH-1535 LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR PROGRAM MARCH 1974, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Volume IV

In 1973, Bechtel Corporation completed its design of the Balance-of-Plant and has developed a schedule and cost for the GCFR. B e Utility Group (called the Program Review Committee) has reviewed this work in depth and has concluded that GCFR is very promising; has no safety or technical problems that may preclude its being licensed; has an 11-year development time including front-end organization and engineering; has a 1973 cost level of less than $500,000,000 for a reactor of 300 MWe; and that a size extrapolation to greater than 600 MWe be proposed €or the first GCFR demonstration plant due to the importance of developing conunercial-size plant components in the time frame under consideration. more difficult to obtain, larger unit sizes will take priority. addition, the Program Review Cormnittee questions the advisability of developing breeder reactors with large doubling times, so large in fact that the fissile inventory needed to fuel these breeders can never be recovered in the breeding process. imperative that an optimum breeding ratio be defined; i.e., one that realizes independence from uranium reserves or tails. The GCFR has the potential for better-than-optimum breeding ratios and should be pursued as actively as the LMFBR.

'Ihe reason for this is that, as sites become In

For this reason, I feel it is

P. P-1 to P-7

In this section a discussion of breeding ratio and doubling time must be made as it affects the nation's fissile inventory.

W. C. Guyker, Chairman GCFR Program Review Committee

41 221 74

v.17-3

UNITED STATES


c 3 1 1974

Kr. W. C. Guyker, Chairman GCFR Program Review Committee Allegheny Power Serv ice Corporat ion Cabin H i l l , Greensburg, Pennsylvania 15601

Dear M r . Guyker:

Thank you f o r your l e t te r of Apr i l 22, 1 9 7 4 commenting on t h e Atomic Energy Commission's Dra f t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor ( W B R ) Program. The Statement has been r ev i sed where appropr i a t e i n response t o t h e many comments r ece ived , and a copy of t h e F i n a l Statement is enclosed for your information. This let ter provides r e p l i e s t o t h e s e v e r a l p o i n t s you r a i sed .

With regard t o your comment ques t ion ing " the a d v i s a b i l i t y of developing breeder r e a c t o r s wi th l a r g e doubling times, so l a r g e i n f a c t t h a t t h e f i s s i l e inventory needed t o f u e l t hese breeders can never be recovered i n t h e breeding process ," t h e AEC b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s op in ion is unduly p e s s i m i s t i c and not i n agreement wi th t h e a c t u a l breeding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e LMFBR as ou t l ined i n t h e enclosed Statement. As discussed i n Sec t ion 11.2.2, advanced oxide fue led LVBRs are expected t o have a compound doubl ing t i m e of 10-15 yea r s , so t h a t by about t h e yea r 2010 they w i l l be a b l e t o provide t h e f u e l t o f u l l y s u s t a i n an e l e c t r i c a l energy demand growing a t a rate as h igh as 6% per yea r , encompassing all growth p r o j e c t i o n s examined i n t h e s tudy . t h e i r expected supe r io r performance, such as t h e ca rb ide f u e l s , w i l l have compound doubl ing times of 8-10 yea r s , and w i l l t h e r e f o r e se rve as an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t h e event t h a t t h e e lec t r ic power demand doubl ing t i m e exceeds t h a t s u s t a i n a b l e wi th oxide fuels. These figures fully r e f l e c t in-core f i s s i l e inventory needs and t h e requirements of o t h e r p a r t s of t h e nuc lear f u e l cyc le , and form t h e b a s i s f o r t h e AEC'S con- c l u s i o n t h a t t h e LMFBR w i l l be a b l e t o supply t h e f u e l needed f o r a growing electrical energy economy. For these reasons , t h e AEC does no t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e Gas Cooled Fas t Reactor w i l l p rovide any major advantage wi th regard t o f i s s i l e inventory d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t i ts breeding r a t i o is p ro jec t ed t o be h igher than t h a t of t h e LMFBR.

Advanced f u e l s wi th

With regard t o your sugges t ion t h a t t h e CCFR should be pursued as a c t i v e l y as t h e LMFBR, t h e AEC recognizes t h a t t h e GCFR has a p o t e n t i a l f o r h igh breeding g a i n and f avorab le p r o j e c t i o n s f o r c a p i t a l cos t . The u l t i m a t e

M r . W. C. Guyber

V.17-4

2

commercial v i a b i l i t y of t h e concept is, of course , no t y e t determined. The AEC be l i eves t h a t a t t b e p re sen t s t a g e of development i t is n e i t h e r necessary nor f e a s i b l e t h a t t h e GCFR be pursued as a c t i v e l y as t h e LXFBR. The GCFR provides a n a l t e r n a t i v e means f o r achiev ing breeder technoloTy, and t h e d e c i s i o n has been made t h a t t h e most p r e f e r a b l e and v i a b l e breeder concept is t h e LWBR (See Sec t ion 2.2.1.7 of t h e enclosed F i n a l Statement) . as LMFBR development i t would be necessary t o e i t h e r g r e a t l y inc rease GCFR funding, which would b e economically imprac t i ca l , o r t o decrease LMFBR funding, which would f u r t h e r de l ay t h e d a t e by which LMFBRs could provide u s e f u l e l e c t r i c i t y . Some combination of t h e s e two approaches could, o f course , be s e l e c t e d , bu t t h e r e s u l t s would l i k e l y be t h e same - a lessened assurance of t h e u l t i m a t e development and v i a b i l i t y of t h e h igher p r i o r i t y concept. approach towards GCFR developmeat, which inc ludes a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of suppor t for selected re sea rch and development t a s k s , is appropr i a t e . You are r e f e r r e d t o Sec t ion 6A,1.4.7 f o r a n ex tens ive d i scuss ion on t h e rel- a t i v e funding and d i f f e r i n g r e sea rch and development approaches of t h e LMFBR and GCFR programs.

I n o rde r f o r GCFR development t o proceed a t t h e same pace

For t h i s reason, t h e AEC be l i eves i t s c u r r e n t

We thank you f o r your comments on t h e s e important matters, and hope you w i l l f i n d answers t o any f u r t h e r ques t ions you may have i n the enclosed F i n a l Statement. app rec i a t ed .

Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LNFBR and GCFR Programs is

S ince re ly ,

Research and Safe ty Programs

Q

Enclosure: F i n a l Environmental Statement ,


c

V.18-1

EBASCO SERVICES I N c o n ~ o n ; \ ~ E n

U T I L I T Y C O N S U L T A N T S - E N G I N E E R S - C O N S T R U C T O R S

TWO R E C T O R STREET NEWYOnK, N.Y. 10006

CABLE AOOFIESS "EBDSCOE"

LEONARD F. C . R E I C H L E VICE PRESIDENT Apri l 22, 1974

Office of the Assis tant Manager fo r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety P r o g r a m s

U. S . Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Sir:

Attached herewith for your consideration a r e the personal comments of Dr. H. C. Ott on your March 1974 Draft Environmental Statement, WASH- 1535, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program. that l imitations of time have prevented as thorough a review of all aspects as he would have liked. in substantial agreement with his views.

He points out

Ebasco is

Sincerely yours,

LFCR:ee

V.18-2

Comments on March 1974 Draft

Envi r onme nt a1 State men t , WA S H - 1 5 3 5

Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor

P r e p a r e d by

Henry C. Ott

Ebasco Services Incorporated New York, N . Y. Apri l 2 2 , 1974

EBASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED

Apri l 1 9 , 1 9 7 4

Office of the Assis tant Manager for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety P rograms

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Sir:

I am attaching for your consideration my personal comments on your March 1 9 7 4 Draft Environmental Statement, WASH-1535 , Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor P rogram.

Limitations of t ime have prevented a s thorough a review of all aspects as I should have liked.

Sincerely,

Henry C. Ott Manager of Nuclear Technology

HC0:vb Attachment

V.18-4

. EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED

1.

2 .

3.

The s ta tement does se rve i t s intended purpose of showing that the

development of LMFBR would have an acceptable epvironmental

impact. detail but i t appears to represent a very thorough evaluation and I have no qua r re l with i t s conclusions.

I am concerned that, in my opinion, the s ta tement goes far beyond

the question of environmental impact in attempting to justify the

LMFBR as the Nation's highest pr ior i ty - - and almost exclusive - - energy goal. by itself can solve the problem of energy self-sufficiency.

question the need o r wisdom of pursuing the LMFBR.

about the ult imate technical success of the LMFBR - - perhaps with technical performance somewhat l e s s than claimed, but s t i l l ample to

justify i t s promise. someday i t w i l l be needed to ex t rac t energy f rom depleted uranium tails ,

though of course this need might be obviated by the success of fusion o r

some other advanced technology. However, it is by no means cer ta in

that LMFBRs can be economically competitive - - and hence commer -

cially acceptable -- fo r severa l decades,nor that in the in te r im some

of the al ternat ives , current ly given lower priority, may not be able to

contribute much more to alleviate energy shortages at lower cost.

Admittedly there a r e la rge uncertainties for all of the al ternat ives - - as well as for LMFBR. pr ior i ty for the LMFBR w a s s e t by judgment - - not necessar i ly infal-

lible. The draf t s ta tement does not provide any quantitative basis for

the LMFBR priority. concept is shown to deserve a higher pr ior i ty there w i l l be a need to

overcome prejudices established, needlessly, by the LMFBR impact

s ta te me nt .

I have not had time to study Volume I1 (Chapter 4) in

One gets the impress ion that LMFBR is su re of success and I do not

I have no doubts

I believe that there is a very good chance that

N o c l ea r cut prediction can be made. The

My concern is that i f and when an al ternate

I am well aware that the court decisions in the SIP1 and Calver t

Cliffs ca ses requi res that conside ration be given to the environmental

impact of a l ternates to the proposed action and that the consideration

V.18-5

EBASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED 2

should include,cost-benefit analyses which consider and balance the environmental effects of the facility and the al ternates for

feducing o r avoiding environmental effects as well as environmental,

economic, technical and other benefits of the facility. The required

considerations a r e not much different f r o m those for l icense applicants ' environmental repor t s , fo r which the introduction to Regulatory

Guide 4.2 states:

- -. - _ _

"The cost-benefit analysis shall , to the fullest extent practicable, quantify the various factors considered. To the extent that such factors cannot be quantified, they shal l

be discussed in qualitative te rms . 'I

Although I may disagree with some of the specific details of the cost-

benefit analysis presented I don't d isagree with the general conclu-

s ions regarding the environmental impact of the LMSBR program

p e r se . However, for good reasons, no r ea l a t tempt was made to

quantify factors relative to the al ternates , except for light water

reac tors .

4. \ I will admit that I have a special in te res t in the Molten Salt Reactor , which I feel has s o m e unique advantages for solving the energy problem which have not been recognized in the statement. It is not my intent to u s e these comments as a sales pitch for MSR, any more than I feel

it is proper to use the s ta tement as a sa les pitch for LMFBR. eve r , I do not want the s ta tement to foreclose the option for MSR o r fo r other alternatives. If I cr i t ic ize misleading s ta tements which bear

on a comparison between MSR and LiMFBR it is because of famil iar i ty with the specific implications. I would not feel qualified to discuss

dispar i t ies between LMFBR and non-nuclear a l ternates . The main thrus t of my comments is that LMFBR i s not the sole, cer ta in answer

to our energy problems - - and doesn ' t have to be to justify i t s develop-

ment.

How-

5 . I believe i t would be helpful to c lar i fy the missicn of the fast b reeder

in t e r m s of present needs. I don ' t consider the fact that the fas t

V.18-6

3 EBASCC) S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED

breeder can theoretically ex t rac t energy f rom most of the available

U-238 a s of overriding importance. impressed by the argument that such reac tors as HTCF., LWBR and

MSR, which utilize thorium, thereby exploit a new and extensive

energy source.

as the major advantage of the molten sa l t reac tor I consider this

point a lmost i r re levant compared to other attractive features of

MSR.

F o r the same reason I am not

Although' the draf t statement advances this argument

There i s no foreseeable shortage of fe r t i l e U - 2 3 8 or thorium for many generations to come. However, there is a foreseeable shor t -

age of the basic fissile mater ia l , U - 2 3 5 , needed for an expanding

nuclear power industry. Regardless of reac tor types employed, the growth of the fission nuclear industry w i l l be limited by the avai la- bility of uranium ore. The important thing i s to conserve uranium

o re - - not U - 2 3 8 and thorium.

Light water reac tors suffer f rom three significant defects:

a)

b)

They use too much uranium ore.

They need too much separative work (enrichment), and

c ) Thei r thermal efficiency i s undesirably l o w ; not only a r e they deficient in converting fission energy to e l ec -

t r ic i ty but they add to the burden of dissipating waste heat.

On the other hand, light water reac tor plants have two important

advantages:

a) They have achieved commerc ia l status because a t cur ren t

pr ices they a r e economically competitive with fossi l plants.

There i s a relatively mature light water reac tor industry

based on accumulated experience and the commitment of a sufficient number of large commercial units to support the

economic operation of plant equipment and fuel supply

facil i t ies. ically with light water reac tors to become commercial ly

acceptable.

Advanced reac tor types must compete econom-

HTCR may be approaching commercial status.

V.18-7

EDASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED 4

b) Light water reac tors a r e fa i r ly efficient in converting

na tura l o r low enrichment uranium to concentrated fissile fuel (pr imar i ly plutonium) which is essent ia l for the introduction of virtually any of the advanced

re a c to r type s . The mission then for L M F B R , o r other advanced reactor type is to overcome the defects of LWR. Specifically one seeks the development of a reac tor type which:

Requires significantly l e s s uranium o r e than LWR.

Requires significantly l e s s enrichment duty (SWU) than

LWR.

Has a significantly higher thermal efficiency than LWR, thus requiring l e s s cooling water and minimizing the amount of radioactive fission products per kwh generated.

Compete economically with LWRs and/or other energy sources . that p r ices would be lower than cu r ren t costs f r o m LWR, but, because one expects economic savings f rom realizing - a, band 2, above, the n e w reactor type should counteract the trend toward higher costs that would resu l t f r o m continuing depletion of uran ium rese rves . The objectives of resource conservation and dol lar economy a r e pret ty much

synonymous.

One can scarce ly claim cheap power in the sense

6 . The most important a t t ract ion of LMFBR is the capability of requiring significantly l e s s uranium ore than LWRs for the des i red nuclear power industry. gain o r doubling t ime. mater ia l needed to get a nuclear plant into operation. eral places in the draf t environmental s ta tement the express ion that "the LMFBR has no mining and milling components. ' I

c lear ly expressed in Paragraph 4 .1 .4 (Vol. 11, p. 4. 1-20): "The use of natural o r enriched uranium in the L M F B R fuel cycle is .required only

This capability is not measured simply in t e r m s of breeding

A l s o of importance is the inventory of f iss i le One finds a t s ev -

The logic is mos t

V.18-8

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED

i f the plutonium available as init ial fuel is insufficient for an expanding L M F B R economy. . . . . . In the projected nuclear economy discussed in Chapter 11, sufficient plutonium is available during the period covered by this statement. Therefore , the LMFBR fuel cycle has no mining and milling components,

I consider this s ta tement misleading. To the extent that plutonium available a s initial fuel comes f r o m water reac tors - - - and the l ion's sha re does in the expanding L M F B R economy d i s - cussed in Chapter 11 - - - that plutonium cannot be made available without a commitment for additional mining of U 0 3 8' of L M F B R s essent ia l ly all plutonium produced would be recycled promptly in L W R s ; there is nothing in the draf t s ta tement to indicate otherwise, f rom recycle in LWRs would have to be replaced with enriched uranium to keep the L W R s in operation. ki logram of f iss i le plutonium S O diverted will require the nuclear industry to mine about 0. 2 sho r t tons of additional U 0 3 8 expend about 110 SWU of enr ichment effort , I have been told by A E C staff that their projections of o r e and separat ive work requi re -

ments do take into account the added requirements due to in te r rup- tion of plutonium recycle. Nevertheless, I feel the reader is misled into believing that intro-

duction of the L M F B R has essent ia l ly no impact on the demand for

U308 o r SWUs. LMFBRs were demonstrated,they would be adopted for all new plants since all other reac tor types would be obsolete. recognition today that breeders a r e dependent on LWRs and that there w i l l be a continuing need to install new LWRs, a t l eas t through the yea r 2000, jus t to provide initial f iss i le inventory for f a s t b reeders .

Although the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) cannot boast of a s large a breeding gain as LMFBR it has the significant advantage that the

required inventory of f i ss i le fuel is very much less that that of

L W B R .

In the absence

Thus every ki logram of plutonium diverted

We est imate that each \

and to

I have no reason to question the projections.

At one t ime there was a common notion that,once

There is a bet ter

7.

A s a consequence more MSRs than L M F B R s can be added

5

n

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED

to the economy with a given supply of o re and separat ive work. This is t rue whether the MSRs a r e s tar ted with P u f rom LWRs o r with enriched U-235. It turns out that by using P u f rom LWRs it would be possible to substitute molten sa l t r eac to r s for the 400

GWe of b reede r capacity of AEC's "most likely" forecas t through the yea r 2000 A! with essentially no difference in demands for U308 and separat ive work (Ebasco es t imates actually show smaller r e - quirements for MSR,based on 1000 MWe plants).

claimed for molten sa l t reac tors is not the ability to burn thoxiurn but essent ia l ly the s a m e substantial improvement in resource uti l i- zation as LMFBRs relative to light water reac tors . 2000 the molten sa l t reac tor is quite comparable to LMFBR in:

Thus the advantage

' At l eas t through

a)

b)

c) Improved thermal efficiency.

Potential savings in uranium o r e requircments .

Potent ia l savings in separative work requirements .

In addition there a r e indications that ea r ly generation molten sa l t r eac to r s may be be t te r able to compete economically with light water

r eac to r s and hence reach commerc ia l acceptance a t an e a r l i e r date. The principal advantage of MSR is the elimination of fuel fabrication and the capability of on-s t ream refueling, whereas fuel fabrication is the l a rges t and most uncertain component of LMFBR fuel cycle cost. Although in the long t e r m the ability of LMFBR to utilize U-238 will probably be of importance, in the sho r t t e r m i t i s more important to reach commerc ia l acceptance.

By extending the cost-benefit analysis to 2020 the importance of the assumed high breeding rat io f o r the LMFBR is accentuated and the problems of achieving commerc ia l s ta tus a r e minimized. Admittedly,

11 WASH-1 139 (72)

6

v .18-10


there a r e technical problems which must be solved before MSR could

fulfill i t s promise. pr ior i ty is given to developing MSR technology. major contribution to the nuclear economy o d y i f introduced before the

fast breeder becomes:commerc ia l . But there is enough uncertainty a s

to when that might be that a paral le l effort on the development of MSR, at a much higher level than heretofore seems to be warranted.

I consider the discussion of the benefits of LMFBR star t ing on page 1. 5 - 3 to be quite weak.

ment, because of the difficulty of quantizing "external" benefits. difficult to do justice to the advantages of abundant and relatively cheap

energy. 1 . 1 1 - 1 8 where the wr i t e r s have put themselves on the defensive arguing

against somewhat vague c r i t i c i sms of the LMFBR program.

discussion that I note a tendency to disparage al ternates ra ther than to

stand on the m e r i t s of the LMFBR.

as a shoo-in to solve a l l the Nation's energy problems and I would not

consider a slippage of five, ten o r more yea r s t i l l the fast b reeder be-

comes competitive a s being t ragic . has enough m e r i t to warran t a vigorous effort , but not to the exclusion of

promising al ternates . The draf t environmental impact s ta tement is in no

way an adequate evaluation of the mer i t s of a l te rna tes , but in some in- s tances I feel i t has needlessly gone beyond i t s province in that direction.

On page 1. 8-4 the d ra f t s ta tement says "Fur ther , all fission reac tor sys tems have fundamentally the same environmental impacts a s the

LMFBR, and hence none of these would offer any significant improvement

in that respect'! (An expanded vers ion of the same conclusion appears on

page 5-4.) It might be added that, conversely, LMFBR does not neces-

s a r i l y offer any significant improvement over fission al ternates . final page of the Summary chapter (page 1. 11-24) s ta tes : "Clearly, increased funding fo r a l ternate options is in o r d e r , but it would not be pro- ductive to allocate funds more rapidly than they can be used effectively

during any given phase of development. " One hopes that this c r i te r ion is applied equally to the LMFBR option and al ternates .

These problems can be solved only i f higher

The MSR can make R

I

9. This seems to be a common failing of technology a s s e s s -

I t is

In somewhat the same vein, there a r e seve ra l pages s tar t ing on

It is in this

I personally do not consider LMFBR

Nevertheless, I do feel the breeder

10.

The

7

V .18-11

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 8

11. With regard to the "conventional" cost-benefit analysis of Chapter 11,

I do not necessar i ly agree with all the detailed assumptions made, but I cannot d i sagree with the general conclusions. To my mind the s u m and

substance of the analysis is best i l lustrated graphically by Figure 3. 3. 5 (page 3. -22 of Appendix 111-B). By the year 2020, under the assumptions used fo r any of the many cases studied, there w i l l be considerable accum-

mulated savings in energy costs. One could hardly escape this conclusion

i f nothing but LMFBR and thermal reac tors were available, because in that

time span the cost of uranium w i l l certainly r i se to the point where LMFBR

can compete very handily with LWR.

merical ly in the margin of cost savines,but i t i s substantial in any case.

The severa l cases studied vary nu-

Obviously the sooner the LMFBR can become commerc ia l the higher the

savings.

so much the bet ter .

commercial s ta tus . the "negative benefits" plotted for most of the r e s t of this century. F o r

1987 introduction of LMFBR the required outlay i s indicated a s some $7 billion (discounted) plus another $4. 4 billion in R & D costs.

r i sk that the est imated costs and/or t imetable may be optimistic o r that

the projected Ferformance and cost advantages of the LMFBR may not be fully

achieved ia practice. the benefits somewhat l e s s than predicted. benefits to nea r t e r m costs (both discounted to account for t ime lapse)

would probably s t i l l be substantially grea te r than one.

is how one manages to finance $11 biliion plus

o r 1990s for this one approach. and utility ra tepayers and shareholders .

their pockets now to save money on e lec t r ic bills some thirty years f rom

now? Unless the full cost b a r r i e r is c rossed , no benefits will accrue. I t

is going to be ve ry difficult to dictate conformance of the en t i re e lec t r ic

utility industry to the proposed pattern.

p rog ram is worth pursuing but as a pract ical ma t t e r one may have to

accept delays and somewhat l e s s e r benefits.

s eems premature to foreclose options for a l ternates which have potential

e i ther as backGp for LMFBR o r for providing benefits on a sho r t e r t ime

span.

And i f higher performance and/or lower cost can be achieved

The other side of the coin is the cost of reaching

Figure 3 . 3. 5 very clear ly i l lustrates this point by

There is some

Thus the pr ice tag could be significantly higher o r

T rue , the rat io of long- te rm

The rea l question

in e s t r a cost in the 1 9 8 0 s

The only obvious sources a r e taxpayers , Are they willing to dig down into

The point i s that the LMFBR

It is in this context that i t

V .18-12

EQASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED 9

12. It should be noted that the la rges t share of the cost of generating nuclear e lectr ic i ty l ies in the capital investment in the plant. Fu r the rmore , the plant investment is probably the most uncertain

cost component for all plants, including light water reactors . Con-

sequently, the economic.comparisons a r e quite sensit ive to the ra ther tenuous assumptions made regarding relative plant costs.

largely for this reason that the economic comparison of a l ternate

advanced sys t ems is a t bes t only semi-quantitative.

13. There is perhaps some confusion regarding the meaning of "Corn- merc i a l introduction. I f On page 3. 5-13 we find:

"The yea r of commercial introduction is defined as the

It is

f i r s t year during which significant numbers of commercial

s ize LMFBRs go into operation. It is anticipated that eight

commerc ia l s ize LMFBRs wi l l go into operation during the yea r of introduction and the following yea r , sixteen during the

next two, thirty-two during the next two yea r s , and economics will dictate the numbers thereaf ter . I '

It is not c lear that the indicated rate of addition necessar i ly applies

to the cost-benefit analysis.

a s 56 units in the f i r s t s i x yea r s of deployment is optimistic. It s eems to be a f a s t e r s tar t ing rate than A E G I S "most likely" case of WASH-

1139 (72) and a l so f a s t e r than the expected introduction of large HTGRs .

I believe the expected LWR population would barely be ab le to supply

the plutonium needed to s t a r t 56 plants on that schedule s tar t ing in

1987, (assuming the L W R s operate a t their forecas t capacity factor) but there would soon be a shortage of plutonium i f the implied

accelerat ion of installation were continued.

It does s e e m that installing as many

I

I . -- _ _ - - - - I _ _ _ - - -

I would consider an advanced 1 cactor type to reach "comme rc ia l

status" when utilities would be able to choose i t f reely for their next

scheduled plant additions. economically competitive with light water reac tors . It s eems quite c lear that a sizeable number of ea r ly generation plants w i l l require

significant subsidie s.

Essentially this means i t should be

14. I have a number of miscellaneous questions and observations, not

necessar i ly related to the above comments and not necessar i ly affecting the conclusions of the draf t statment.

there is a s ta tement that a 1000 MWe LMFBR plant would have an annual production of 0 .28 me t r i c tons of plutonium and 0 .067 me t r i c

tons of fission products.

(80% capacity factor) the annual ra te of fissioning would be some 770 kg consistent with a breeding rat io of roughly 1. 3. of the dec imal point for the weight of fission products.

15. The discussion of "energy parks" (Page I . 5-2 and elsewhere) is of course not unique to LMFBRs. Also, while the concept has mer i t s i t a l so has a host of problems, one of which is the l imited number of locations with copious cooling 'water and proximity to loads.

the expected growth of e lec t r ic power capacity will require increased consideration of such concepts, not necessar i ly for LMFBRs. Related specifically to LMFBRs is the assumption that a typical fuel fabrication plant could handle some 80 GWe of L h I F S R capacity. size a r e unlikely, so the possible elimination of fuel transportation is not compatible with such la rge fabrication plants. fabrication plants a r e needed for an economic fuel cycle is not clear .

It is unlikely that such la rge fabrication plants could be justified for the e a r l y yea r s of commercial LMFBRs.

On P'age 1. 10-3

Assuming 2500 MWt and 292 days operation

I suspect a slippage

Certainly,

1

P a r k s of this

Whether such large - - - _ _ ~ _ _ _ - -- ----- -- - - -

16. There is a suggestion (Pages 3-37 and 4-8 of 111-B) that special reac tors designed for high plutonium production might Se desirable to speed the deployment of L M F R R s in cases when insufficient LWR generated pluto-

nium is available. It is hard to see that one could justify the added cost and headaches of designing, l icensing and building special reac tors for this purpose ra ther than slowing the deployrr-ent of L M F B R s . A bet ter alternative would s e e m to be to operate existing LWRs a t sho r t e r ey- posure and perhaps moderately higher conversion rat io (e. g. by lower

enrichment) to gain a s imi l a r , probably sma l l e r advantage. The LIVR operator would, of course, have to ra i se his price for plutonium so produced. A quite similar suggestion (Pages 3-17 and 3-20 of 111-B)

EEASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED

0 V.18-13

V.18-14


is that the economy might benefit af ier about 2010 by building LWRs

specifically to burn excess plutonium produced by the breeders . When one considers that a paral le l assumption is made that capital cost

par i ty between LMFBRs and LWRs has been reached by that t ime, one

may ask why anyone would consider paying the same pr ice for a lower

performance plant.

management tactics of the LMFBRs to save dol lar costs commensurate with a reduced plutonium yield. F r e e en terpr i se and ingenuity can be expected to guide the choice a t the t ime,

and i t is pointless to t ry to predict detailed actions some 30 to 50 yea r s in advance.

On Page 1. 11-22 (also 11.4-21) we find "Regardless of the economics

of the uranium resource situation, the case for the breeder can be made on purely qualitative grounds; i t ' i s a more efficient u s e r of a finite r e - source. Taken l i teral ly this implies "breeders a t any cost. Simi-

lar reasoning might suggest by-passing the breeder in favor of fusion.

Certainly LMFBR is a promising concopt worthy of development, but the emphasis and timing may be questioned.

that "converters" and "burncrs'l a r e infer ior . I believe i t is fair to

s a y that the introduction of relatively low performance light water r eac to r s has proven to be amply justified (although the suggestion of

using light water a s modera te r had e a r l i e r met with considerable

res is tance) .

for introducing the LMFBR without having f i r s t deployed many large LWRs. And the reason is a s much related to utilization of uran ium

resources a s i t is to dol lar economy.

se t the s tandard for commercial acceptance. a t t ract ive features no advanced reac tor i s likely to be deployed in large

numbers until i t can compete economically with light water reac tor

plants.

Page 2-6 of Appendix 111-B indicates that "by about the year 2010

the LMFBR oxide fuel designs, f o r a l l growth projections examined

in the study, can provide the fuel to fully sustain an e lec t r ica l energy demand growing a t the rate of about 6% a year .

An al ternate s t ra tegy would be to modify fuel

There a r e a number of options.

17.

There i s a popular notion

In fact one could scarce ly consider the proposed schedule

The light water reac tor plants

Regardless of other

.

18.

11

n

EBASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED 12

This s eems inconsistent with the Bethe Pane l report 1’ which

indicates an annual yield of only 3 . 170 ( = fractional yield of 0. 138 per fuel cycle 4 4. 5 yea r s fuel cycle t ime) for oxide fuel. Presumably,

one would expect the LMFBR growth rate to be a s great o r grea te r

than that for the total e lec t r ica l energy demand.

With regard to fission al ternates to LMFBR (Pages 1. 11-15, 16 and

Volume I V) I offer the following observations. A s discussed previously

utilization of thorium is not a compelling advantage. The at t ract iveness

of HTGR, LWBR and MSR is determined by decreased demands for uranium ore and economic potential. yea r plant life an HTGR uses roughly half a s much U 0 3 8 r eac to r but about the same amount of separative work; LWBR uses roughly a third a s much U 3 0 8 and half a s much separat ive work as

a light water r eac to r ; the molten sa l t reac tor can virtually match a

n e a r - t e r m fast b reeder in i ts impact on ore and separative work r e - quirements.

today and would improve with higher uranium pr ices ; LKBR probably

could not compete with LWRs until higher uranium pr ices prevai l and i t

is expected to be superseded by higher pe rformarice reac tors .

Since L M F B R , G C F R and M S R - a r e expected to have lower fuel cycle

costs than LWRs, their competitiveness with LWRs wi l l undoubtedly

be determined by plant investment. spent on the development of G C F R than LMFBR, and perhaps i t is fair

to say i ts technology lags that of LMFBR, there a r e reasons for believing the capital cost of the GCFR may be lower than that of LMFBR

although their fuel cycle costs a r e expected to be comparable. Hence,

one should not conclude that commerc ia l introduction of GCFR would

necessar i ly lag that of LMFBR.

,

19.

I est imate that over a thir ty as a light water

Apparently HTGR is essent ia l ly competitive with LWR

Although much l e s s effort has been

The molten sa l t reac tor is es t imated

to have fuel cycle costs significantly lower than ei ther LhfFBR o r GCFR, pr imar i ly because fuel fabrication is eliminated. This advan-

tage is especially significant f o r ea r ly generation plants when fas t

1/ Report of the Cornel1 -iV-orkshops on the Majo r I ssues of a National Energy Research and Development P r o g r a m (December 1973) . Table G1, page G-4.

-

V.18-16


. *

breeder fuel is both expensive and uncertain of life. there is a good chance that the molten sa l t reac tor csuld become com-

F o r these reasons

petitive with light water reac tors and hence commercial ly acceptable

at an earlier date than ei ther f a s t b reeder . vers ion of the molten sa l t reac tor is one operated to emphasize con- vers ion of plutonium to U-233, ra ther than maximum breeding ratio, It is at t ract ive with respec t to both low cost and minimum demand for uranium o r e and separat ive work.

uranium resources i f introduced, not a f t e r 2000, but as so011 as p rac - t icable, which would be well before 2000 if i t s development were

supported.

A part icular a t t ract ive

It could have maximum impact on

0 1 3

UNITED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY COMM ISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

I

M r . Leonard F. C. Reichle Vice P res iden t Ebasco Se rv ices , Incorporated 2 Rector Street New York, New York 10006

Dear M r . Reichle:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of Apr i l 2 2 , 1974 t r ansmi t t i ng comnents by D r . Henry C. O t t on t h e Atomic Energy Cormnission's Draf t Environaental Statement on the Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor (LMFBP,) Program. The Statement has been rev ised where necessary i n response t o the many comments received, and a copy of t he F ina l Statement i s enclosed f o r your information.

D r . O t t ' s l e t t e r contained numerous statements and comments regard ing t h e Molten S a l t Breeder Reactor, t he LKFSR, and o t h e r energy techno- l o g i e s . Environmental. Statement "does serve i t s intended purpose of showing t h a t t he development of LMFBR would have an acceptab le environmental impact". responses t o D r . O t t ' s s p e c i f i c comments.

We were p leased t o no te t h a t D r . O t t f i n d s t h a t t he Draf t

P lease see the o t h e r enc losure t o t h i s le t ter f o r t h e AEC's

Thank you f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR program.

S ince re ly ,

n w z L - 4 - J es L. Liverman

u s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

Enclosures : 1. AEC S t a f f Response t o S p e c i f i c Comments 2. Fina l Environmental Statement ,

LMFBR Program (WASH-15 35)

V. 18-18

ENCLOSURE 1

AEC S t a f f Response To S p e c i f i c Comments By f i a s c o S e r v i c e s , Inc.

1. Comment:

''....it is by no means c e r t a i n t h a t LMFBRs can be economically competi- t i v e -- and hence commercially a c c e p t a b l e -- f o r s e v e r a l decades, nor t h a t i n t h e i n t e r i m some of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s , c u r r e n t l y given lower p r i o r i t y , may not be a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e much more t o a l l e v i a t e energy s h o r t a g e s a t lower cost."

Response:

The AEC b e l i e v e s t h a t LMFBRs can be economically compet i t ive i n a t i m e frame s i g n i f i c a n t l y s h o r t e r than t h e " s e v e r a l decades" mentioned above. T h i s is admi t ted ly a judgment. It is recognized t h a t new a l t e r n a t i v e energy product ion systems w i l l also c o n t r i b u t e towards meeting t h e Nat ion ' s energy requirements , b u t i t is d o u b t f u l t h a t they can con- t r i b u t e much d u r i n g t h e t i m e frame of LXFBR i n t r o d u c t i o n . These matters are d iscussed f u r t h e r i n S e c t i o n 6 ( A l t e r n a t i v e Technologies) and S e c t i o n 11 (Cost Benef i t Analysis) . A s noted i n t h e P e r s p e c t i v e s section of S e c t i o n 6, t h e energy requirements of t h e United S t a t e s are so l a r g e and p r e s s i n g t h a t no s i n g l e method of producing energy i e completely adequate f o r t h e job. The AEC t h e r e f o r e endorses t h e development of s e v e r a l energy-producing technologies , as w e l l as t h e LMFBR.

2. Comment:

"The d r a f t s ta tement does n o t provide any q u a n t i t a t i v e b a s i s f o r t h e LMFBR p r i o r i t y . My concern is t h a t i f and when an a l t e r n a t e concept is shown t o d e s e r v e a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y t h e r e w i l l be a need t o overcome p r e j u d i c e s e s t a b l i s h e d , n e e d l e s s l y , by t h e LMFBR impact statement."

Response:

The AEC h a s at tempted t o provide q u a n t i t a t i v e arguments f o r t h e LMFBR p r i o r i t y through t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t s tudy which is documented i n S e c t i o n 11 o f the F i n a l Statement. W e see no b a s i s f o r t h e concern t h a t t h e LMFBR Environmental Statement w i l l e s t a b l i s h p r e j u d i c e s which would have t o be overcome b e f o r e an alternate concept could be ass igned a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y , i f an alternate concept should a t sme f u t u r e t i m e be shown to deserve a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y . Y e have throughout t h e Statement made i t clear t h a t t h e AEC fo l lows the phi losophy t h a t a number of a l t e r n a t i v e technology o p t i o n s should be developed f o r t h e reasons s t a t e d i n t h e preceeding response.

3. Comment:

'*....I am n o t impressed by t h e argument t h a t such reactors as HTGR, L W R and MSR, which u t i l i z e thorium, thereby e x p l o i t a new and e x t e n s i v e energy source. Although the d r a f t s ta tement advances t h i s argument as t h e major advantage of t h e molten s a l t r e a c t o r I c o n s i d e r t h i s p o i n t a lmost irrele- v a n t campared t o o t h e r a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e s of MSR."

V .18-19

-2-

' I . . . . t h e advantage claimed f o r molten s a l t r e a c t o r s i s not t h e a b i l i t y t o burn thorium b u t e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same s u b s t a n t i a l improvement i n r e s o u r c e u t i l i z a t i o n as L?FBRs r e l a t i v e t o l i g h t w a t e r r e a c t o r s . A t least through 2000 t h e molten s a l t r e a c t o r is q u i t e comparable t o LKFBR i n :

a ) P o t e n t l a 1 sav ings i n uranium o r e requ?.remen.ts.

b) P o t e n t i a l sav ings i n s e p a r a t i v e work requirements .

c ) Improved thermal e f f i c i e n c y . "

Response :

It was n o t t h e i n t e n t of the AEC t o i d e n t i f y t h e use of thorium f u e l c y c l e as t h e major advantage of t h e molten s a l t r e a c t o r e x c l u s i v e of o t h e r s . P l e a s e see S e c t i o n 6A.1.5.7.2 of t h e F i n a l Statement which l ists t h e s e v e r a l b e n e f i t s (advantages) the t h e MSBR concept , and i n which i t is seen t h a t t h e use of thorium f u e l i s only one of s e v e r a l p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s .

4. Counnent:

"One f i n d s a t s e v e r a l p l a c e s i n the d r a f t environmental s ta tement t h e e x p r e s s i o n t h a t ' t h e LMFBR has no mining and m i l l i n g components.'

I c o n s i d e r t h i s s ta tement mis leading . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t plutonium a v a i l - a b l e as i n i t i a l f u e l cones from water r e a c t o r s -- and t h e l i o n ' s s h a r e does i n t h e expanding LHFBR economy d iscussed i n Chapter 11 -- t h a t plutonium cannot be made a v a i l a b l e wi thout a commitment f o r a d d i t i o n a l mining of U308. would be r e c y c l e d promptly i n L W h ; t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e d r a f t s ta tement t o i n d i c a t e o therwise . recycle in LWRs would have to b e rep laced with enr iched uranium to keep t h e LWRs i n opera t ion ."

Response :

I n t h e absence of LHFBRs e s s e n t i a l l y a l l plutonium produced

Thus every ki logram of plutonium d i v e r t e d from

I n developing t h e p o s i t i o n on mining and m i l l i n g requirements f o r t h e LMFBR, t h e AEC r e l i e d on t h e b e s t c u r r e n t estimate of growth of t h e U.S. n u c l e a r power economy (WASH-1139). This a n a l y s i s concluded t h a t t h e LPFBR i n d u s t r y would r e q u i r e no a d d i t i o n a l mining and m i l l i n g of uranium over t h a t r e q u i r e d f o r the l i g h t water r e a c t o r i n d u s t r y whether plutonium i s r e c y c l e d o r n o t . Uranium requirements f o r LWRs, i f plutonium is used i n LMFBRs i n s t e a d of b e i n g r e c y c l e d , have been accounted f o r i n t h e AEC's estimates of uranium requirement ( s e e S e c t i o n 6.A.1.1.2.3 and S e c t i o n 11.2.4). I n p a r t i c u l a r , i t should b e noted t h a t t h e r e d u c t i o n of U3O8 and s e p a r a t i v e work requirements due t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e LMFBR p r o v i d e s a l a r g e p o r t i o n of t h e b e n e f i t s as def ined i n S e c t i o n 11.2. Overall cumulat ive U308 and s e p a r a t i v e work requirements through 2020 are d r a m a t i c a l l y reduced by i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e LMFBR, as is shown i n

V. 18-20

- 3-

Sec t ion 11 of the F ina l Statement. Furthermore, t h e annual U308 and s e p a r a t i v e work requirements f o r t he t o t a l f u e l cyc le wi th the LMFBR a v a i l a b l e a r e always equal t o o r less than the requirements when t h e LMFBR is not a v a i l a b l e .

5. Comment:

"Although the Molten S a l t Reactor (IISR) cannot boas t of as l a r g e a breeding g a i n as LMFBR i t has the s i g n i f i c a n t advantage t h a t t he requi red inventory of f i s s i l e f u e l is very much less than t h a t of L W B R . A s a consequence more MSRs than L:fFBRs can be added t o the economy wi th a given supnlv of o r e and s e p a r a t i v e work. This is t r u e whether t he MSRs are s t a r t e d wi th Pu from LWRs o r wi th enr iched U-235. I t t u r n s out t h a t by using Pu from LWRs i t would be poss ib l e t o s u b s t i t u t e molten s a l t r e a c t o r s f o r t h e 400 GWe o breeder capac i ty of AEC's 'most l i k e l y ' f o r e c a s t through the yea r 200d ' , wi th e s s e n t i a l l y no d i f f e rence i n demands f o r U O8 and s e p a r a t i v e work (Ebasco estimates a c t u a l l y show smaller requiremen& f o r YSR, based on 1000 me plants ) . ' '

Response :

These assumptions regarding. t he p o t e n t i a l of molten s a l t r e a c t o r s are v a l i d only i f t he molten sal t breeder r e a c t o r system can be developed wi th the c u r r e n t l y p ro jec t ed breeding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and on t h e same t i m e scale as t h e LMFBR. The AEC feels t h a t molten sal t breeder r e a c t o r technology l a g s t h a t of t he LZfFBR by poss ib ly as much as t en yea r s and t h a t , d e s p i t e t he S B R ' s lower f i s s i l e inventory , t h e t echn ica l u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d wi th the concept preclude f i n a l judgments such as D r . O t t has o f f e red . I n add i t ion , only a minimum amount of s tudy of plutonium-fueled r e a c t o r s has been performed, so t h a t system must b e considered as more s p e c u l a t i v e than the U-233-fueled ZISBR.

6. Comment:

", . . . there are i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t e a r l y genera t ion molten ,salt r e a c t o r s may be b e t t e r a b l e t o compete economically wi th l i g h t water r e a c t o r s and hence reach commercial acceptance a t an earlier date. The p r i n c i p a l advantage of MSR is the e l imina t ion of f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n and the c a p a b i l i t y of on-stream re fue l ing , whereas f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n is t h e l a r g e s t and most u n c e r t a i n component of L W B R f u e l cyc le cos t . Although i n the long term t h e a b i l i t y of L W R t o u t i l i z e U-238 w i l l probably be of importance, i n t h e s h o r t term i t is more important t o reach commercial acceptance."

Response:

Based on conceptual design s t u d i e s performed t o d a t e , both t h e molten s a l t conve r t e r r e a c t o r and the molten s a l t breeder r e a c t o r are pro jec ted t o have f avorab le economics r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r r e a c t o r systems. As reported i n ORNL-4812, t h e c a p i t a l c o s t s should be 'approximately the same as those of l i g h t water r e a c t o r s while t he f u e l cyc le c o s t s could be s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower. While these s t u d i e s are encouraging wi th respec t t o the molten sa l t b reede r r e a c t o r , i t is never the less important t o recognize t h a t t he

Q

V.18-21

-4 - system is a t an e a r l y s t a g e of development a t p resent and t h a t t h e technical u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s soc ia t ed wi th the concept preclude accu ra t e p r o j e c t i o n s of r e a c t o r power c o s t s a t t h i s t i m e . Secondly, t h e conten t ion t h a t f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n is the l a r g e s t and most unce r t a in component of LYFBR f u e l c y c l e c o s t cannot be subs t an t i a t ed based on examination of c u r r e n t LMFBR technology. This i t e m is treated i n more d e t a i l i n Sec t ion 11 of the Final Statement.

7 . Comment:

"By extending t h e cos t -benef i t a n a l y s i s t o 2020 t h e importance of t he assumed h igh breeding r a t i o f o r t h e LMFBR is accentuated and t h e problems of ach iev ing commercial s t a t u s a r e minimized. Admittedlv. t h e r e are technical problems which must be solved before ?lSR could f u l f i l l i t s promise. t o developing MSR technology. t h e nuc lea r economy on ly if introduced before the f a s t breeder becomes commercial. But t h e r e is enough unce r t a in ty a s t o when t h a t might be tha t a p a r a l l e l e f f o r t on t h e development of MSR, a t a much higher l e v e l than h e r e t o f o r e seems t o be warranted."

These problems can be solved only i f higher p r i o r i t y is Riven The MSR can make a major con t r ibu t ion t o

Response:

The AEC a g r e e s t h a t problems assoc ia ted wi th molten salt r e a c t o r technology could be solved more exped i t ious lv i f higher p r i o r i t y were Riven t o t h e program. a backup e f f o r t which could be expanded i n t o a l a r g e r program i f needed. Fu r the r , t h e AEC d i s a g r e e s wi th t h e statement t h a t " the molten s a l t r e a c t o r can make con t r ibu t ion t o t h e nuc lear economy only i f introduced be fo re t h e f i r s t breeder becomes commercial." It may u l t i m a t e l y be d e s i r a b l e t o u t i l i z e t h e Nat ion ' s thorium reserves wi th higher u t i l i z a t i o n e f f i c i e n c y than can be achieved wi th the l i g h t water breeder and high tempera ture gas-cooled r e a c t o r s , and the molten salt breeder r e a c t o r is c u r r e n t l y t h e on ly thorium burning r e a c t o r concept which has p o t e n t i a l f o r very high thorium u t i l i z a t i o n . t h e MSBR is more l i k e l y t o depend on t h e u l t i m a t e economics and u t i l i t y of t h e concept r a t h e r than whether it is int roduced as t h e f i r s t commercial breeder .

However, t h e cu r ren t AEC pol icy is t o cont inue t h e MSBQ program as

In any event , t he key. t o success f o r

8. Comment:

"....there are several pages s t a r t i n g on 1.11-18 where t h e writers have put themselves on t h e defens ive arnuinp. aga ins t somewhat vague c r i t i c f s rns of t h e JiMFBR program. I t is i n t h i s d i scuss ion t h a t I no te a tendency t o d i s p a r a r e alternates r a t h e r than t o s tand on t h e mer i t s ,o f t h e LFrFBP,. do n o t cons ider W B R a s a shoo-in t o so lve a l l the Nat ion 's energv nrohlems and I would no t cons ider a s l ippaEe of f i v e , t e n or more yea r s till t h e f a s t b reeder becomes comoet i t ive as being t r a g i c . Nevertheless , I do f e e l t h e breeder has enough merit t o warrant.a v igorous e f f o r t , but no t t o t h e

I ne r sona l ly

V. 18-22

-5-

exc lus ion o f promising a l t e r n a t e s . The d r a f t environmental impact s t a t e - ment is i n no way an adequate eva lua t ion of t he merits of a l t e r n a t e s , bu t i n some i n s t a n c e s I f e e l i t has needless ly gone beyond its province i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n . "

Response:

In t h e c i t e d pages of t h e Dra f t Statement t he i n t e n t w a s t o examine arguments t h a t had been r a i sed sugges t ing t h a t the need f o r t he LMFBR w a s less urgent than be l ieved by the AEC. In our view those arguments a r e erroneous and i t should not be s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h i s view was r e f l e c t e d i n the text. These po in t s were d iscussed i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n Chapter 11 (Cost-Benefit Analys is ) , of which the c i t e d pages provided only a summary. With regard t o the sugges t ion t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e energy technologies were n o t adequately o r f a i r l y t r e a t e d , you are r e f e r r e d t o Sec t ion 6 of t he F ina l Statement , where both the AEC and opposing views on a l t e r n a t i v e technologies are f u l l y discussed. It should a l s o be noted t h a t the Statement does n o t select the LMFBR and exclude o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e technology opt ions . The poin t is repea ted ly made t h a t t he LXFBR is b u t one of a number of energy product ion systems which w i l l be needed and t h a t oth'er f e a s i b l e systems should be developed, as quick ly as they can, to t he po in t of commercial usage.

9. Comment:

"There is some r i s k t h a t t he es t imated c o s t s and/or t imetable (of LMFBR i n t r o d u c t i o n ) may be o p t i m i s t i c o r t h a t t he p ro jec t ed performance and c o s t advantages of t he LMFBR may not be f u l l y achieved i n p rac t i ce . Thus t he p r i c e t a g could be s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ighe r o r the b e n e f i t s somewhat less than p red ic t ed . True, t he r a t i o of long-term b e n e f i t s t o nea r term c o s t s (both d iscounted t o account f o r t i m e l apse ) would probably s t i l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r than one ( i f t he LHFBR is delayed) . The real ques t ion is how one manages t o f inance $11 b i l l i o n plus . i n extra c o s t i n t h e 1980s o r 1990s f o r t h i s one approach."

Response:

The Draf t Statement repor ted a n e t d e f i c i t i n t he 1980's and 1990's i n an WFBR economy. Fur ther ana lys i s has shown t h a t t h i s d e f i c i t w a s an a r t i f a c t i n t roduced through c a l c u l a t i o n of end-of- l i fe forward c o s t s of LWRs i n ope ra t ion before in t roduc t ion of t h e breeder . Recalculat ion has shown t h a t i n f a c t t he LMFBR shows b e n e f i t s from the yea r of i t s in t roduc t ion . Sec t ion 11.2.4 desc r ibes t h e r e s u l t s of t he new c a l c u l a t i o n s .

10. Comment:

"The po in t is t h a t t he LMFBR program is worth pursuing but as a p r a c t i c a l matter one may have t o accept de lays and somewhat lesser b e n e f i t s . I t is

V.18-23

-6-

in t h i s con tex t t h a t i t seems premature t o fo rec lose op t ions f o r a l t e r n a t e s which have p o t e n t i a l e i t h e r as backup f o r L V R R o r for providing b e n e f i t s on a s h o r t e r time span."

Response :

Continued development of t he LMTBR does not fo rec lose t h e development of o t h e r promising energy technologies . As noted i n the response t o Comment No. 8 , t h e g o a l of t he Wr'B?. program is t he development of a v fab le energy product ion system opt ion . Whether or not t h a t opt ion is exerc ised w i l l depend upon i t s r e l a t i v e economics, environmental a c c e p t a h i l i t y and o t h e r f e a t u r e s a s compared t o competing systems. Energy Future,"* an inteRrated $10 b i l l i o n energy R&D proRram w a s develobed f o r t h e pe r iod 1975-1979. Despi te t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s timeframe covers t h e per iod of h ighes t a c t i v i t y and expense f o r t h e LMFBR program, only about 25% o f t h i s energy R&D budget is a l loca ted t o LWBR a c t i v i t i e s . N e i t h e r t he amount of funding needed t o develop t h e LMFBR nor any a c t i o n s prec luding energy opt ion s e l e c t i o n by the normal u t i l i t y i ndus t ry processes w i l l f o r e c l o s e the p u r s u i t o r s e l e c t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e technologies .

In the r e p o r t , "The Nat ion ' s

11. Comment:

It should be noted t h a t t h e . l a r g e s t sha re of t h e cos t of genera t ing I t

nuc lea r e l e c t r i c i t y l i e s i n the c a p i t a l investment i n the p l a n t . Further- more, t he p l a n t investment is probably the most unce r t a in c o s t comonent f o r a l l p l a n t s , inc luding l i g h t water r eac to r s . Conseauently, t h e economic comparisons are q u i t e s e n s i t i v e t o t h e r a t h e r tenuous assumptions made r ega rd ing r e l a t i v e p l a n t cos t s . It is l a r g e l y f o r t h i s reason t h a t t h e economic comparison of a l t e r n a t e advanced systems is a t b e s t only semi -quant i t a t i ve . Response:

The AEC is i n agreement wi th these comments but emphasizes the need t o conduct major program planning based on t h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e economic comparisons. I n t h i s i n s t ance , w e be l i eve t h a t t h e inforination presented i n t h e LNFBR Program Environmental Statement meets t h i s c r i t e r i o n .

12. Comment:

"There is perhaps some confusion regard ing t h e meaning of 'Commercial i n t roduc t ion . ' On page 3.5-13 we f i n d :

"The year of commercial i n t roduc t ion is defined as t h e f i r s t year during which s i g n i f i c a n t numbers of commercial s i z e LMFBRs go i , . to opera t ion . It is a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t e i g h t commercial size LHFBRs w i l l go i n t o opera t ion dur ing t h e year of i n t r o d u c t i o n and t h e followinR yea r , s i x t e e n dur ing t h e next tw, thi r ty- two dur ing the next two yea r s , and economics w i l l d ic ta te the numbers the rea f t e r . "

- *'*The Nat ion ' s Energy Future ," a r epor t t o t he Pres ident of t he United

S t a t e s , WASH-1281, December 1973.

V. 18-24

-7-

"It is n o t clear t h a t t he ind ica t ed rate of add i t ion n e c e s s a r i l y appl ied t o t h e cos t -bene f i t ana lys i s . - 56 units i n t h e f i r s t s i x years of deployment is op t imis t i c . t o b e a f a s t e r s t a r t i n g rate than AEC's 'most l i k e l y ' case of WASH-1139(72) and a l s o f a s t e r than t h e expected in t roduc t ion of l a r g e HTGRs. t h e expected LWR popula t ion would ba re ly be ab le t o supply the plutonium needed t o s t a r t 56 p l a n t s on t h a t schedule s t a r t i n g i n 1987, (assuming t h e LWRs o p e r a t e at t h e i r f o r e c a s t capac i ty f a c t o r ) bu t t h e r e would soon b e a shor t age of plutonium i f the implied acce le ra t ion of i n s t a l - l a t i o n were continued. "

It does seem t h a t i n s t a l l i n g as many as It seems

I be l i eve

Response:

The "doubling formula'' def ined i n the Statement s imula tes t h e a b i l i t y of manufacturers t o " tool up" f o r LEfFBR product ion, and i n proper contex t i t is used as a l i m i t i n g rate. However, t he a c t u a l i n t roduc t ion c o n s t r a i n t a l l o w s on ly one r e a c t o r i n the yea r of i n t roduc t ion , e i g h t r e a c t o r s i n the fo l lowing biennium, s ixteen i n the next biennium, etc. A similar formula, assuming two r e a c t o r s t he f i r s t biennium, was used t o l i m i t HTGR i n t r o - duc t ion fo l lowing 1982. In the absence of o the r c o n s t r a i n t s , such a l i m i t must be a p p l i e d t o prevent t h e model from choosing l a r g e numbers of an economical ly f avorab le p l a n t as soon as i t is int roduced.

The rates o f i n t r o d u c t i o n of LIIFBR's and HTGR's f o r re ference c a l c u l a t i o n s were those given i n WASH-1139(72). S e n s i t i v i t y s t u d i e s considered s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t e s c e n a r i o s of i n t roduc t ion as w e l l . Also, i n s e v e r a l of t he s e n s i t i v i t y c a l c u l a t i o n s , t he rates of pene t r a t ion of t he var ious r e a c t o r types were l e f t f o r s e l e c t i o n by economic preference a lone , s u b j e c t t o f u e l a v a i l a b i l i t y . For these cases the "doubling formulas" were appl ied t o i n i t i a l i n t r o d u c t i o n as l i m i t i n g rates. Under a l l bu t t he most adverse cond i t ions , LEIFBR's pene t r a t ed at th io l i m i t i n g rate when allowed to .

13. Comment:

"I have a number of miscel laneous ques t ions and observa t ions , no t n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d t o t h e above comments and no t necessa r i ly a f f e c t i n g t h e conclusions of t h e d r a f t s ta tement . On Page 1.10-3 t h e r e is a s ta tement t h a t a 1000 MJe W B R p l a n t would have an annual product ion of 0.28 metric tons of plutonium and 0.067 metric tons of f i s s i o n products . Assuming 2500 E K J t and 292 days ope ra t ion (802 capac i ty f a c t o r ) t h e annual rate of f i s s i o n i n g would be some 770 kg c o n s i s t e n t wi th a breeding r a t i o of roughly 1.3. I suspec t a s l i ppage of t h e decimal po in t f o r t he weight of f i s s i o n products."

Re s pons e

A review of t h e mathematics and assumptions involved i n t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e comment is c o r r e c t i n no t ing an e r r o r i n the computed weight of f i s s i o n products . metric tonnes and the F ina l Statement has been modified accordingly.

The c o r r e c t f i g u r e should have been 0.67

V .18-25

-8-

14. Comment:

"The discussion of 'energy parks' (page 1.5-2 and elsewhere) is of course not unique to LMFBRs. host of problems, one of which is the limited number of locations with copious cooling water and proximity to loads. Certainly, the expected growth of electric power capacity will require increased consideration of such concepts, not necessarily for LVFBKs. is the assumption that a typical fuel fabrication plant could handle some 80 GWe of LMFBR capacity. elimination of fuel transportation is not compatible with such large fabrication plants. for an economic fuel cycle is not clear. It is unlikely that such large fabrication plants could be justified for the early years of commercial W B R s . "

Also, while the concept has merits it also has a

Related specifically to LSFBRs

Parks of this size are unlikely, so the possible

Whether such large fabrication plants are needed

Response:

Considerations of "energy parks'' in the study were addressed to parks of 10 to 50 GWe capacity, based on the capacity of a given reprocessing (not fabrication) plant. Other fuel cycle industries, including fabrication plants, may be present, but will not dictate the size of the park. Siting and economics of such parks are being evaluated separately from the Environ- mental Statement; no parks will be built without individual environmental statements. [The point that nuclear parks would require ''copious cooling water" is valid if other forms of cooling cannot be used. In addition, process water will be required and the site must be suitable to support large numbers of workers and their families, etc.]

The sizing of fuel fabrication plants will likely be dictated primarily by economic considerations. the Final Statement has a capacity of 1500 metric tonnes of fuel per year which is sufficient t o supply fuel for about 80 GWe capacity. In the cost- benefit study (which, incidentally, does not consider energy parks) sizes ranging up to 2700 metric tonnes per year were considered. size would relate to a mature LMFBR industry, when a sufficient fuel market exists. jected loads.

The "model" plant discussed in Section 4 of

Plants of this

In earlier years plants would be sized in accordance with pro-

15. Comment:

"There is a suggestion (pages 3-37 and 4-8 of 111-B) that special reactors I

designed for high plutonium production might be desirable to speed the deployment of LfIFBRs in cases vhen insufficient LWR generated plutonium is available. It is hard to see that one could lustify the added cost and headaches of designing, licensing and building special reactors for this purpose rather than slowing the deployment of UlFBRs. alternative would seem to be to operate existing LWRs at shorter exposure and perhaps moderately higher conversion ratio (e.g., by lower

A better

V.18-26

-9 -

enrichment) to gain a similar, probably smaller advantage. The Lb!! operator would, of course, have to raise his price for plutonium so produced. is that the economy night benefit after about 2010 by building L W s specifically to burn excess plutonium produced by the breeders. then one considers that a parallel assunption is made that capital cost parity between L?lFBRs and LhTs has been reached by that time, one may ask why anyone would consider paying the same price for a lower performance plant. management tactics of the LiIFBKs to save dollar costs commensurate with a reduced plutonium yield. Free enterprise and ingenuity can be expected to guide the choice at the time, and it is pointless to try to predict detailed actions some 30 to 50 years in advance."

A quite similar suggestion (pages 3-17 and 3-20 of 111-B)

An alternate strategy would be to modify fuel

There are a number of options.

Response :

The cost-benefit analysis is not presented as a forecast of future electric generating systems. As you point out, the particular plants and fuel cycles utilized in the national power 'economy will be based on individual utility choices in the future. However, as is pointed out in Section 11.2.5 in the Final Statment, the basic systems approach utilized in the cost-benefit optiadzation study is similar to the utility decision-making process. Therefore, the general conclusions in the cost-benefit analysis based on evaluations of alternative energy generating systems are valid. The numerous reactor and fuel cycle alternatives available to the optimization code are provided to allow the code to make unbiased selections of plants to minimize overall power costs.

The specialized Pu-producing reactors are available but are not built in the cases considered in the Final Statement. An input error in fuel cycle calculations resulted in their inclusion in the cases considered in the Draft Statenent. in the latter part of the study may alternatively be "de-tuned" L?lFBRs. This strategy would essentially adjust plutonium production to plutonium requirements by changing WIFBR design parameters.

Also as you point out, the Pu-fueled LVRs utilized

16. Comment:

"....light water reactor plants set the standard for commercial acceptance. Regardless of other attractive features no advanced reactor is likely to be deployed in large numbers until it can compete economically with light water reactor plants."

Response:

The comment is correct in principle but does not take into account all the factors involved. Section 11.2 illustrates the overall incentive associated with the LMFBR during the time period of the cost-benefit analysis. The LEIFBR is definitely competitive on the basis of comparative economics. In the time period immediately following the introduction of the L:uFBR,

n

V.18-27

-10-

o t h e r r e a c t o r s have a s l i g h t compet i t ive advantape i n t h e near term. However, t h e LMFBR provides the s y n e r g i s t i c economic incen t ive of lowering t h e f u e l cyc le c o s t s of t h e 400-500 GWe of LWRs operatinR i n t h e e a r l v 1990's by roughly a mill/kwh. Later i n t he s tudy t h e LMFRR is compet i t ive i n its own r i g h t , v h i l e s t i l l providinR o v e r a l l f u e l cyc le c o s t s av ines t o t h e o p e r a t i n g LWRs, LMFBR i n l a r g e numbers a s demonstrated by the cos t -benef i t ana lys i s .

Therefore , t h e r e is a r e a l i ncen t ive t o deplov the

17. Comment:

"Page 2-6 of Appendix 111-B i n d i c a t e s t h a t 'by about t h e year 2010 t h e LEiFBR oxide f u e l des igns , f o r a l l growth p r o j e c t i o n s examined i n the s tudy , can provide the f u e l t o f u l l y s u s t a i n an e lectr ical energy demand growing a t t h e rate o f about 6% a year ,

"This seems i n c o n s i s t e n t wi th t h e Bethe Panel r epor t which i n d i c a t e s an annual y i e l d of on ly 3.1% (+ f r a c t i o n a l y i e ld of 0.138 per f u e l cyc le

expec t t h e LMFBR growth rate t o be as great o r g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r t h e t o t a l e lec t r ica l energy demand."

4.5 yea r s f u e l cyc le t ime) f o r oxide f u e l . Presumably, one would

Response :

The performance of t h e oxide fue led LEIPBR descr ibed i n Appendix IIT-B r e s u l t s from reduct ion i n des ign conservat ism based on the cu r ren t RbD program. S p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of reduct ion i n design conservat ism are conta ined i n Sec t ion 11 of t h e F ina l Statement. Based on t h i s informa- t ion, t h e AEC b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e c a p a b i l i t y of t h e LMFBR t o s u s t a i n an annual electrical growth rate of 6% a s s t a t e d i n t h e F ina l Statement i s v a l i d .

18. Comment:

"Since W B R , GCFR and HSR are expected to have lower fuel cycle costs than LWRs, t h e i r compet i t iveness wi th LWRs w i l l undoubtedly be determined by p l a n t investment. development of GCFR than LKFBR, and perhaps it is f a i r t o say i t s technology l a g s t h a t of LKFBR, t h e r e a r e reasons f o r be l i ev ing t h e c a p i t a l c o s t of t h e GCF'R may be lower than t h a t of LMFBR al though t h e i r f u e l cyc le c o s t s a r e expected t o be comparable, i n t r o d u c t i o n of GCFR would n e c e s s a r i l y lag t h a t of LMFBR. reactor is es t imated t o have f u e l cyc le c o s t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than e i t h e r LMFBR o r GCFR, pr imar i ly because f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n is e l imina ted . This advantage is e s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r e a r l y genera t ion p l a n t s when f a s t b reeder fuel is both expensive and unce r t a in of l i f e . reasons t h e r e is a good chance t h a t t he molten s a l t r e a c t o r could becone compet i t ive wi th l i g h t water r e a c t o r s and hence commerciaily acceptab le a t an Earlier d a t e than e i t h e r f a s t breeder . A p a r t i c u l a r a t t r a c t i v e v e r s i o n of t h e molten s a l t r e a c t o r is one operated t o emphasize conversion of plutonium t o U-233, r a t h e r than maximum breeding r a t i o . I t is a t t r a c - t ive w i t h r e s p e c t t o both low cos t and minimum demand f o r uranium o r e and

Although much less e f f o r t has been ' spent on the

Hence, one should not conclude t h a t commercial The molten s a l t

For t hese

\

V.18-28

-11-

s e p a r a t i v e work. It could have maximum impact on uranium resources i f introduced, no t a f t e r 2000, but a s soon as p r a c t i c a b l e , which would be w e l l be fo re 2000 i f its development were Supported.

Response :

The technology of GCFR's and molten s a l t r e a c t o r s l a g s t h a t of t h e LMFBR by s e v e r a l yea r s a t b e s t . v i r t u a l l y match a near-term f a s t breeder i n i ts imDact on o r e sepa ra t ive work requirements o r could become c o m e r c i a l l y acceptable a t an e a r l i e r d a t e than e i t h e r f a s t breeder is d i f f i c u l t t o support . The e a r l i e s t d a t e f o r commercial in t roduct ion of t he molten s a l t breeder r eac to r is l i k e l y t o b e i n the e a r l y 199O's, assuming t h a t t h e necessary RCD could be performed success fu l ly . With regard t o molten s a l t conver te rs , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o j u s t i f y development of a second thorium conver te r i n add i t ion t o t h e HTCR s i n c e a breeder w i l l be required t o o f f s e t dwindling uranium reserves.

Thus, t he content ion t h a t t h e MSR could

v.19-1

P. 0. b x 11267 Knoxvillep TN 37919 Apri l 22, 1974

Office of t he Assistant General Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Sa fe ty Programs

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545

Re: WASH - 1535

Sir:

We apprec ia te the opportunity t o review and rep ly t o t h e Draft Environmental Statement of the Liquid Ketal Fast Breeder Reactor Program ( WASH - 1535 ), dated Marrh, 1974. The scope of the DES i s commendable; however, the following iboints should be given f u r t h e r a t ten t iona

Ptueh of t h e impetus f o r r a p i d development o f the l ' iqu id Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program i s derived from the fact t h a t t h e our ren t generat ion of. Light Water Reactors i s consuming uranium fuel at a r a t e whioh can not be 000-

Tomloally maintained for longer than a few more deoadest

There has been a progressive increase, in breeder bene f i t s over the period in whioh the U C oost- b e n e f i t s tud ie s have been conducted l a r g e l y due to increases i n projected costs f o r uranium and separa t ive work, which have r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e e f f e c t on breeder costs.

o sec t ion 1.11-l

The prooess of enriching the percentage of U-235 i n f u e l from Oo7$ t o 3-4s ( t h e level used I n LWR fuels ) * conducted i n gaseous d i f fus ion p lan ts , i s indeed extravabZ;ant, not fu l ly u t i l i z i n g t h e small amounts of U-235 present i n ore , and even then requi r ing v a s t amounts of e l e c t r i c a l energy. Consequently, t o follow the argument propounded i n the DES, within t h e next few decades the c o s t of obtaining and snr iohing scarce uranium fuel will r e s u l t i n corresponding ly higher coa ts assoc ia ted wi th e l e c t r i c a l production i n LWB's. Xowever, recent developments and p o a s i b i l i t i e s oompli- ca t e t h e issuet. Intensive research and development i n the use of centr l@ge enrichment, both domestically and abroad ( &- enccp, 183r 1270-1272 (1974) ), o f f e r s the p o s s i b i l i t y of uranium separat ion a t a oonsiderable savings over present gaseous d i f fus ion processes. Addit ional lyp it has now been

V.19-2

- 2 -

reported ( Science, 183, 1172-1174 (1974) ) t h a t laser sepap- a t i o n techniques may be i n the developmental stage 0 techniques which might no t only render both the gaseous d i f f u s i o n and oent r i fuge processes obso le t e but which might, a t the same time, enable us to more f u l l y u t i l i z e the small percentage of U-235 found i n ore , allowing known reserves t o l as t f o r dsoades more. To the e x t e n t t h a t t he ABCos j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a massive commitment t o the LMBPBR Program i s based on the issues of minimiring c o s t s due t o procurement and enrichment of uranium fuel, and of no t r e l y i n g on a f i e 1 source ( U-235 ) which w i l l become exhausted i n t h e near f u t u r e , t o t h e e x t e n t tha t j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the LMFBR Program is based on matters of time and money, then developments a f f e c t i n g sucn time-and- money cons idera t ions should be f u l l y explored, It would be uae fu l if the F ina l Environmental Statement included a d is - cussion of the imp l i ca t ions of cen t r i fuge and laser enrichment technology f o r the cos t -benef i t a n a l y s i s of the L6FBB Programs

Although the DES does mentlon the PaQt t h a t an adequate cost-comparison a n a l y s i s should take I n t o account factors o t h e r than capi ta l and ope ra t ing cos t s , f u e l cos t s , and o t h e r such t r a d i t i o n a l measuress and t h a t f a c t o r s he re to fo re considered "externa l" t o energy-production costs, such as environmental and s o c i e t a l cos t s , should be " in t e rna l i zed" t o o b t a i n a t r u e r p i c t u r e of t o t a l c o s t s and b e n e f i t s , i n f a o t there i s l i t t l e evidence t h a t such "externa l f4 f a c t o r s were s e r i o u s l y considered i n many s e c t i o n s of t h e DES. P a r t i c u l a r l y i n Sect ion 8 ( Al te rna t lve Teohnology Options ), wherein the f e a s i b i l i t y of these op t ions i s measured i n dollars-and-cents, and i n many cases rejected on t h i s c r i t e r i o n , I t appears t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l " in t e rna l ' c o s t s were given pr imary and o f t en total cons idera t ion , t o the exc lus ion of 'externah" cos ts . For example, the d iscuss ion on *Hydrogen and Other Synthe t ia Fuels" oontains t h e argument

A t an e lec t r ic power cost of 5 mills/kWh, t h e power c o s t I n terms of hydrogen produced i s about i O $ / l b H ~ W r e s u l t i n g I n 81 t o t a l cos t , excluding labor, maintenance, and overhead cos t s , of 14,3$/lb H2, o r about $ 2,801 106 Btu. T h i s i s considerably h igher than the c o s t of o t h e r f u e l s ( eOg., low Btu gas can ba produced f om coa l at a c o s t of about 60$ t o 85$/ 10 8 Btu ),

Although f u r t h e r d iscuss ion on the fol lowing page admits t h a t environmental effects would have t o be considered, such e f fec ts are not i n any manner accorded a monetary or

v. 19-3

- 3 -

otherwise q u a n t i t a t i v e s t a tus . Such avoidance of *In te rna l - i z ing“ c o s t s i s symptomatic of the e n t i r e Al te rna t ive Tech- nology Options discussion, and t h i s weakness should be remedied i n t h e FES. I n t h i a period i n h i s to ry , the publ ic i s increas ingly aware t h a t there a r e “cos ts“ i n energy production besides those read on the meter ou ts ide onees home and pr in t ed on the monthly e l e c t r i c i t y b i l l : i t i s reasonable t h a t t h i s same public would apprec ia te the sophis t ica ted and oomprehensive a n a l y s i s of Alternat ive Technology Options which should r e s u l t from the attempt t o “ i n t e r n a l i z e d a l l recognizable costs . Section 8 of the LMFBR Program DES i s not f u l l y complete without such a comprehensive cost-comparison analysis .

8 C ) ab an Al te rna t ive Technology Option i s wide-ranging and o u t l i n e s how various modifications t o and developments i n t h e medea i n which we generate, d i s t r i b u t e , and u t i l i z e energy may r e s u l t i n savings of energy resource8. The discussion is never the less l imi t ed i n t h a t changed neoess i t a t lng ser ious edaptat iona i n our na t iona l l i fe -s ty le a r e not included, Cert- etnlys i t would be d i f P i c u l t i f no t impossible t o quant i fy such changes i n the manner t h a t o the r conservation measured i n tile sec t ion were quan t i f i ed as t o possible savings, and some ohanges might a t t h i s t i m e be so repugnant t o sec to r s of t h e publ ie t h a t the p o s a i b i l l t i e s of implementation i n the n e a r f u t u r e a r e s l i g h t . However, the same changes i n l i f e - s t y l e which we may now r e j e a t might someday be considered des i r ab le or needed, and a sec t ion on conservation as an Al te rna t ive Technology Option i n the DES provides an exce l l en t opportunley t o begin t o enumerate changes in our l i fe -s ty le which might now deem radical.

The discussion on “Conservation of EnergyM ( Section

We have become somewhat acoustomed t o one-way commuting distances of 50 and 100 m i l e s between home and work, although perhapa not as accustomed t o the vas t energy resources which a r e expended t o maintain t h i s l i f e - s t y l e . A scenario of fu tu re l i f e might Include r e s id ing i n much c l o s e r proximity t o oneos place of employment. Replacement of t h e l a r g e l y home-isolated entertainment cen te r s ( audio and v i sua l ) by more e f f i c i e n t publ ic o r semi-publio sys tems can be envisioned. The p r o l i f - e r a t i o n o f r i n e f f i c i e n t ( based on the c r i t e r i a of hea t ing and cooling requirements and mater ia l s u t i l i z a t i o n ) single-family dwellings might be reversed i n t he future .

l i f e - s t y l e which would be ind ica ted by such s i t u a t i o n s as exemplified above, i t i s nontheless reasonable t h a t w e con-

While we may now r e c o i l from the major changes i n our

V.19-4

- 4 -

sider, as a s i g n i f i c a n t aonservation measure, the a l t e r a t i o n of the l i f e - s t y l e t o which we have become accustomed. The LPIFBR Program DZS does not probe conservation measures having suoh a mador impact on our l i v e s - a discussion of t h i s s o r t might prove use fu l .

The basis f o r e a r l y introduct ion of LMFBR'S i s changed i n the face of a slower increase i n demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y . The Mrecognized" e l e c t r i c i t y demand fo recas t s used i n the LMFBR DES do not include those demand fo recas t s which include the pr ice of e k e c t r i c i t y as a causal f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g the demand f o r elec- t r i c i t y . (Sect ion 2.1.2.4) T h i s i s inexcusable i n l i g h t of recent events. These t9xcogniged" s tud ie s which were used i n project ion est imates f o r the LMFBE DES general ly conolude t h a t t he pr ice of e l e c t r i c i t y does not inf luence demand. "Unrecognized" s tud ie s (1-5). a t l e a s t by the AEC, conclude t h a t the p r i ce of e l e c t r i c i t y i s a determinant of demand and t h a t pred ic t ions of fu tu re needs can be g r e a t l y affected by t h i s causal faotor. (1. D. Chapman, T. Tyr re l l , T. Mount, " E l e c t r i c i t y demand growth and the energy crisis". Science. 178, 703, 1972. 2, R. Halvorsen. "Residential e l e o t r i c l t y r demand and supplyn. presented a t the S i e r r a Club Conf. on Power and Publ ic Policy, Vermont, Jan. 1972. 3. P. W. lrIac~voy. t'Economic s t r a t egy for developing nuclear breeder reac- to rs* , MIT Press , Cambridge, Ma. 1969. 4. T. D. Hount, L. D. Chapman, To J, Tyrrel l . " E l e c t r i c i t y demand i n the U . S . : an econometrics ana lys i s# . ORNL-NSP-EP-49, Oak Ridge,Tn. 1973. 5. J. W. Wilson. "Residential and i n d u s t r i a l demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y " . unpublished Ph.D. t hes i s , Cornel1 Univ. 1969) A comparison 4f the expected demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y by the "reoognized" fo recas t e r s f o r t h e year 2000 as ext rapola ted from FPC data up t o 1990 i s 9.01 t r i l l i o n KWH, while Ilunrecognized" f o r e c a s t e r s p red ic t a range of 1.91-3,45 t r i l l i o n KWH, depending mainly on pr ice assumptions, ( e l e c t r i c i t y p r i ce doubling by 2000 using 1970 pr ices , a 3.38 Increase p e r year o r a p r i ce increase of 19% f o r the period 1970-2000) I n the same study t h a t these es t imates a r e taken from (11, a predic t ion of 9.89 t r i l l i o n KWH f o r 2000 was obtained only i f the assumption of a n e l e c t r i c i t y p r i ce deol ine of 245% from 1970-1980 and 12% each 10 years t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l 2000 was used, which i s a very unl ike ly occurrence.

E i s t o r i c a l l y the p r i ce of e l e c t r i c i t y decl ined u n t i l 1970 when the f i r s t r e a l ( d e f l a t e d ) p r i ce increase occurred, The p r i ce of e l e c t r i c i t y h a s been s t a b l e o r increasing ever s ince then and i s expected to increase f u r t h e r due t o environmental proteot ion costs . Aubrey J. Wagner, chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority has s t a t e d t h a t nTVA would be faced w i t h an approximate doubling of i t s revenue requirements," t o meet t h e many environmental p ro tec t ion costs. (Publ ic U t i l . Fortn. 89 NO. 13, 27, 1972) Using data from the EEI S t a t i s t i c a l yearbook Edison E l e c t r i c I n s t i t u t e , (New York 1969-1972 yea r s ) , the

V.19-5

percent growth i n demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y f o r the years 1969-1972 was 7.65 , 6 .8$, 4.2% and 2.9; respect ively. The decrease i n the r a t e of increase over these years i s 595. WRecognized" fo recas t e r s d i d not p r e d i c t t h i s occurrence. The claim t h a t p r i ce i s a determinant of demand growth i s supported by the simultaneous occurrence of a decrease i n the r a t e of increase of demand and the increase i n the p r i ce of e l e c t r i c i t y which h a s occurred over t h i s period.

Before embarking on an undertaking which has never i n the h i s t o r y of mankind involved so many resources and committments of long term guardianship an agency i s required by l a w t o examine a l t e r n a t i v e s of which the basic assumption of need i s o m . It is incred ib le t h a t demand predic t ions f o r the fu tu re could be examined s u f f i c i e n t l y i n l e s s than two pages of an DES. The magnitude o f the d i f fe rences between the "recognized" and f%mrecognized" es t imates should be s u f f i a i e n t propel lent f o r a n agency t o examine the s tud ie s f u r t h e r as t o the assumptions made and whether these assumptions a r e i n f a c t s t i l l appl icable . A thorough discussion of the reasons f o r these g rea t d i f f e rences i n demand predic t ions and the supporting evidence f o r these predic- t i o n s i s the minimum requirement f o r s a t i s f y i n g NEPA.

"More energy w i l l be needed t o r a i s e the standard of l i v i n g of low income people to a more equi tab le level ." (Sect ion 2.1.2.2) This statement i s an unsupported emotional appeal and should be removed from the DES. The f a c t s show t h a t the gap between the two groups, poor and nonpoor, has ,been widening s ince the advent of inexpensive power. "Helping the poor" can not be used t o ju s t igy the implementation of an LMFBR program. I n the perspect ive on a l t e r n a t l v e technology opt ions ( V o l . IV P-3) there i s a statement which m a i n t a i n s t h a t "systems on which l i t t l e o r no work h a s been done w i l l look most a t t r a c t i v e s i n c e the na tura l enthusham of t h e i r proponents 9111 h igh l igh t the advantages of the system whlle t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s a r e minimized o r , most l i k e l y , have not been discovered." This statement i s a co l l ec t ion of unsupported emotional inferences. "he inference t h a t na tura l enthusiam prevents l i m i t a t i o n s and d i f f i c u l t i e s of new technologies from being discovered, while not necessar i ly t rue , could be used t o charac te r ize c e r t a i n aspec ts of the LMFBR program, as well as o the r new technologies. The Statement t h a t the l i m i t a t i o n s have most l i k e l y not been discovered I s a misuse of subject ive probabi l i ty .

of nuclear power pa rks have been postulated. This park could c o n s i s t of a reprocessing p lan t , severa l nuclear power reac tors , and o the r types of nuclear fue l f a c i l i t i e s . I t i s stated i n the DES t h a t cen te r s from 10,000 MWe t o 50,000 MWe have been postulated. Spec i f i c plans have already been made f o r SIX t o e i g h t r e a c t o r s i n the 1000 MWe power range. This tendency towards c l u s t e r i n g of power p l a n t s a t a n acaeptable s i t e i s expected t o grow. The f e a s i b i l i t y of Cluster ing nuclear f a c i l i t i e s i n parka I s questioned on severa l grounds,

Upon the implementation of the LMFBR Program, a number

V.19-6

- 6 -

One of the basic poin ts t o consider i s the s i t e s e l ec t ion procedureo I n Section 7.2,,605 it i s s ta ted :

Before nuclear power p a r k s can be constructed, present nuclear power p l a n t s i t e c r i t e r i a w i l l have t o be modified somewhat and new ones developed f o r appl ica t ion t o such parks.

Si te s e l e c t i o n is q u i t e important, and judging from pas t experience w i t h the LWR, s i t e s e l ec t ion has been j u s t i f i e d after t h e f a c t ; the FES must l i s t working c r i t e r i a f o r the s i t e s e l e c t i o n of nuclear parka. Special considerat ion should be d i rec t ed towards meteorological f a c t o r s i n r e l a t i o n t o con- vection cu r ren t s r e s u l t i n g from l a rge numbers of cooling towers t h a t would be concentrated i n nuclear parks,

An appraisal ( using a systems approach o r some o the r meaningful and appl icable t o o l ) of the environmental impact of industry t h a t would be a t t r a c t e d t o these power c l u s t e r s should be made i n t h e FES. In Section 5.3.3 it i s s t a t e d t h a t a nuclear park would a t t r a c t severa l l a rge i n d U S t r i 8 8 t h a t consume s i g n i f i c a n t cjilantltiea of e l e c t r i o i t y o r proaess heat, and i n Section 5.4.1 it is i m p l i e d t h a t nuclear parks would cause extensive i n d u s t r i a l development. I n add1 t i o n t o the above considerat ions, the FES should evaluate the s o c i a l and eoonomio impacts of these l a r g e energy- and resource-consuming i n d u s t r i e s upon the region. The FES should p red ic t t he e f f e o t of added heat t o the environment from i n d u s t r i e s assoc ia ted w i t h the nuclear park. Thus, t h e FES w i l l have t o address i t se l f t o nuclear f a c i l i t i e s and the associated i n d u s t r i a l p l an t s t h a t they a t t a r o t .

A major problem wi th a nuclear f a c i l i t y is waste heat,, I n Section 9.102.1, i t i s s t a t e d t h a t the discharge of heated e f f l u e n t s t o the environment i s h o t r e a l l y an anvironmental Impact but i s ins tead an index of such impact, ao tua l impacts a t e b e t t e r described by enumerating the e f f e c t s of heated d is - charge." The point i s well taken, but heated e f f l u e n t s can have an environmental impact t h a t must be d e a l t with i n a meaningful way, a n d the index-versus-impact argument should not be used t o J u s t i f y inadequate considerat ion of thermal . impacts. I n appropriate s i t e se lec t ion c r i t e r i a were formu- l a t e d and adhered t o then the e f f e c t s of thermal discharge on t h e b io ta could be lessened.

I n Section 7.4,3.5 the DES discusses t h e prospects of t h e f t o r sabotage a t a nuclear f a c i l i t y . The probabi l i ty of t h e f t and/or sabotage could be increased a t a nuclear park. The FES should address i t s e l f more f u l l y t o these two problem a reas and provide suggestions t o minimize o r prevent t h e f t and sabotage. Consideration of nuclear parks as s t sa t eg lo t a r g e t s f o r fore ign powers t o a t t a c k o r f o r r ad ica l and f a n - a t i c groups to use f o r attainment of t h e i r goals should be included i n the FES.

v.19-7

- 7 -

Throughout the DES the l o c a l and r eg iona l e f fec ts of parameters such as rad ioac t ive doses, l a n d use, t ransmission l i n e s , water use f o r hea t d i s s i p a t i o n , eto. , were based upon a s i n g l e 1000 MWe nuclear p lan t . I f the nuc lear park concept I s adopted, and these c e n t e r s range from 10,000 MWe t o 50,000 me i n capac i ty , then the FES should address i t s e l f t o oomputing l o c a l e f f e c t s and r eg iona l e r ' i ec ta upon the basis of the t o t a l capac i ty of the f a c i l i t y and not a s i n g l e p lan t .

Seot ion 1,11.2 s t a t e s 'one of the p r i n c l p a l advantages of the LMFBB i s t h a t i t he lps conserve n a t u r a l r e s 0 u r c e 8 ~ " T a b l e 1.11-3 demonstrates t h a t nuc lear power production could save cons iderable amounts of uranium f u e l , and nuclear-produced e l e c t r i c i t y i s c i t e d as a means of conserving l imi ted supp l i e s of f b s s i l fue l s . These are presumably v a l i d cons idera t ions , but the resource consumption r e s u l t i n g d i r e c t l y from cons t ruc t ion and ope ra t ion may be more s i g n i f i c a n t i n impact t h a t the DES would revea l . Table 10.2 l i s t s the materials and es t imated q u a n t i t i e s t o be used i n the cons t ruc t ion of a 1000 M W e LMFBR p lan t , w h i l e Table 10.3 compares production, uses , a n d resources of these ma te r i a l s . The production and consumption f i g u r e s are based on 1969 data which a r e of ques t ionable use i n e s t ima t ing product ion and consumption of these m a t e r i a l s i n the futUr0 of am economy expanding consumption i n a l l sec to r8 ( not only i n nuc lear energy production ). The assumption i s made i n t h e DES t h a t the U n i t e d S t a t e s can produce o r ob ta in the resources it needs f o r t h e development of a breeder economy. Important s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and environmental impacts from t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of these materials have been neglected. For example, a considerable amount of copper i s t o be used i n each LMFBR p lan t ( no t t o men- t i o n t h a t which would be requi red f o r t ransmiss ioa l i n e s and i n d u s t r i a l c e n t e r s near the nuc lear park8 ). &sed on the 1969 figures in t h e DES, the annual consumptlon of copper i n the U . S . i s more tnan ha l f o f the known re se rves i n the U.S. : thus, we are faced w i t h the a l t e r n a t i v e s of searching f o r more r e se rves o r e x t r a c t i n g low-grade ore from known but previously unpro f i t - able holdings. E i t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e involves g r e a t expense and p o t e n t i a l environmental damage. P o l i t i c a l r a m i l l c a t i o n s are inevitable, s ince many of these m a t e r i a l s are obtained from o t h e r ooun t r i e s ( copper from Chile , oil from U.A.R. , aluminum from Jamaica, etc. ). The r e c e n t o i l embargoes and the n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of Chilegs copper r e s e r v e s a r e prominent examples.

ana. o t h e r mineral mines could be increased; publ ic h e a l t h and occupat ional s a fe ty would have t o be considered. Land and water a8 resources are presumed i n the DES t o be l i t t l e d i f - f e r en t from conventional power production usesp on the basis of 1000 MWe plants8 but f o r l a r z e r p l a n t s and nuc lear parks, t h e DES has not f u l l 3 considered t h e e f f ec t . Recognizing t h a t nuc lear parks would at t raot indus t ry the use of these resources l a complicated beyond t h e i r use by the p l a n t s alone.

eume t h a t p r i v a t e u t i l i t i e s could raise the est imated cap1 tal

Social c o s t s t o people l l v i n g near o r working i n copper

Concerning f i n a n c i a l resources , i s i t reasonable t o as-

v.19-8

of $ 512 b i l l i o n ( through 1990 1 ? 15% o f the GKP seems a large sum to be r a i s e d through publ ic f inanolng In an expanding i n f l a t i o n a r y eoonomy,

Bespeot fu l ly submitted by

w d . CLL Mlcheal T. Carter

/2&4M - Robert M. Cuahman

Carter Davirs

P a t r i c i a D. Tyrre l l

v.19-9

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION


DEC 3 1 1974

Mr. Micheal T. Carter Mr. Robert !I. Cushman Nr. J. Carter Davis Ms. Patr ic ia D. T y r r e l l

Knoxville, Tennessee 37319 . P. 0. BOX 11267

Dear Hessrs. Carter, Cushman, Davis and PIS. Tyrrell :

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 22, 1974 commenting on the Atonic Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement on the Liquid ?fetal Fast Breeder Reactor (LXFBK). Program. The Statement has been revisec! where appropriate i n response to the many comnents received, and a copy of the Final Statement is enclosed fo r your information. the other enclosure t o this let ter f o r responses t o your spec i f i c comments.

Please see

It is hoped tha t the revisions t o the Draft Statement and the responses in Enclosure 1 w i l l help a l l e v i a t e your concerns. Your i n t e r e s t i n the LEIFBR Program is appreciated.

Since r e l y , ** J mes L. Liverman

s i s t a n t General Xanager for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Programs

Enclosures : 1. AEC S ta f f Response t o Coments 2. Final Environnental Statement,

UlFBR Progra . (~?ASll-L535)

v.19-10

Enclosure 1

AEC S t a f f Response t o Coments by Messrs. Carter, Cuslirnan, Davis and Ms. T y r r e l l

1. Comment (pp 1-21:

"It would be u s e f u l i f the F i n a l Environmental Statement included a d iscuss ion of t h e imp l i ca t ions of cen t r i fuge and laser enrichment technology f o r t h e cos t -benef i t a n a l y s i s of the LMFBK Program."

Response:

As you suggested, d i scuss ions of the impl ica t ions of cen t r i fuge and laser enrichment technology have been included i n the F i n a l S ta tenent . The p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s of advanced enrichment technology are discussed i n Sec t ions 6A.l.l and 11.2. Discussions i n Sec t ion 11 conta in the t he r e s u l t s of estimates of the maximum p o t e n t i a l economic impact of advanced enrichment technology. I n terms of base case condi t ions , t he development of an enrichment technology by 1990 which provides sepa ra t ive work a t $5/kg, with no 2 3 5 4 i n the t a i l s , does no t remove the incen t ive €or t h e LIG'BR.

2. Comment (pp. 2-31:

"Although the DES does mention the f a c t t h a t an adequate cost- comparison ana lys i s should take i n t o account f a c t o r s o the r than c a p i t a l and opera t ing c o s t s , f u e l cos t s , and o t h e r such t r a d i - t i o n a l measures, and t h a t f a c t o r s he re to fo re considered "external" t o energy-production c o s t s , such as environmental and s o c i e t a l cos t s , should be " in te rna l ized" t o ob ta in a t r u e r p i c t u r e of t o t a l c o s t s and b e n e f i t s , i n f a c t t h e r e is l i t t l e evidence t h a t such "external" f a c t o r s were s e r i o u s l y considered i n many s e c t i o n s of the DES. P a r t i c u l a r l y i n Sec t ion 8 (Al t e rna t ive Technology Options), wherein the f e a s i b i l i t y of these opt ions ' is measured i n dollars-and-cents, and i n many cases r e j e c t e d on t h i s cri- t e r i o n , i t appears t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l " in te rna l" c o s t s were givefi primary and o f t e n t o t a l cons idera t ion , t o the exc lus ion of "external" cos ts . For example, t he d i scuss ion on "Hydrogen axxi Other Synthe t ic Fuels" conta ins the argument :

A t an e l e c t r i c power c o s t of 5 mills/kWh, the power cos t i n terms of hydrogen produced is about: lCc/ lb I12 r e s u l t i n g i n a t o t a l cos t , excluding l abor , maintenance, and overhead cos t s , of 14.3c/lb !I2 o r about $2.30/175 Rtu. considered h ighe r than the cos t of o t h e r f u e l s (e.g., low Btu gas can be produced from coa l a t a c o s t of about 60c t o 8 5 ~ / 1 0 6 3tu) .'I

This is

v. 19-1 1

2

- Sect ion A.6.4 - "Although f u r t h e r d i scuss ion on t h e fol lowing page admits t h a t environmental e f f e c t s would have t o be considered, such e f f e c t s are no t i n any manner recorded a monetary o r otherwise q u a n t i t a t i v e s t a t u s . avoidance of " in t e rna l i z ing" c o s t s is symptomatic of t h e e n t i r e Alter- n a t i v e Technology Options d i scuss ion , and t h i s weakness should be remedied i n t h e FES."

Such

Response :

External c o s t s have been considered in prepar ing t h e Sec t ion on Alter- n a t i v e Technology Options and were an important p a r t of t h e cos t -benef i t d i scuss ions i n most p a r t s of t h a t Section. For example, i n t h e discussion of the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e considered, l i g h t water r e a c t o r s , a t a b l e was inc luded on page A.l.1-74 of t he Draf t Statement comparing the c o s t s a n d h p a c t s of l i g h t water r e a c t o r s and c o a l fue led power p l an t s . This t a b l e included cons idera t ion of t h e convent ional i n t e r n a l c o s t s such as p l a n t c a p i t a l c o s t s , opera t ing and maintenance c o s t s , and f u e l c o s t s , and a l s o covered occupat iona l h e a l t h and s a f e t y "costs" ( f a t a l i t i e s and i n j u r i e s ) , t r anspor t a t ion cons idera t ions , environmental degrada t ion , and o t h e r external c o s t s of the type ind ica t ed i n t h e let ter. S imi l a r ly , t h e HTGR s e c t i o n included a t a b l e of t h i s type (Table A.1.2-4 i n t h e Draf t Statement) , and the c o a l s e c t i o n c a r r i e d a discuss ion of " I n d i r e c t o r External costs" (page A.2-61 i n the Draf t Statement).

The environmental e f f e c t s of e f f l u e n t s which are c o n t r o l l a b l e by modi f ica t ions i n mining and processing p r a c t i c e s and by equipment added t o t h e power p l a n t would be t r a n s f e r r e d t o direct c o s t s recoverable from u t i l i t y revenue. t h e energy system - Le. , i n t e r n a l i z i n g t h e environmental c o s t s of energy pfoduction and use - would s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce bu t no t e l imina te t h e e x t e r n a l cos t s . I n d i r e c t c o s t s were a lso examined i n t h e d i scuss ions of s o l a r energy and geothermal energy, which noted fOK example, t h a t certain costs of geothermal energy w i l l no t appear i n t h e market p r l c e of t h e products. These may include: (1) ground subsidence, ( 2 ) environmental e f f e c t s of gaseous and l i q u i d e f f l u e n t s , (3) wlthdrawal of land from o t h e r p o t e n t i a l uses, and (4) increased seismic a c t i v i t y . Of course, no t a l l of t hese w i l l be present in every geo the raa l development, and some, such as environmental e f f e c t s of e f f l u e n t s , may be con t ro l l ed by added p o w e r p l a n t equipment and would thus be t - a s f e r r e d t o d i r e c t costs recoverable from p m e r revenue.

Adoption of fu l l - cos t p r i c i n g at a l l s t a g e s of

It should be kept in mind t h a t external c o s t s are somewhat d i f f i c u l t t o fo re see in t h e e a r l y s t ages of technology development and only become apparent as t he technology is placed i n t o l a r g e scale commercial use.

V.19-12 9 3

The degree t o which these external costs are recognized is a l s o a function of the extent of awareness of the publSc as t o what cons t i t u t e s an external cost. Thus, f o r many decades the environmeutal consequences of coal mining and automotive transportation were accepted as tolerable u n t i l the accumulated environmental burden could no longer be ignored, In t h i s respect, nuclear power, being the most closely supervised of energy tecnologies, has gone fu r the r i n ident i fying external costs and in t e rna l i z ing them at an ea r ly s tage of commercial u t i l i z a t i o n than any energy technology t o date. New technologies which have not reached the s t age of s ign i f i can t commercialization have subs t an t i a l uncertaint ies associated with evaluating t h e i r f u l l external costs. some of the most profound though sub t l e external costs of a technology can never adequately be expressed i n do l l a r terms. For example, i t is not possible to apply a do l l a r value t o the e f f e c t s of the automobile i n promoting urban decay and suburban sprawl or the e f f e c t s of coal mining practices i n promoting Appalachian poverty. With these l imitations i n mind, i t is f e l t t h a t t h e extent t o which the costs and bene f i t s of each a l t e r n a t i v e have been examined, which includes general considera- t i o n of ex te rna l coats, is an adequate basis on'which t o make comparisons of the ove ra l l advantages and disadvantages of alternative technology

In any event,

options.

3. Comment (p. 3):

"The discussion of Conservation of Energy i n sect ion 8C is ' l imited in t h a t changes necessi ta t ing ser ious adaptations i n our na t iona l l i f e - s t y l e are not included...tho same changes i n l i f e - s t y l e which we may now reject might sowday be considered desirable or needed.."

Response:

Conservation measures which would require changes i n l i f e s t y l e were alluded t o as, for example, on page C.6-20 of Chapter 8 i n the Draft Statement. added under Section 6C.6 i n the Final Statement, and your a t t e n t i o n is directed thereto. l i f e s t y l e may involve l i t t l e inconvenience or hardships, some major concepts f o r energy conservation could involve subs t an t i a l res t ructur- ing of our economy and perhaps even our landscapes. redesign of ci t ies and t ransportat ion systems requiring several decades and b i l l i o n s of dollars would be among the manv measures required t o meet the Zero Energy Crovth concept suggested by some conservationists. Obviously, the decisions t h a t w i l l have t o be made regarding potent ia l changes i n l i f e s t y l e must include consideration of economic, technical, p o l i t i c a l and environmental f ac to r s , as w e l l as s o c i a l and energy conservation matters.

Mora spec i f i c information on t h i s subject has now been

It is shown there tha t although some changes i n

For example,

V.19-13

4

4. Comment (pp. 4-51

"Before embarking on an undertaking which has never in the h i s to ry of mankind involved so many resources and commitments of long term guardianship an agency is required by l a w t o examine a l te rna- t ives of which the bas i c assumption of need is one." discussion of the reasons f o r these grea t d i f fe rences i n demand predic t ions and the supporting evidence for these pred ic t ions is the minimum requirement f o r s a t i s fy ing NEPA."

"A thorough

Response :

The Final Environmental Statement has been modified t o include discussions of energy demand predic t ions from a number of sources and an expanded discussion of the techniques u t i l i z e d in t h e energy demand pro jec t ions fo r the cost-benefit analysis. An add i t iona l coat-benefit ca l cu la t ion was made to determine t h e e f f e c t s of a 50% reduction in the year 2020 electrical energy demand. electrical energy demand is ind ica t ive of t he an t ic ipa ted demand assuming successful energy conservation measures.

5. Conmrent (p. 5 ) :

This reduced

"'More energy w i l l be needed t o raise the standard of l i v i n g of l o w income people to a more equi tab le leve l . ' This statement is an unsupported emotional appeal and should be removed from the DES. two groups, poor and nonpoor, has been widening s ince the advent of inexpensive power. 'Helping the poor' cannot be used to j u s t i f y the implementation of an LMFBR program' .I'

(Section 2.1.2.2)

The f a c t s show t h a t the gap between t h e

Response:

The sentence in question has been deleted. more energy does not necessar i ly assure s o c i e t a l equ i t i e s .

On balance, w e agree t h a t

6. Coarment (p. 5 )

''In t he perspective on a l t e r n a t i v e technology opinions (Vol. IV P-3) t h e r e is a statement which maintains t h a t systems on which l i t t l e o r no work has been done w i l l look most a t t r a c t i v e s ince the na tu ra l eathusiasm of t h e i r proponents w i l l h ighl ight the advantages of the system while the d i f f i c u l t i e s and l imi t a t ions are miniinired o r , most likely, have not been discovered. This statement is a co l l ec t ion of unsupported emotional inferences. The inference t h a t na tura l enthusiasm prevents l imi t a t ions and d i f f i c u l t i e s of new technologies

V. 19-14 n

5

from being discovered, whi le no t necessa r i ly t r u e , could be used t o cha rac t e r i ze certaiir aspects of the U G B R p rogrm, as w e l l as o the r new technologies. The s ta tement t h a t t he l i m i t a t i o n s have most l i k e l y not been discovered is a misuse of sub jec t ive probabi l i ty . "

Response :

The quoted statement on page P-3 of Chapter 8 i n t h e Draf t Statement is p a r t o f a paragraph expla in ing t h e need f o r a b a s i s f o r comparison of a l t e r n a t i v e s . Experience has shown t h a t conceptual technology o f t e n is evaluated by i ts maximum t h e o r e t i c a l p o t e n t i a l , whi le proven technology is compared on the b a s i s of performance. Between these two l e v e l s of matur i ty a number of milestones i n the development of a new technology can be de l inea ted . t h e Draf t Statement as a b a s i s f o r comparing alternatives. Thus, t h e Statement a t tempts t o provide an ob jec t ive framework f o r t h e necessa r i ly s u b j e c t i v e comparisons which must be made among conceptual technologies .

A set of t h r e e milestones is defined on page P-4 of

7. Comment (pp. 5-61:

"The f e a s i b i l i t y of c l u s t e r i n g nuc lear f a c i l i t i e s i n parks is quest ioned on s e v e r a l grounds." consider is t he s i t e s e l e c t i o n procedure." "...the FES w i l l have to address i t s e l f t o nuc lear f a c i l i t i e s and t h e assoc ia ted indus- t r i a l p l a n t s t h a t they attract.

"One of the b a s i c po in t s t o

In Sec t ion 7.4.3.5 t h e DES d i scusses t h e prospec ts of t h e f t o r sabotage at a nuc lear f a c i l i t y . The p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e f t and/or sabotage could be increased a t a nuclear park. The FES should address i t s e l f more f u l l y to these two problem areas and provide suggest ions t o minimize o r prevent t h e f t and sabotage. Consid- eration of nuclear parks as s t r a t e g i c t a r g e t s f o r fore ign powers t o a t t a c k o r f o r radical and f a n a t i c groups t o use f o r a t ta inment of t h e i r goals should be included in the FXS."

Response:

Nuclear energy cen te r s p o t e n t i a l l y provide a means of reducing c e r t a i n costs and environmental impacts, i n p a r t i c u l a r those r e l a t e d t o shipment of spent f u e l , as discussed i n Sec t ion 4.5.6.3. Hmever, t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of a s p e c i f i c s i te and the t o t a l environmental k ipac t of a nuc lear energy center and any assoc ia ted indus t ry w i l l be sub jec t t o i nd iv idua l review as s t i p u l a t e d by NEPA. parks is planned.

As noted in Sect ion 7.2.6.4, an ana lys i s of nuc lear

v. 19-15

6

The AEC does not believe t h a t the probabi l i ty of t h e f t or sabotage would be increased a t a r u c l e w park. A s indicated i? Section 7.4.9.4.2 of t he F ina l Statement, increased safeguards e f fec t iveness could be expected to result from the consolidation of perimeter pro tec t ion and response forces made possible by the adoption of the nuclear energy center (nuclear park) concept. Regarding wartime a t t ack on nuclear parks, the conclusion reached i n Section 7.4.4.1, t h a t t he add i t iona l e f f e c t of t a rge t ing nuclear f a c i l i t i e s vould be masked by the ove ra l l consequences of a massive strategic a t t ack , is believed v a l i d whether or not t he nuclear park concept I s adopted.

"A major problem with a nuclear f a c i l i t y is waste heat. Section 9.1.2.1, i t is s t a t e d t h a t the discharge of heated e f f l u e n t s t o the environment is "not r e a l l y an environmental impact but is instead an index of such impact, a c t u a l impacts are b e t t e r described by enumerating t h e e f f e c t s of heated diecharge." can have an environmental impact t ha t must be d e a l t with i n a meaningful way, and the index-versus-impact argument should not be used t o j u s t i f y inadequate consideration o f thermal impacts. and adhered to then the e f f e c t s of thermal discharge on t he b i o t a could be lessened."

In

The point is w e l l taken, but heated e f f l u e n t s

I f appropriate s i te se l ec t ion cri teria were formulated

Response:

The concept of "index-versus-impact" w a s introduced only t o point out that the discharge of heated e f f l u e n t s is only an index to s i t e - spec i f i c impacts on water usage, land usage and related e f f e c t s of b i o t a and man. Land and water usage are discussed i n Section 9.1.4 of the Draft State- ment. included f o r two reasons. var ied and complex and s t rongly dependent upon the s p e c i f i c p lan t s i t e . Secondly, i t is presumed t h a t discharges conform t o appl icable state and f ede ra l t egula t ions designed to pro tec t the environment.

9. Comment (p. 7):

As s t a t e d i n Section 9.1.2.1, b io log ica l impacts have not been F i r s t of a l l , t h e p o t e n t i a l impacts are

'?able 10.2 lists the materials and estimated q u a n t i t i e s t o be used i n the construction o f a 1000 We LHFBR plant , while Table 10.3 compares production, uses, and resourc2s of these materials. The production and consumption f igures are based on 1969 da ta which are of questionable use in estimating production and consumption of these materials i n the fu tu re of an econamy expanding consumption

V. 19-16

7

i n all sec to r s (not only i n nuclear energy production). The assumption i s made i n the DES that the United S t a t e s can produce o r ob ta in the resources i t needs f o r the development of a breeder ecoaorny. Important s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and environmental impacts from the acquis i t ion of these materials have been neglected.". .. "Po l i t i ca l ramifications a r e inevi table , s ince many of these materials are obtained from other countries (copper from Chile, o i l from U.A.R., aluminum from Jamaica, etc.). The recent o i l embargoes and the nat ional izat ion of Chile's copper reserves are prominent examples ."

Response:

A s waa s t a t e d on p. 13 i n Chapter 10 of the D r a f t Statement, " . . . t h e commitment of resources t o the projected LMFBR industry does not appear to be appreciable or critical.. .I'

t o f i s e i o n power, w i l l be conserved with the introduction of the L:GBR. Dependence 011 foreign supplies f o r metals is not unique t o the LMFBR. On the o the r hand, the LMFBR can reduce the commitment t o imported f o s s i l fuels.

Uranium resources, which are unique

10. Comment (pp. 7-8) :

"Concerning f inanc ia l resource8, is it reasonable t o assume t ha t p r i v a t e u t i l i t i e s could raise the estimated capital of $512 b i l l i o n (through 1990)? through public financing i n an expanding in f l a t iona ry economy."

15% of the GXP seems a large sum t o be raised

Response:

The estimated annual c a p i t a l requirements f o r fossil-fueled plants and nuclear power reactors were compared t o GNP projections i n Table 5.3-1 i n the Draft Statement. The t o t a l annual c a p i t a l requirements f o r the years 1985 through 2020 are always l e s s than 3% of the GNP, o r a f a c t o r of 5 lawer than your estimate. I n 1970 p r iva t e u t i l i t i e s accounted f o r 7% of t he t o t a l funds ra ised i n a l l c r e d i t markets. The t o t a l c r e d i t funds i n 1970 were about 12% of the (;NP. The estimated f inanc ia l requirements do not seem unreasonable.

v.20-1

Dean E . Abrahamson 1092-25th Ave. S . E . M i nneapol i s , Mn. 5541 4

April 24, 1974

Dr. James L . Liverman Assistant General Manager f o r Biomedical

and. Environmental Research and Safety Programs

U.S. Atomic Energy Comnission Washington, D.C. 20545

Dear Dr. Liveman:

Enclosed please find three ( 3 ) copies of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ' s comments on the safeguards and diversion portions of the d r a f t environmental statement on thelLMFBR Program {WASH 1535).

is any way tha t we can be of assistance to you, please contact Mr. J . G . Speth a t NRDC i n Washington, o r me.

the: f inal enviornmental statement for the LMFBR Program.

Should you have questions on these comments, of i f there

When i t - i s ready, I would appreciate receiving a copy o f

n

enclosure I

cc: J..G1 Speth; Esq.

v.20-2

Natural Rcsources Defcnsc Council, Inc. 15 WEST 4 4 ~ 1 1 STREET

N E W YORIL, N.Y. 10036

212 869-0150

NRDC Comments on WASH 1535

w e s t Const o f l c c Draft Environmental Statement G64 IIAh1ILTOX AV1:NIIE

Boris I . UittLcr, Esq. LiqulJ Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program PALO ALTO, CALIF. 9.1301 John T. nooth. Esq. Frcderici A. Collins. Jr.. bq.

415 327-1080 .~

Dr. Rcne J . Duboj Janics l3. Frinkcl. Esq. Robert W. Gilniorc

Dr. Joshua Lcdcrbcrg Anthony hlazzocchi

Dr. GiRord B. Pindl01 ]din K. Rubinson. E-.

J. \Villarcl Roorvcl t \Vhitncy North Seymour. Jr.. Esq David Sive, Fsq.

John €1. M a i n s . ESq. Excculive Dircclor

Re: Volume I , Section 1.7.3

Volume 111, Section 7.4 Volume 111, Appendix 111-A

Hamilton F. K C ~ I I I . Esq. Volume 111, Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3

Michael hlcIntorh

A u r a ncc RockcIel le1

Dr. Gcori;c hf. W d w e l l Dean E . Abrahamson

Safeguards and Diversion o f Special Nuclear Materials

Introduction

On * .uaus t 14 , 1973, NRDC submitted f o r consideration i n the preparation o f

this Draft Environmental Statement on the LI4FBR Program our cornments on the

general scope of the statement, including the safeguard and diversion problems.

In addition, over the past several years and par t icular ly d u r i n g the p a s t months,

increasing a t ten t ion has been drawn to these problem th rough various means,

including: testimony before the Jo in t CoKmittee on Atomic Energy;' publications

i n the general press;3 and the publication of major s tudies on nuclear t h e f t and

1

- 1/ J.G. Speth and Thomas B. Cochran, ''Cornients Submitted t o the Atcmic Energy Comni,ssion Regarding the Preparation o f the Draft Environmental Impact S t a tenon t f o r t h ? LNFBR Program,'' Natural Resources DeTense Council, August 14 , 1973.

2/ Theodore B . Taylor, Remarks before the U.S. Congress, Jo in t Committee on Ktomic Energy, January 28, 1974. Because of the general appl icabi l i ty of t h i s testimony t o these I;en?ral remarks on th? adquacy of the safeguards section of the Drsft Environmental 5taternent, HASH 1535, the e n t i r e testimony i s included i n these comments as Appendix A.

- 3/ John fkPhee, "The Curve o f G i n d i n g Energy," _ _ _ _ ~ - The Rev/ Yorker, Dxmber 3 , 10, and 17 , 1974. n

V . 20-3

- 2-

s a f e g ~ a r d s . ~ All of these a c t i v i t i e s and inany more re la t ing to the s a w topics ,

must be known t o the AEC.

deta i l the a v a i l a b i l i t y of special nuclear materials (SNPl) in the f i s s i o n fuel

cycles, the means th rough which SWl might be diverted by national governments

These publications, and others , discuss i n some

or sub-national groups or individuals, the motivations for such divers ions,

the d e t a i l s of construction of explosive or radiological weapons from SNM, and

the e f f e c t s which m i g h t r e s u l t froni the use of these radiological or explosive

weapons.

the Draft Environmental Statement on the LFlFBR t o s t a t e the findings o f these

s tud ies , t o respond i n de ta i l t o them, t o c r i t i c a l l y comment on the conclusions

stated by t h e i r authors, and t o out l ine in de ta i l the measures b e i n g taken o r

ant ic i fa ted t o cope w i t h the r i sks of diversion from the LFIFBR fuel cycle.

Hence, w2 assumed t h a t the AEC would take the opportunity afforded by

Upon rece ip t of copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statemmt !.e

were appalled a t the treatment of t h i s problem i n :

Volume I ; Section 5 .4 .2 , Socio-Poli t i c a l Impacts: The National Cir?:ension,

Voluine 111; Section 5.4.3, Socio-Polit ical Impacts: The International Dimension,

Volume 111; Section 7.4, Safeguards, Volume 111, a n d ; Appendix 111-A, Consideration

of Selected Safeguards-Rolated Topics, Volume 111.

profoundly shocked t o f ind safeguards-related matters t o t a l l y ignored i n thz

balance o f the Draft Environmental Statement, par t icu lar ly i n :

LMFBR Program, Volume I , a chapter which purports t o s e t for th the objectives

Section 1.7.3, Safeguards,

In a d d i t i o n , we were

Chapter 3 ,

of .the e n t i r e LMFBR Program Plan, and whick includes, “A sumnary of the scope

- 4/ Sdfecjaards (a report t o the Ford Foundation Energy P g i c y S t u d i n 1 lirtger Pi3? i - i iEf Lo., Cambridge, thss . , 197Cr.

See c.g. Mason \{i l l r ich and Theodore B . Taylor, Nuclear Theft: --- R i s k s and

C~IKI, id~ison \Alillrich, ( e d i t o r ) , Intcrnat ioral Sdfec;a.Jrd; ;In(! Iluclenr Itidus t ry , Joiins Hopki ns Uriiversi ty Prsjs, C;I I tin:orc. aild I-oticlon, I ( ? l j .

- - - _ _ _ _ ~ --__- -_---

V . 20-4

-3-

and s ta tus of each o f the s tudies and program plans;" Chaptct- 3 , Vo

a l l of Volume IV, b o l h t i t l e d , Alternative Techiioloqy Ogtions, and;

Cost-'Zen?fi t Analysis of ImFlenienting the L IFBX Program, Volunie I11

While the Draft Environtnental Statenient does mention the prob

urn? I11 arid

Chapter 11 ,

erns of

preventing diversions of SNM, the problems are n o t discussed i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l

t o characterize their dimensions. The manner i n which these diversions will be

attempted t o be prevented or the e f fec ts should diversions take place a re t o t a l l y

ignored.

address the various aspects of the safeguards and diversion problem.

Further, t h o Draft Statement does n o t describe s tudies underway which

Nowhere

does the Draft Statement include even the most rudimentary description of t h 2

LMFBR fuel cycle including such things as the quant i t ies and chemical or physical

form of'the special nuclear materials a t each p o i n t i n the fuel cycle.

mention is made of the r e l a t i v e advantags or disadvantages, froiii the standpoint

o f prevention diversions o f SNM, of a l te rna t ives t o the L N F B R Prograin.

No

r!o

mention is made i n t h o economic analyses of the costs o f safeguards programs o r

In shor t , o ther than t o define the general nature of the safeguards

pro b l ems --both na t i o na 1 and i n t e r na ti ona 7 --the Dra Fi E nv i ronmen t a 1 S t a t emen t

ignores the issue. Safeguards has not been taken i n t o account. The isscle has

been excluded from consideration. The s i tua t ion i s reminiscent o f t h a t o f a

few years ago when the AEC attempted, unsuccessfully, i o ignore the thermal

e f fec ts of f i s s i o n power reactors .

The F!a ture of the Safeguards - Probleins

The gcn2ral naturc O F the problms associated w i t h safeguarding SKPl i s

defined i n the Draft Env i ron twnt J l S t a t w e n t as:

the costs which could accrue t o society should there be a f a i l u r e of the safeguards.

v . 20-5 G -4-

"Certain iiiateriills present in nucledr reactor fuel cycles inus t hi3 considwed as possible targzts fo t - i l l ega l diversion arid subsequent use i n the fabricat ion of nuclear explosive devices o r in disp2rsal t o c rea te radiological incidznts. The poss ib i l i ty o f sabotage o f f a c i l i t i e s resu l t icg in radiological incidents must a lso b? c o n ~ i d e r e d . " ~

In another sect ion of the Draft Statement i t i s acknowledged t h a t this hazard

i s n o t present i n non-nuclear options t o the L K F B R Program, and furthzr, the

nature of the hazard i s again emphasized:

"A major difference b2tween an e lec t r ica l energy sys tein based on nuclear fission and a1 ternat ive non-nuclear systems derives, i n the former case, from the wid2 d is t r ibu t ion of f i s s i l e materials ( i . e . , plutoniiiin or uranium) i n the econcrny. A s igni f icant coccern regarding the use of plutonium i s the potential for diversion of t h i s rratcrial f o r the product ion of weapons or sabotage, resul t i n q i n potential radiological danljer t o the public. The need t o protect hazardous niaterials has, of course, ex is ted i n the pas t . hazard to the public in tha t they create the means, i n theory a t l e a s t , of a new form of ant i -social behavior."6

lihclear polwr reactors are a potential

The Draft Statement a lso acknowledges t h a t i n addition t o these hazards, there

i s an internat ional component, nanlely t o p rwent S?lf*l froni being diverted from

reactors i n t o national atomic weapom programs:

"A nuclear energy economy has a number o f intarnational implications with d iFf i cu1 t i n s t i t u t iona ' l aspects. Gemrally, as reactor technology ex tends beyond the techno1 ogi cal ly soohi s t i ca tcd , pol i t i ca? ly s t a b l e countries o f the world, the international inpl icat ions of nuclear power will require international a g r x w n t s and ins t i tu t ions t o assure t h a t the comvon good i s , inde?d, protected."7

After br ie f ly describing the system o f international safeguards iihich i t i s

hoped wil l "prevent the diversion of material sui t ab le for weapons production

from peaccful applications,"* the Draft Statement goes on t o recognize t h i l t the

present systems are inadequate f o r a reactor economy including LMFSR's:

.- 5/ \ii?SI-i 1535, page 7-64.

- G / I4ASI-1 1535, page 5-31 a n d 5-32.

7/ K4SIi 1535, page 5-33. - - e/ \,!,GI1 1535, page 5-33.

v.20-6

-5-

"One may, thercfore , conclude t h j . t. the i n s t i tutional Framework for an effect ive international safequdrds program does e x i s t a1 tiiorcgii s ign i f icant expansion arid modi i icatiotl i s arlticipate.d as an LlirnR economy develops, "9

z.

I t i s noteworthy tha t the Draft Statement does n o t claim t h a t the present

international safeguards system i s adequate even for today's reactor econoiny,

b u t simply s t a t e s t h a t "the ins t i tu t iona l framework for an e f fec t ive international

safeguards program does ex is t . "

there coment on the degree t o which other nations have folind the present

international safeguards program acceptable, o r t h ? degree t o which there i s

acceptance t h a t t h i s program must undergo "s ignif icant expansion and modi Ficaiion."

Further nowhere i n the Draft Statement i s

That SNM i s present i n s ign i f icant quant i t ies i n the LMFBR fuel cycle i s

a l s o re-cognized by t h 2 authors of the Draft Environmental Statement:

"In the year 2020, about 550 LMFBR e lec t r ica l generating s ta t ions [each o f 4OOOb:w(e)], about 28 fuel fabr icat ion plants and a b o u t 28 reproccssing plants could be in operation. there m i g h t be about 5000 metric tons of f i s s i l e plutonium present i n the U.S. LMFBX fuel cycle, about hdlf of vhich would b? i n reactors . f a c i l i t i e s would be strongly influecced by f a c i l i t y location and s i t i n g practices: about 100,000 shipiwnts including highway and

In the same year ,

The ex tent of plutoniiim product transportation between

r a i l ) m i g h t take place i n the year 2C20."1 6 The above excerpt i s the to ta l description o f the quant i t ies and form of SF;M

which would be present i n the LPIFBR fuel cycle. A l t h o u g h the infornation i n

t h 2 Draft Statement does s u f f i c e t o indicate tha t these materials a re present

i n large quant i t ies , i t i s t o t a l l y inadequate t o permit the reader t o a p p r x i a t e

the d i s t r i b u t i o n , and the chemical and physical form, of the Sr!tl a t variotis

points o f t h @ fuel cycle.

analysis of nuclear t h e f t p o s s i b i l i t i e s .

diagram of the L F T B R fuel cycle depicted below indicate t h n par ts o f the L I F D R

For t h i s material , we re fer the AEC t o the recent

The heavy l.ines in the schematic

- 9/ HASH 7535, page 5-34.

I 10/ \:ASH 1535, pages 7-64 2nd 7 - 4 5 .

V.20-7

-6-

fuel cycle i n \ihich t.her-2 will be i i :dtcr ia ls t h 6 t cc7n b? used d i r e c t l y in f i s s i o n

:bombs.

explosive material wi thout e i t i i s chemical processing or isotope enrichtxnt

has a l s o been reported.

The weight o f iiiaterials requfred t o provide one cr i t , ical mass of f i s s i o n

12 The quant i t ies , i n t h ? LPIFBR fue l cyc le a r e :

LMFBR .fuel fabr i ca t i on i npu t o r reprocessing o u t p u t

Pu02 about 9 Kg

LI.IFBR fabricated fuel o r PUC2 -+ U ( D ) f I 2 a b o u t 30-60 'Lg

fuel p e l l e t s or u(rr)o,

A1 t h o u g h these are impressively m a l 1 numbers compared with the to ta l

quant i t ies t h a t G:'wld be p r e s m t a t various places i n the Li lFBl i fuel cycle,

and imply extraordinar i ly h i g h standards o f aiateriJ1s accountabili ty, the

quanti%ies of plutonium required t o m ~ k e a bcmb are very large compared with

the quant i t ies thdt \:auld required t o make a radiation wapon. Again f r c n

/ ~ \ - 11/ i,lason \li I l r ich sild 'iii?o:lare Taylor, op cit, F i g d r a 3-3, pagz 48.

- 12/ Nil l r ich and T?..,ylor, op c i t y pc?qa 55.

U i l l r

V. 20-8

-7-

ch and Taylor:'

"Suff ic izn t quan t i t i e s o-F plutonium to cause considzrable dmage i f widely clispwsed e x i s t a t a l l s tages i n the LN!1 [ l i g h t water reactor] or L U D R .fuel cycles t h a t contain pliitonium. p e l l e t s o f plutonim-bearing LI IR fuel o r LIt!FBR fue l , i f ground i n t o an extremely f i n e p o d e r , woyld contain enolcgh pliitonium (a few grams o r so) t o b? usable i n a plutonium disporsal device t h a t could ser ious ly contaminate a l a rge a rea . C u t t h e f t of small amounts o f plutonium from par t s o f t h ? fue l cycle wher? i t i s mixed w i t h in tense ly rad ioac t ive f i s s i o n products does not appear c red ib le t o us. p l u t o n i u m s torage f a c i l i t i e s , fue l fabr ica t ion p l an t s , f r e s h . fue l s torage f a c i 1 i t i 2s , and the t ranspor ta t ion 1 inks be-tween these f a c i l i t i e s as til : l i k e l y places f o r t h 2 F t o fp lu tonium f o r use i n radiological weapons. Among these , the places t h a t would be most vulnerable t o attempted t h e f t s would be t he plutonium load-out rooms a t reprocessing p l an t s , where a n employe2 m i g h t pour very small quari t i t ies of plutonium r ! i t r a t e i n t o a container f o r s u r r e p t i t i o u s removal; o r a t fuel f ab r i ca t ion p!an.ts, where an employee n i i g h t s t e a l .a few fue l pe l l e t s o r a plutonium- bearing fue l rod o r fue l p in ." l3

Given then t h a t Sl iX e x i s t s i n l a rge quan t i t i e s i n the LIlFBR fue l cyc le ,

Even a fefw

This 1eave.s t he output of reprocessing p l an t s ,

t h a t were i t d iver ted i t could form the basis f o r the f ab r i ca t ion of eithEr an

atomic bomb o r a r ad ia t ion weapon, what does the Draft Environnent.al Statement

have t o say about those \rho might wish to u t i l i z e the poten t ia l f o r t h i s "n2w

form of an t i - soc ia l behavior?" On t h 2 questions associated w i t h the in te rna t iona l

safeguards i s sue the DraFt r epor t i s conipletely s i l e n t .

word addrcssing t h i s top ic although the unc lass i f ied l i t e r a t u r e i s rpp lcd t :/i th

6

There i s n o t a s i n g l e

such discussion^.^^' 15' 17' l8 As t o t he t h r e a t o f domestic d ivers ion !';e

- 13/ - 14/ Cambridge, I4ass. , 1971.

Mason \&!il lr ich and Theodore Taylor, o p c i t y pages 55-56. B. Feld ( e d i t o r ) , Impact o f New - Technologies on t h , o Arms Race, MIT Press ,

- 15/ ~ _ _ _ S~viet-!meric;n ExchLinq?, __- Cap! . Associa-Lion of the W, iiw ' iork, Ju ly li172.

16/ Bal t ioore , 1969.

United Nations Association of t he U.S.A., .___ Safeguarding ___.- th? Atcm:

S h ~ l d o n I.. I-!ill.ianis, The! U.S. , Ind ia , a n d - . - ~ t h ? Comb, Johns H<)p!<iilS Press ,

A

-

v.20-9

-8-

f ind only:

"The above informt ion re la tes t o OCO major aspect o i the fu ture safeguards problcm: the extcnsivsness o f the ' t a r g e t ' f o r sabo t;!ge o r diversionary a c t i v i t i e s . of individuals or groups t o ztteinpt diversionary ac ts--is not readi ly subject t o q u a t i t i t a t i v c description. social/poli t . ical cliiiiate i n the U.S. and a b r o a d , i t i s assuind t h d t the prevalence of criil;inal a c t i v i t y will n o t diminis? in fu ture years. Also, the number of individuals vii t h t echnica l / sc izn t i f ic t ra ining can be exp2c-ked t o increase. These general f a c t o r s , coupled w i t h ti72 broadened ' t a r g e t ' f o r diversion offered by the increased use o f plutonium, itidicats the need f o r continuous upgrading and strerqthening o f the A E C ' s safeguards progrm."lg

What then a re the objectives of the "AEC's safeguards program?"

The other iiiajor aspec.t--the incl inat icn

Considering t h ? present

They

too a r e s e t for th i n the Draft Environmental Statement:

"The prirpary safeguards objective O F the AEC i s t o prevent t h e f t of special nuclear materials (StPl) [plutonium and t l i e f i ss ionable isotopes of uranium] and other materials whoso i l l e g a l use could c rea te a radiological h a z a r d , and t o prevent sabotage o f f a c i l i t i e s containing such mat2rials. A second important objective i s t o respond o r i n i t i a t e response t o such a c t s , i f they a re carr ied o u t , i n a way t h a t n e u t r a l i z s or minimizes i h ? consequences."*O

And the goal i s absolute prev2ntion of any t h e f t :

"The AEC seeks t o prevent any div2rsion o f nuclear material and does not recognize any quant i ta t ive l i m i t on t h i s objective."21

How this goal of perfect containment, of absolute prevention of t h e f t

o r recovery o f SI01 should there be a t h ? F t , i s t o be achieved i s l e f t t o the

reader ' s iRagination.

any valuable corsmodity has been s tolen and i s being s tolen.

To what example can he turn, f o r history indicates t h a t

Again, as i n t h 2

case

b3Ck

perm

have

of consid2ration of serious reactor accidents, the AEC seenis t o be f a l l i n g

on f a i t h - - i t i s f u l l y recognized t h a t diversion of S W l sizply cannot be

tted t o happin, hence i t will no t happen. How? Have f a i t h young m a n ,

Faith.

19/ HASH 1535, page 7-65 . - -- 2@/ \iW! 1535, pages 7 -65 and 7-65.

ill/ LIAS11 1535, page 1114-1. --

v.20-10

-9-

\-,'hatever be i n the callective mind of the AEC for this hypotheticdl,

perfect system which will prevent any and a l l thef t , the present system i s

recognized as being inadequate.

program, "significant expansion and modification i s anticipated as an LHFBR

economy develops,"9 and i n the case of the domestic program, "These Seneral

factors , coupled w i t h the broadened ' t a rge t ' [the LMFBR fuel cycle] for

diversion offered by the increased use of plutonium, indicate the need for

I n the case of the international safeguards

continuous upgrading and strengthening of the AEC's safeguards program. It19

A t this p o i n t i n the Draft Environmental Statement the reader would

expect t o find a f u l l , candid, and expl ic i t discussion of the features in the

present safeguards program which would be inadequate were the LNFBR t o be

developed, of the nature of the anticipated measures t o ''expand and modify''

and t o "upgrade and strengthen" the existing safeguards program.

i s found i s a f la tu len t exposition of the "safeguards medsures presently in

place," and nary a word on what would corn, other than:

Llha t instead

"The expected growth of commercial nuclear power i n the U.S., including the LMFBR with i t s large quantities of plutonium, indicates the need f o r continuous upgrading and strengthening of the AEC's safeguards program. The currently defined A E C safeguards objectives and program elements are be1 ieved t o provide the broad scope and f lexi b i 1 i t y necessary for tiinely developvent, placement and enforceiront of such modified or new safeguards requirements as may be found necessary. program elements themselves are n o t fixed, b u t niay be strengthened or expanded as the resul t of continuing in-house reviev. Simi 1 arly , whi 1 e the safeguards program i n i t s pres2nt implementation provides a strong base, i t must be viewed as an evolving program. As indicated ear l ie r i n this section, a number of areas arc currently under investigation which may resu l t i n new o r modified requirements. analyses, social studies and hardware developments are anticipated. ' I 2 *

Nhat are the characterist ics of the various ineans available to Elininate

The

Additional investigations,

o r t o reduce the hazards posed by a diversion of SWM? The Draft Statement

- 22/ \,!ASH 1535, pages 7-84 and 7-85, -

0

v.20-11

-10-

gives few c lues , one must look elsewhere for any ind ica t ion of t he various

means ava i l ab le , I t i s obvious t h a t one way t o e l iminate the hazard i s t o

e l imina te the " ta rge t" - - tha t i s t o not i n i t i a t e the LHFBR Program and as

quickly as poss ib le t o cease the cur ren t production and u t i l i z a t i o n o f spec ia l

nuclear ma te r i a l s .

t h i s opt ion.

commercial nuclear f i s s i o n which could, i f not e l imina te , a t l e a s t minimize

the hazards.

even if d iver ted i t i s incapable of being used i n weapons, w i t h means t h a t

would be ava i l ab le t o the group o r individual bent on "ant i -social behavior;"

confineinent of those elements o f the LFlFBR fue l cycle from which d ivers ion is

I t i s not surpr i s ing t h a t the AEC wishes not t o discuss

There a r e , hos*fever, means ava i l ab le sho r t of abandonment o f

These include: denaturing the plutonium and 0th2r SNM such t h a t

c r e d i b l e t o a s i n g l e loca t ion , t he bas i s f o r t he nuclear park concept, and; a

system of physical , soc ia l , and behavioral cont ro ls .

methods i s t o t a l l y ignored i n the Draf t Statement, and t k second mentioned only

obliquely, a few comments a r e i n order .

As t he f i r s t of these

These various a l t e r n a t i v e s have been most recent ly out l ined i n a s h o r t

paper by Professor Eernard T. Feld, p a r t of which follows:

"...if t h i s i s thz case [the u t i l i z a t i o n of uranium/plutonium fue l cycles] then, wi-thin the coining decade or t W , th2 majGr s ecu r i ty problem t h a t t he \iorld wi l l f ace i s how t o r ; revmt the widespread dissemination o f nuclear waporis, not only t o governments o r semi-governmmtal bodies, b u t t o groups o f unauthorized, even a n t i s o c i a l , elements as w i l l .

a r e any means availab1.e f o r f r u s t r a t i n g t h i s pred ic t ion of widespread prol i-Teration of nuclodr weapocs, a r i s ing from the inev i t ab le d i f fus ion o f plutonium and .th? knowledge of i t s chemical and nuclear prop2r t ics .

w i t h t h - i ; problerii.. . .

"Acceptingthese preniises as f a c t , t12 may ask whether t he re

"A number of p o s s i b i l i t i e s are out l ined /:ere fo r coping

I'1. The m o s t strrtightiorwa:-d IWPS O F c o p i n g with the prcbl ern o f t he prol i?era-Lilon of micl car 1:ieapot:s would b;! f o r ti!? t cchno l39 ic ,~ l ly -advanccd nations t o agree t i t t h i s t in? t o ;orogc! til? p l u t o n i u m breeder i-e3ct:~r

v.20-12

-11-

route t o the solution o f the pO\i4zr c r i s i s : t o agree individually and i n conccrt, tha t f i s s i o n energy i s t o be regarded as an intcrii;i solut ion. Lloreover, suf f ic ien t s tores o f ordinciry and s l i g h t l y enriched uraniuiii art. avai lable t o carry us, via conventional reactor sources, th rough the energy c r i s i s o f the next decade. . . . Assuniing the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of a growing plutonium- based power economy, the next-best approach would be t o devise an iron-clad system of control over the plutonium stores--pr?ferably an e f fec t ive internat ional agency--to insure tha t under no reasonably conceivable circumstances could they f a l l i n t o i r responsible hands (the For t Knox approach). . . .even this r e l a t i v e l y milder form of international action ( a s compared t o baniiing plutonium) does n o t appear t o have any appreciable prospect f o r a d o p t i o n . Barring such ' p o l i t i c a l ' solutions, i t i s incumbent upon us to explore the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of a technical solut ion t o the problem--to seek t o d w i s e a means v k r c b y the vast s tores of plutoniuiii i n c i rcu la t ion might be rendered unsuitable for conversion in to nuclear weapons. This b r i n g s us t o a question of 'denaturing' p l u t o n i u m , a poss ib i l i ty tha t was frequently mectioned i n e a r l i e r discussions o f nuclear weapons control , b u t h d s recently been c a s t in to serious d o u b t as a r e s u l t of improvements i n nuclear woapons technolociv i n the most develooed

"2.

"3.

countries. (See Carson P(i3rk- i n Iia?Zct of Neb/ Technologies on the Arms ?ace, Cambridge, Mass., ilIT P r e s s 7 1 9 7 1 . )

"The concept of plutonium denaturing a r i s e s from the peculiar p r o p e r t i s o-f a heavier isotope of plutonium (plutonium-240). T h i s isotope i s , on the one hand, s imilar t o the heavy uraniun-238 isotopo i n t h a t i t does n o t readi ly undergo f i ss ion a n d , therefore i s n o t su i tab le f o r making a tonic bombs. property o f being a p r o l i f i c and spontineous neutron cinit tcr. l a t t e r property renders the norm1 plutonium-229, r.;i t h which plutonium-240 may be mixed, very much more d i f f i c u l t t o de tona te i n an explosive fashion.

" . . . i t should b2 possible t o design the plutonium breeder reactors so a s t o maximize the concwtrat ion of plutonium-240 in the breeding process.

" I t i s doubtful whether i t ijiould he feas ib le t o increase the plutonium-240 concmtration t o a degree tha t would render the plutonium non-explodable. O u t such highly cl2natured plutonium m i g h t increase the tcchnical cIifficu1t.y suf f ic ien t ly so as .to requ.ire a tcchnolo?y beyond tile naan,s of any b u t t h ? m o s t technalogically- advanced laboratori2s. This would be one way o f liandling the 'Mafia problem. I

b o t h physical and c h m i c a l , O F ciwaturi ng plutoniuin.. . .

B u t i s hzis th:! additional This

" I t v;ould a l so b: well b!oi.th:.ihil? t o invest igate other iIimns,

n

V.20-13

-1 2-

"The objective would be t o ra i se the barr icrs against the clandest ine divcrsioti c f reactor-intended plL!tcniu,il into weapons production. The importance of the nuclear pro1 i ferat ion p r o b l m i s so imtiirnsc as t o requirp the greatest urgency i n fuk-cher invest igat ions o f the denaturing of n l u t o n i u m a s w l 1 as oiher technical and pol i t ica l solutions .'Iz3

We do n o t represent the denaturing proposal for th as being a solution t o the

safeguards and diversion problem, for a t best i t would ininimize the hazard

posed by i l l e g a l atomic explosives as i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o imagine a credible

denaturing process tha t would diminish the hazard of a dispersal weapon.

Further, we have serious doublts as to whether the denaturing scheme i s even

credible means t o reduce the i l l e g a l explosives problem.

however, which i s proposed from time t o time and the A E C should take the

opportunity afforded by the Final LNFBR Program Impact Staternen t t o present

a f u l l discussion of the technical arid economic merits and p2ndlties of denaturing.

I t i s a scheme,

Another schme f o r r d u c i n g the hazards of diversion o f SNM - i s t o loca te

the most vulnerable elements of the LMFBR fils1 cycle a t a s ing le s i t e .

concept, t h a t of the "nuclear par!<," would involve the common s i t i n g of : fuel

fabr ica t ion f a c i l i t i e s , several reactors , the chemical reprocessing p lan t , and

perhaps a l so the high-level radioactive waste managsment i n s t a l l a t i o n s .

safeguards advantages of such nuclear parks a r e mentioned almost i n passing i n

the Draft Environmental Statement, b u t consistent w i t h any other aspect of the

safeguards and diversion problems, a r e treated i n a wholly inadequate manner:

"Nuclear energy centers [nuclear parks] would havo the advantages o f s igni f icant ly reducing the requiretfients f o r transportation of fuel and radioactive waste and of simp1 ifyiny nuclear safeguard problems .'Iz4

This

The

23/ Public Affa i r s , April 1974, p p . 32-34.

Bernard T . i e l d , "The I4enace of it Fission Power Econotny," Sciencf and -

24/ lJASH 1535, page 1.5-2 ( a nearly idcnt'cal statelnetit, a g a i n w i t h o u t any 0 -- elaboration or fur ther discussion, i s fol;nd a t page 5 - 2 E ) .

V.20-14 n

-13-

rhis option dcserves ROW discussion t h a n i s ccntaincd i n the DrdlCt Environrn2ntal

Statement. Not only dses s i t i n g o f LI4FCR's i n nuclear parks appear t o have

major advantage i n redui-itig the hazards of diversion of SNl , b u t a l so there

a r e several other advantages. As w i t h a1 1 thi ngs , however , nucl edr parks have

disadvantageous implications.

whatsoever on these issues , and does n o t even contain a superf ic ia l discussion

o f the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear parks, say n o t h i n g of the detailed

analysis--including analyses of the econornic and ins t i tu t iona l factors--which an

ddequate Environmental Impact Statement demands. An excel lent framework from

which T h e AEC m i g h t begin these analyses cln be found i n several a r t i c l e s by

Alvin Lei nberg .

The Draft Environniental Statelnent sheds no l i g h t

25, 26

The Draft Statement i s ser iously def ic ient i n i t s treatment of .the one

approach t o the diversion problem which i t does purpor t t o consider. A major

deficiency i n the DraFt Statement i s the f a i l u r 2 t o include any discussion a t

a l l o f the a t t i t u d e and response o f the nuclear ir:dustry t o t h 2 s iynif icat?t

"upgrading," "modlfication," "expansion," and "streng theniny" o f the safeguards

program which the AEC a s s e r t s i n the Draft Statenent as an essent ia l fea ture o f

the LUFBR Program. The only h i n t tha t the AEC i s atware of industry 's i n t e r e s t s

i n these r a t t e r s i s f ound in:

"In carrying o u t i t s program, the Ccmnission seeks t o b2 responsive t o the views of the public a n d the industry, cons:'stent with i t s charter t o assure p r o t x t i o n f public k l t h and safety and of t h ? common defense a n d securi ty . 1 1 37

- 25/ Alvin !,leinberg, "The moral imperatives O F nuclear energy," Phclear N W S , December 1971 , pp. 33-37 .

26/ Alvin Ikinberg, " t l o : h / can man 1 ivz w i t h Fission?" unpublished pap2r c i rculated For discussion a t J. conf!nncz a t t k I~ loodrov Ililson I!it2rnatici;31 Center for Scholars, \iaskington, D.C. , June 18, 1973. ---r

27/ HASH 1535, :!age 7-67. -

V.20-15

-14-

Some indication of the degree t o which the atomic industry i s sens i t ive to the

diversion hazards, and the degree w i t h \:hich t h 2 industry i s l ike ly to be an

e f fec t ive partner i n the enforceinent and implementation of szfeguards programs

can be gleaned from published accounts of the industry's response t o the iiiodest

strengthenins of the AEC safeguards rules which were f i r s t published i n t h 2 28 February 1 , 1973, Federal Register.

Some of the comments received on these proposed regulations were:

" . . . i t is c l e a r tha t the severi ty of the proposed [physical security] procedures g r m t l y exceeds any reasonable re la t ionship t o the public need intended t o be served. we believe the industry a s a whole i s unaware, o f occurrences of industr ia l sabotage which would tend to j u s t i f y thz impos i t ion of requirements as s t r i c t as those proposed. not demonstrated t h 2 need.. .or offered any j u s t i f i c a t i o n or explandtion.. . . served by adoption of burdensome requirements disprsportionate t o the end s o u g h t . "

ble a r e unaware, and

The Comission has

Certainly the pub1 i c i n t e r e s t will n o t be

---frcm comrrent of Kerr-McGee:

and

' ' . .-a move backward t o the types o f securi ty pract ices in the Clanhattan D i s t r i c t era."

---from corrnent of llesti nghouse;

and,

"One principal objection i s t o the emphasis placed o n the use of armed personre1 . . .and t i l? seeming re1 iarice on such personn?l t o protect against th rea ts t o the comon defense and securi ty . . . . To tile extent t h a t the proposed regulations. . . require an armed confrontation between a l icensee ' s securi ty force and potential divertors, the proposed regulations should be aniendod. s u r e s t and most proper rnethcd of p r o t x t i o n . . . i s prcrnpt detection and reporting.. . . I '

---from comment of United Nuclear.

'The

29

- 281 d n o n , "Industry Inundated by Proposed Fie:%/ Safeguards P,ult3s," l!uclear Industry, February 1972, pp. 45-47.

-- 291 The segrn2nts O F the corrments hy Kerr-tlcGee, \t!estinqtio!ise, arid Ilni t d rIuclmr, a re as quoted i n : New Safeguard Rlrlc?s," llucl-.i\r Industry, 1l.y 1373, p p . 31-3d.

anon, "Sharp Industry C r i t i c i s i s o f Proposed

V.20-16

-1 5-

The f i n a l Environmental Statemant must i ixludc a full and candid discursion

o f e i t h e r how ths kEC proposes t o enact an6 enforce t h c safeguards program

which i t contends will be necessary w i t h the LMFCR without tha s u p p o r t acd

coopsration o f the nuclear industry, or t h ? tiieans tha t a r e anticipatzd to

proceed w i t h the LMFBR w i t h o u t depending on industry par t ic ipat ion in imt te rs

involving potential diversions o f special nuclear matwia ls .

There is i n the Draft statement a h i n t that. the AEC i s not anxious t o

discuss the poss ib i l i ty of coercive measures, in:posed against e i t h e r individuals

o r the industry, b u t a lso t h a t t h 2 necessity for these measures i s being

eval u a t d :

"Some secondary impacts of the safeguards program a r e mentioned here. The Federal Gcvernment has established reyulatjons which must be complied v t t h n o t only by the e l e c t r i c u t i l i t . i e s , b u t a l s o by the industr ia l sec tor engaged i n the storage, proct.ssing o r transportdtion o f nuclear ma.terials. These regulations will be followed by conpanics which, i n SCIii? csses , may have n o 0th.)' connection wi t.h or reqiiirements imposed upon thsm by thz governinent aside from those inhsrent' in nornal industr ia l or ccrriinercial a c t i v i t e s . For example, only authorized individuals , perhaps eventual ly only those wi t h AEC securi ?y c l eararices, wi 11 be permi t ted ent.ry t o nuclear tilaterial s s toraae areas , T t i i s imposition o f securi ty controls will represent an increas? i n the r o l e of the Federal Government i n the private industr ia l sector . The significance of this tendency v i l l , i n a l l probabi l i ty , be small because of t h ? very small f r a c t i c n o f the labor force involved. a f f w t s a larger s q w t o f the industry, the piiblic sllould 5-3 conscious o f possible r e s t r i c t i o n s i ; i eiiiployinent oppartuni t i e s , f o r exarcple, f o r some individuals becaiise o f t h e i r past or current p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . T h e extcrit t o which th,o Federal Government may becoriiing ( s i c ) concurrently involved in sectors o f the economy n p considered 'p r iva te ' i s beyond tha scope o f this S.tatem?nt.

Plevertheless, as the LMFGR program progresses and as i t

We mgst take strong exception to this f ina l asser t ion f o r the extent t o v,$ich

the existance of the LtVRR program, uhich cannot o f cows$ be divorced from

other c i v i l i a n Fission programs, will inpose .the r ixess i ty For bzhavioral,

V. 20-1 7

-16-

s o c i a l , and o t k controls i s arnotig the r1;ost p ro found and qrave cf a71 o f the

many questions surrounding the development of the Lt4iBi l Prograiii. l!ha t are the

changes, not i n technology, b u t i n our very social ii1;titi;tions tha t may be

dictated by a decision t o proceed with the L I V B R Program?

and other publications of the AEC are o f l i t t l e value i n addressing this aspect

of atomic energy, one must look t o the writings O F individuals biho although

The msny reports ,

conimitted to the development o f atomic energy y e t have concern f o r the digni ty

of the individual and for the s t a b i l i t y o f our social i n s t i t u t i o n s , f o r exarriple:

" . . . the discovery of the bomb has imposed an additional dcmnd on our social i n s t i t u t i o n s . I t has cal led for th this r;iilit?.ry priesthood upon which i t i a way we a l l depend for our survival .

" I t seems t o ni2 (and i n t h i s I repeat some v i e x expressed very wgll by Atomic Energy Comissioner !Ji 1 :rid Johnson) t h a t peaceful nuclear energy probably will make demands O F t h s o r t on our society, and possibly o f even longer duration.

Before leaving t h i s general point, vie are obligated t o Rake on? additional

In a n Appendix t o the Draft Statmeti t , passing mention i s p a d ? t o a

e 3 T e

commnt.

recent evaluation O F then exis t ing practices i n v o l v i n g the s a f e g u a r d i n g o f

s t r a t e g i c quanti t i e s o f SNH:

"Improvements f,lecded In The Program f o r the Protection of Speci a1 Nuclear Naterial" [Report No. B-164105, dated I!ovember 7 , 1973, U.S. General Acc0:inting OfFicel, a report by the Coinptrollw General of the United Sta.tes t o the Conyess , discusses obscrvations made by General Accounting Office pwsonnel i n the sumxr of 1972 d u r i fig t h e i r i nspec'ti on o f three fac i 1 i t i e s hand1 i ng SFIFI. These observations related t o guard Systems, physical h a r r i e r s , automatic detection dcvices and action/response plants . of def ic iencies or apparent deficiEncies ~ 2 r e i d e n t i f i e d , and recommendations were made regarding correct ive act ion. AEC agreed with the recommendations o f the report and has ,taken action t o implement

A number

The

31/ Alvin Heinberg, "Social Ins t i tu t ions nild f!uc ?-July 1972, [ IP . 27-34.

- 32/ !.JASH 1535, page III-A-4.

ear Energy," Science, -7-

~~

V . 20-1 8

-17-

In f a c t , the deficiencies identified by the GAO were extremely serious a;ld

were suff ic ient t o question whether or n o t SPII"4 was receiving even the degree

of protection afforded ordinary a r t i c l e s o f commerce. The'CAO study h r s

testiniony, i n s ta rk and chi l l ing d e t a i l , t o the opinion expressnd by R a l p h

Lumb i n 1972:

"A c r i t i c a l review of experience d u r i n g th i s l a t t e r period [1966 to 19721 will resu l t i n only one conclusion: normal industrial practice fo r the protection of corporate assets has not always been employed i n the safeguarding o f special nuclear material . '$33

I t seems t o us t h a t an adequate Final Impact Statement must a lso include a

candid and complete discussion o f the circumstances which prevail2d within

the Atonic Energy Commission th rough a t l ea s t the summer of 1972 and which

permitted this lax, and given the degree of the hazard, i r rcspmsib le abrogation

of responsibil i ty i n the protection o f special nuclear materials.

And what m i g h t be the resu l t of a successful diversion? Again r.ca f ind

Nowhere i n the Craft Statement is i t the Draft Statement grossly def ic ient .

claimed t h a t were there a successful diversion, t h a t i t would be technically

d i f f i c u l t , nor a threat to the individuals involved, t o fabr icate and del iver

a device intended to disperse plutonium. We agree. However, the Statement

contains a comment on the ease i n constructing a nuclear exFlosivc:

"The construction of a workable nuclear explosive device i s a complex and d i f f i c u l t task requiring specialized s k i l l s and considerable resources. Nithout tes t ing, there i s a substantial possibi l i ty t h a t there would be no nuclear yield a t a1l.It34

T h i s statement is unsupported e i ther by material includ2d i n tne Draft

Environmental Statement or included by reference. The statement is a l s o in

- 33/ Remarks of Ralph F. Luiiib, as quoted i n : Discharge Limits, Plutonium," Nuclear Industry,

- 34/ WASH 1535, pages III-A-2 a n d . III-A-3.

anon, "AEC Policy, Safeyards , February 1972, p p . 19-20.

V.20-19

-18-

d i r e c t contradiction t o conclusions reached and supported by exhaustively

detai led reports by persons acknowledged t o be expcrt i n the design of f i s s i o n

bombs. Two o f t h 2 many such statenients follorv:

"First, nuclear weapons the r e q u i s i t e nuclear i?iaterials are avai lable . All o f t h l information, non-nuclear mater ia ls , and equipment t h a t viol!ld be required t o design and build a var ie ty o f types of f i s s i o n explosives a r e readily avai labl? t h r o u g h o u t the world. The technical s k i l l s and resources required would depend o n the desired eff ic iency, pred ic tab i l i ty , t o t a l w ? i g h t , a n d y ie ld o f the explosives. a few persons, perhaps even one porson corking alone, v/ho possessed about ten ki lograrrs of piutonium or uranium-233 oxide or tvro dozen kilograms of highly enriched uranium oxide and a substant ia l amount of h i g h explosive could, w i t h i n several weeks, safely design and build a crude, transportable f i s s i o n bomb. By a 'crude, transportable f i s s i o n bomb' I mean one tha t would be very l ike ly t o explode w i t h a yield equivalent t o a t l e a s t 100 tons of h.igh explosive, and tha t could be carr ied i n a n automobile. materials and equipment tha t cculd be purchased a t a hardware s t o r e and from ccmmercial suppliers of s c i e n t i f i c equipm2nt and materials for student laborator ies . 1\11 types of plutonium, highly enriched uraniiin, or uraniun-233 now used o r conteir,plated for use by the ncclear iEdustry could be used for t h i s purpose, as l o n g as thzy are n o t diluted with large amounts o f n o n - f i s s ionable n a t e r i a l s o r mixed w i t h dangerous q u a n t i t i e s of garnma-ray emitting radioisotopes, such as f i s s i o n products. The explosion o f such a device could, under many circumstances, k i I 1 a t 1 eas t tens of thousands of .peopl e.

"Smaller q u a n t i t i e s o f plutonium or uraniun-233 than a r e required f o r f i s s i o n explosives could a l so be incorpcrat ,d in to dispersal devices t h a t cculd containinate very large volu;n?s 07 a i r with le tha l coccentrations o f susper;ded, smal 1 par t ic les of these substances tha t a r e exceedingly toxic i f they a re breathed. Air dispersal cf a f ew grams o f 'the type of plutonium no'w being prodl;ced i n power reactors could k i l l most of the occupants of a large or'fice building or enclosed industr ia l fac i l i ty . "Z

a r e re la t ive ly easy t o make, assui!iing

Under conceivable circumstances , f o r example,

T h i s could be done using

and

"AS a surmary, I have t r i e d t o bo nore convincing i n the statercent t h a t a l m s t a l l forms o f f u l l y enriched uraniun--greater t h a n 90 percent--constitutes a real and n o t an iii?agin?d hazard as an explosive devicc. This statement includes oxides of uranitin, i n conti-ast t o e a r l i e r remarks. The sane st3tern2nt can be nrlde .For plutoniuoi, including cotmnercial grades, \,vi t h the added coricwfl t h a t i t s enrichment i s obtained by cl??rnical sqmrat iva technlques

v. 20-20

-1 9-

f u l l y described by the AtGrnic Energy Cotiimission i r i i t s haildbooks. ,135

The enormit~y of the A E C ' s f a i l u r e to address tfie f a c t s which have been

presented t o t k z general p u b l i c by such work as t h a t o f D r s . Wil l r ich, Taylor,

Hall, a n d others i s d i f f i c u l t t o comprehend. There a re several possible

explanations: ( 1 ) i t i s possible t h a t the authors a re siniply unaware of the

work o f Drs. Taylor, e t a ? ;

t h a t "The construction of a workable nuclear explosive i s a complex and d i f f i c u l t

task requiring specialized ski1 Is and considerable resources" i s cor rec t a n d

the studies. and conclusions o f Drs. Taylor, e t a1 a re badly i n e r r o r , o r ;

(3 ) i t i s possible t h a t the conclusions of Drs. Taylor, e t a1 a r e cor rec t ,

b u t t h a t the AEC has made the p o l i t i c a l decision t o remain s i l e n t .

opinion-that explanation ( 3 ) i s the more l ike ly s i tua t ion f o r i t requires fewer

( 2 ) i t is possible t h a t the stateinent i n INSH 1535 --

-- -I

I t i s our

* assumptions and i s cofnpletely conipatable w i t h the past behavior of the A E C .

The t radi t ional pract ices of the Corrnission have been t o ignore in i t s own

publications any information not favorable to t h g promotion o f atoniic p o w r ,

t o suppress such discussion by others whenever i t has been possible t o do so,

and t o refuse t o include deleterious environmental impacts when preparing the

statefnents required under the National Environmental Pol icy Act (PIEPA). Cnce

again, i t appears t h a t "the Commission's crabbed interpret3'iion of f!EPA rnakcs

a mockery of the Act."

The Final Statement on the LMFBR Program cannot be considered to be

adequate unless i t d i r e c t l y joins the issues raised by Drs. Taylor, e t a ? ,

o f fe rs convincing evidence tha t Taylor 's conclusions and analyses a re i n error-

if they a r e , and of fers a credible and so'cially acceptable remedy if they a re

-- 35/ Chapter .19 i n , Robert C . Leachran and Phi l l ip A1 t h o f f ( e d i t o r s ) , - Prevs:: inq -. .. - Flrrclciir T k f t : Gaic!olin,?s -for lndbstry 2nd Goverment, Praager Publishsrs, F i i w Yoink, '1Y72, p . 2i l I .

--

D.E. Hal l , "The Adap-tability of F i s s i l e Platerials t o Ruclear Explosil.!es,"

- -- ~ - ~ - - - _ _ _ _ -

n

v.20-21

-20-

n o t .

The treatment of the environiiiental , soc ia l , and pol i t ica l consequences

were there a disrupt ive use of SNM i s equally unsatisfactary. The t o t a l i t y

of the discussions of these matters, i n addition t o what i s above, i s :

"The AEC recognizes the potential f o r i l l e g a l nuclear weapons to produce severe consequences i n terms of property daniage and loss of l i f e . The destructiveness of any nuclear explosion depends o n i t s yield and on the circumstances a t the time and place of i t s detonation. For an i l l ega l nuclear weapon, neither the y ie ld nor the circumstances can be predicted;

and

"Similarly, an estimate of the effectsof a radiological weapon u t i l i z i n g plutonium would require knowledge o f the method a n d circumstances o f i t s use.1136,

While the above statenients are obviously t r c e , they are a l so completely

inadeiuate.

llcircumstances a t the time and place" o f the d2tonation of an i l l e g a l nuclear

weapon i n the hands of an individual or group bent on "anti-social behavior?"

Are we t o believe tha t the AEC i s incapable of s p x i f y i ~ g t h s effocts--in terms

Are we t o believethat the AEC i s incapable o f imagining the

of property loss , dea ths and injuries, and o f pol i t ica l and social responses--

f o r an array of "circumstances a t the time and place" which would bracket the

p o s s i b i l i t i e s in s u f f i c i e n t de ta i l f o r policy consid2ratiotis.

the Comiss ion t h a t while the discussions o f matterr; such as these need n o t ,

errorists, neither a rz they a work order

n t o decontaminate, recover the bodies,

a n i l l q a l explosive or radiological weapon

bJe would remind

and should n o t , be a blueprint for

for the crews tha t would be called

and otherwise respond t o the use of

a t a precise time and location.

Isle can turn again i o the work o f Drs. \dil lr ich and Taylor f o r sonie

-insights in to the potential physical e f f e c t s O F thsse wapons:

_-.-

-I 36/ Iv'AW 1535, pages III-A-2 a n d III-A-3.

v. 20-22

- Z I -

"A 'crude f i s s i o n banib' i s defincd as one rhich !us a n excel lent chance of exploding, k l i t h a probable yield equal of a t l e a s t 100 tons o f chemicc71 h i g h explosive, and a possible y ie ld of ds Iil:Ich as a few kilotons. Cven a ' sn ,a l l ' rluclear explosion could cause enoiaious hdvoc. A nuclear explosion produce: n o t only a blastvave and k d t , b u t also le th i1 radiat ion. The e f f e c t s o i a nuclear w?apon depend on th:: charac te r i s t ics of the target a s we11 as o f the weapon i t s e l f . In a typical suburban residt.ntia1 area, a 'crudc f i s s i o n bovb' m i g h t k i l l 2CCO pecple, mostly by exposure t o radioactive f a l l o u t . The same explosion i n a p 2 r k i l i q l o t beneath a skyscraper conla k i l l as nlany a s 50,000 peoole 2nd destroy the e n t i r e building.

"In criminal hands, plutonium could b? a danger n o t only as raw material f o r a bomb, b u t a lso i n a re la t ive ly simple dispersal device. known. Airborne par t ic les small eRough t o be bdrely v i s i b l e can cause f i b r o s i s or cancer of the lung. pose J th rea t t o society a re accordingly very small. One hundred grams (three a n d one half ounces) of the s t u f f could be a deadly r i s k t o everyone uorking i n a larcJe o f f i c e building OT factory, i f i t were e f fec t ive ly dispersed. the ef fec ts viould he more di luted by wind a n d w a t h e r , b u t they would s t i l l be serious and long-lasting."37

P l u t o n i u m i s among the iiiost toxic substances

The amounts t h a t could

I n open a i r ,

There a re likewise inany discussions i n the open l i t e r a t u r e as t o plausible

internat ional scenarios dealing with i l l e g a l diversion O F SNbI by n a t i o n s t a t e s .

Only one such discussion i s included here as being i l l u s t r a t i v e of the analyses

t h a t must be addressed by the AEC i n the Final Impact Statement:

V h a t i s netw i n the problem of war i s , o f course, t h e advent o f nuclear wapons with th2 i r potential for ' i r reparable ' davage, as contrastpd v i t h the ruth more res t r ic ted and nore eas i ly repaired daiiage of nmt conventional 9idr-s. A s with E!?? papulation problem , however , \ i i f are i n d d n g e r o f bei ng rendered insens i t ive t o the pol i t ica l ramifications of t h i s element of danger in the human prospect by our ter;dency t o picture i t mainly i n humanitarian terms.

"The humanitarian aspect of nuclear war has .focused our a t ten t ion niainly Ori the stupendous k i l l ing power of the new vieaponry. As Hans Bethe has described i t :

3 7 / Frorn p a g s 4 and 5 o-f "A Sumary of: Fiuclear T k f t : R i s k s stid S:iFeyaards, by Idason !dillrich and 'Thaodorc R . Taylor, OF. -- c i t . a t re1 : of this report , which w?s dis-tributed d t the -timr t h a t t he r2cor-t was i s s u d , i s incorporated i n t o til$se conrrxnts as F.ppendix E .

.. --__ __ I t . 1112 enkit-e St!li:li:zt.y

V . 20-23

-22 -

'I Let us assu;i.:? an ti-horn5 r.eIeasing 1,008 tiiilCS as much er1et-y a s t h e t l - i r o ~ i i i m b3i:lb. The r ad ius o f d e s t r u c t i o n by b l a s t f t ~ o n i a b x b i nc rmsf - s a s t h e Culje roo t o f t h ? i nc rcase i n the bomb'; po:;Zr. the r ad ius O F severe des t ruc t ion ';/as on? n i l e . So an tl-bon:b would cause alnios t coinpl e t c d e s t r u c t i o n of bui ld ing u p t o a. racl-ius o f 10 miles. e f f e c t a l o n e a s i r ig le bcqb could o b l i t e r a t e a l n o s t a l l of Grea ter FIw York o r ibscow o r London o r any of t h e l a r g e s t c i t i e s of t h e world. R u t this i s n o t a i l ; we must consic!er the heat e f f e c t s . About 30 percent o.F t h e c a s u a l t i e s i n tliroshima viers caused by f l a s h b u r n s due t o the in t ense burst of hea t r a d i a t i o n from the bomb. Fa ta l btirns viere f r q u e n t up t o d i s t ances of 4,000 t o 5,000 f t . e t . T h e r ad ius o f heat r a d i a t i o n inc reases biith pc$/ier. a t a liigher r a t e than t h a t of b l a s t , nanrely by the square r o o t of th? p o w r in s t ead o f the cube roo t . T h u s t h e H-bomb would widen t h e range o f f a t a l hea.t by a f i i c tor o f 30; i t ~ o u l d b u r n people t o dea-th over a rad ius of u p t o 20 mi les o r more. without underztanding t h m ; one must v i s i i a l i ze w h a t i t would m a n i f , f o r i n s t ance , Chicago w i ~ h a l l i t s suburbs 2 n d most 0-7 t h e i r i n h a b i t a n t s w r e wip,,.ed ou t i n a s i n g l e f l a s h . ' [ k n s A . Gethe, "The Hydrogen

A t Hii-osiiiiria

6y t he b l a s t

I t i s ' too easy t o p u t clown or read nmbers

"Our h o r r i f i e d f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h t hese ar,d s i m i l a r s t a t i s t i c s has led us t o conrtemplate t h e consequences o f nuclear m r f a r e i n terms of t h ? o b l i t e r a t i v e r e s u l t s c f u s i n g these weanar?s - E n -- unleashing the 11,000 w r l ~ a d s now posss;ed by the United S t r i t e s o r t h e 1,200 or so m r h e a d s there a r e es t imates o f such an exchange, w i t h f a t a l i t i e s ranging from 50 t o 135 mil l - ion f o r tile Uti-itsd S t a t e s a lone , dep2nding on the defenss ' c o s t u r e ' O F t he va r i cus c j t i i :?dt?s .

v i s i o n of such ghas t ly p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The r i s k , how?ver, i s - that our concent ra t ion on t h i s a s p e c t of - t h 2 consequences of nucl ear warfare prill lead us t o ovsr look ano'ihsr r e s u l t o f t he new techniqu? of war. E s s e n t i a l l y ' i t r e s ides i n the f a c t t h a t many small o r r e l a t i v 2 l y poor na t ions, even though they p o s S ? j S no fl;l l y d e v F l o p d i n d u s t r i a l base o r highly s k i l l e d l abor f o r c e , can ga in possession o f nuclear weapons. As t h e example o f Chim has sho!r in, a nat ion w i t h only a 1 i m i ted m o u n t o f inctus-trial capaci ty can i1:anufacture nuc lear s; /arhads by i t s e l f , a 1 thcagii probably no-i: fiiissle d a l i v e r y systeins. smuggled i n t o cnmy harbors by s h i p , arid SCI o n . poor n a t i o n s can ob ta in nuclcar \ i ~ t ~ P O ~ s a s ti b y - G r ~ d : i c t of ' ti:? ;!t.o:nic pcwer pl l int ; t n ~ t r w n y o f thpiil z r c now bi i i 1cliri;j or c , ~ f i t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ - i t l ~ ~ ( o r t h a t wiTI b,? t i t l i l t for thorli i n the ccriiir;T y2;ir.s by ti?? dmi.lr>n:-:d c o u n t r i o s ) . [IS?? i,!ason \ & / i l l r i c h , "Ii i tornat. iona1 ConLrol o f Civi l I,luclFar Fo,;!?r,'' i { \ i l l p t i t l o f t.112 .- Atomic ___ Sc icn t ' i s t s , ticly 1 9 5 7 . 1

possessed by t he Sov ie t s . Indeed,

" I t i s understandable t h a t w2 should 'be hypnotized by t h ?

The !,/arheads can nonethelnss be lduncl??d by bciiib?rS In ciiltlition,

V. 20-24

-23 -

"Thus t he re seeds 1 i t t l e doubt t h a t so;cle nuclear capahi 1 i ty wi 11 be i n t he hands o f th? inJjor LinderdeYEloped nrl t iotis , c e r t a i n l y wi t h i n the next ?e:./ dccades and perhaps twch sooner. The d i Ti'icul t qucstion must t h m be faccd a; t o how thcse m i i o n s miqiit br! teinpted t o use this wea?onry. o f blackmail t o fo rce the developed uorld t o undertake a inassive t r ans fe r O F wealth t o the 'poverty-stricken world.. .. t o indulge in the dubious sport of shocking the reader . I t tilust be evident t h a t competition f o r resources may a l s o lead t o aggression i n t he o ther 'normal' d i rec t ion- - tha t i s , aggression by the r i c h nations aga ins t the poor. Yet two considerat ions g i v e a new

I wi l l suggest t h a t i t c!ay bo used as an instrumit

"I do not r a i s e the spector of in te rna t iona l blackmail merely

Regarding the in te rna t iona l implicat ions of a f a i l u r e of the systems

designed t o "prevent t he divers ion of mater ia l sui t ab l e f o r weapons production

f r o m 6eaceful appl ica t ions ,"8 we f u l l y appreciate t h a t t he re a r e developments

i n addi t ion t o the p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f LbiFBR's t h a t could lead t o nuclear 'weapons

capab i l i t y being extended t o v i r t u a l l y any na t ion-s ta te .

AEC i s arguing

o f the LMFBR on the grounds t h a t o ther d~velopments , f o r example, i n new

uranium enrichment technology, assure t h a t t h i s capab i l i t y wi l l be developed

q u i t e indepEndently of t he decis ion t o proceed w i t h the LClFBR, then the AEC

I f , however, the

t h a t i t need not discuss the weapons p r o l i f e r a t i o n implicat ions

has the obl iga t ion t o f u l l y discuss these o ther developments in the F i n a l

Impact Statement .

In Conclusion

The necessi ty t o prevent t he divers ion of special nuclcar mater ia l s

both by na t ion-s ta tes 2nd by sub-national groups if one o f the most v2xin . j

of the environmental and social problems associated with the Liquid 1k:dl

Fast Breeder k a c t o r . In considering thes;l problems , David Pose recent ly

'- 38/ FoSeri L . tleiliironer, An Inquiry Into Tha Huinan PL~J~V~J., r!ortoil, H?w York, 1974, p p . 40-42.

V . 20-25

-24-

wrote :

" I t seems t o nie that thc grm' ics t diversion2ry hazard i s r e l a tcd not t o c i v i l i a n nuclear p a w - , Ixit i o w a n o n s and t h e i r components. and no one--public or private--would in:agine s e t t l i n g f o r l e s s than enough. enough? No one k n o w . had t o r e n ~ u n c e i t s claim t o tha t nanne t h r o u g h i n a b i l i t y i o control these aspects of nuclear pcnm; meanwhi 1 e , i 1 l.gal u;e i s to me the iiios t worrisome a n d l e a s t resolved hazard, and a prime motivation f o r exploring tlis p o s s i b i l i t i e s of controlled nuclear fusi 0 n . ~ ~ 3 9

A t i ncre;ri ns ccs t , amre protcc tion can bz b o u g h t ,

B u t in dealing with i r r a t i o n a l i t y , how nuch i s I t Liould be b i t t e r irony i f c i v i l i z a t i o n

A l v i n bleinberg, i n a paper which consid2rs the safeguards problem in addition

t o the other unresolved hazards associated with the LKFBR

options s t a t e s :

" I t may t u r n o u t , a f t e r seriously studying the quest gne will conclude t h a t Ctiannes] A l f v 2 n i s riyht--iiian i n the very long r u n ' l i v e wi t i i f ission."25

a n d other f i s s i o n

on , t h a t cannot

Lawrence Scheinnan, another acknowledcjed expert i n safeguards wrote l a s t month:

"The United S ta tes has always cor;ducted i t s nucl e3i- bus i ness i n t h e frarn?worl< of f a i r l y elaborate precautionary and accountabi 1 i-ty ru les . o r misplaced shipments of nuclear m t w i a l during t ransportat ion, as well as the n o t i n s i g n - i f i c a n t q u a n t i t i e s OF material unaccountd for (19UF) a t par t icu lar nuclzar f a c i l i t i e s , indicates the r e a l i t y of the problem. purely iLccidanta1 and, a t l e a s t from a cational secur i ty poin- t of view, harmless (compare r isks t o publ-ic heel t,h 2nd s a f e t y ) ; b u t they a l so m i g h t be t h 2 c o n s q u e n c x o-l' intentional a c t s . unaware of t h 2 experience of other nati an-s ta tes , b a t i t i s not unreasonable t o assun:? t h a t s imilar s i tluation; Iiavo ar isen elsewhere as we1 1.

most advanced and sophisticated s:zfeguard s y s t m s i n the world, has no special precautions i n the area of t ransportat ion, largely because hijacking i s n o t coimon t o the Europeali pol i - t ical landscape!

sought t o f i l l soine o f the lacunae i n i t s physical secur i ty systein. the resis tznce of ifidustry t o v!ha-t i t regards a s f u t i l e o r overbsaring provis ions , a t t e s t t o t h e cmples i ty of t h ? problelii; a t hatit i. Gth:.r n a t i o n - s t a - t o s h3vr? y e t t o n!d!;e even these f i r s t approximations to a. solution o f t h 2 physical

tfmviever, t h 2 experi ecce 0: t h ? h i ted S ta- tes wi t h 1 ost

The N J F and tccporarily l o s t shipments niay be

!le are

"The EUWTOX comunity, which prides i t s e l f on one of the

"The United S t a t e s , i n a s p a t e of recent l e g i s l a t i o n , has

The inconsistency o f soil!& of the n w provisions, a n d

- 39/ David J . Rose,"Rucle,Ir Fclectic Fcv?r," ~- Science, 19 April 1974, p p . 351-5!1

-25-

securi ty issup, "The inescapable conclusion i s that any e f f o r t t o ser iously

move toward closure of Lhe r i sk cjf nuclear diversion or thef t requires a l l nation-states with a s ign i f icant nuclear fuel cycle t o give considerable t h o u g h t and e f f o r t t o thz problem of developing a s eff:.:::tive phys.ica1 securi ty systems as possible, consonant w i t h thc conti wed econoriiic viahi 7 i ty o-f peaceful nuclear polwr. I f thes? objcctives should prove iri-econcilable, the even more d i f f i c u l t issue--w;iether nuclear pover developineilt ought t o be pursued--might have t o be faced. a 1 leged 'energy crunch' of worldviide proportions, this would c rea te a t ru ly awesome issue.Il40

In an era o f an

Hence, knowledgeable observers, f r iend and foe of nuclear power a l i k e ,

recognize the a b i l i t y t o prevent d ive r s ion of special nuclear materials as

central t o the basic question of tlie acceptabi l i ty of nuclear power.

I t i s l i t t l e wonder t h a t tlie AEC i s the Draft Statement on the LPiFBO,

Prograii has t reated this topic i n a schizoid n ; a n n w . The topic i s included

i n the Draft Statement t o the extent of defining the problems, i n a general

and non-specific way.

the problem are n o t addressed.

Howver, the questions and issues which a re raised by

In sone instances the problems and hazards

a r e completely ignored; i n other instances the Convission has responded w i t h

se l f -serving, asser t ions which often a re a t cornplgte variailce w i t h the r e s u l t s

o f published, credible \vork.

In essence the F.EC has , by def in i t ion , excluded a consideration O F

safeguards from the analysis of the impact of t h ~ Lf-IFBR. Although acknowledging

t h a t t h 2 LMF8R Program, i f approved, would exacerbate b o t h the natio.na1 and

international aspects o f the safeguards problems, they go o n t o define i t a s

being outsido o f the scope of the analysis :

"A fur ther developnent which hcts become an impor t an t f a c t o r i n the U.S. nuclear power progrx i over the past s w e r a l y?ars i:s t h 2 increased concern of the /"!!il%r

- 40/ -- - ~ - Affdirs , April 1374, pp. 34-36.

Lwrence Schp-i m a n , "Safcguardi n y

can public about the safe ty

V. 20-27

-26-

and environmental impact of modern technologies, The aspects of nuclear p o w x plants which a r c o f prime concern include: the thermal ef f c c t s resul t ing from t h ? discharg? ~f pokier plant cooling e:ater in to lakes, r i v e r s , or estu'trics; the control of radi oac t i ve e f f 1 Lien ts ; the trans por i d t i o n of rad i oac t i ve mater ia ls ; and the s torage of h i g h level radiodctive wastes. These matters - par t icu lar ly as these apply t o the f a s t breeder - will be discussed i n d e t a i l i n othcr sections o f t h i s statement."41

The treatment o f safeguards i n the Draft En'dironmental Stateinent i s

consis tent w i t h the above declarat ion tha t i t i s n o t one o f the "matters"

which "will be discussed.n The Draft Statement contains no attempt t o f u l l y

explore the diversion implications of the LMFBR Program, makes absolutely no

attempt to spe l l o u t the various measures which the AEC deems necessary t o

prevent diversion other than t o indicate t h a t i t would be necessary t o "expand

and mo$ify" and to "upgrade and strengthen" the exis t ing programs.

a l s o acknowledges t h a t social a n d behavioral controls would have t o be a par t

o f the expandgd and nodified and upgraded and strengthened safeguards proyrans.

Yet i t then g02s on to refuse t o discuss them Further, s t a t i n g blandly t h a t

this, probably the aspect of the safeguards problem of most concern t o those

concerned w i t h individual and societal values, i s outside of the scope of an

Impact Statement:

The AEC

"The extent t o which the Federal Government may becoming ( s i c ) concurrently involved i n sectors of the ecorioiny no:$/ considered ' p r i v a t e ' i s beyond the scope of t h i s Statement."30

The Draft Staternent does not include a comparison of the safeguards and

diversion implications o f a l t e r n a t i v e f i s s i o n programs, a1 t h o u g h the various

f i s s i o n systeins a r e known t o d i f f e r i n t h a t regard.

given t o the economic costs of t h 2 exparided and modified and strengthened and

upgraded safeguards systcm which i s acknowledpd t o be required by the L l l i B ?

Program.

There i s no consideration

I n ac!dition, there i s no analysis o f tbe effects--economic, soc i21 ,

41/ 1JASIi 1525, 2.1-33. -

V . 20-28

-27-

p o l i t i c a l , or enviroririiental--which could r e s u l t k/ei-e the sa7eguards a n d diversion

program t o f a i l .

statement i n the Draft Report tha t one of the pritxary goals or objcciivas O F

the safeguards prograni i s t o "respond or i n i t i a t e response t o such acts

[atteiryted or succcssful diversion of SbPl], i f they are carr icd o u t , in a way

t h a t neutralizes or minimizes the consequences.

This l a t t e r f a i l i n g i s par t icu lar ly puzzling i n v ia ; / o f the

I1 20

Perhaps the AEC i s motivated i n i t s f a i l u r e to include a complete and

candid discussion of safeguards i n i t s Draft Statement by the same considerations

t h a t lead Allen V . Knezse, developer and long-time prac t i t ioner o f economic

benefi t /cost analysis , t o write:

" I t i s my bel ief t h a t benefit-cost analysis canr,ot answer the mpst important policy questions associated rii t h the d e s i rabi 1 i ty o f developing a large-scale, fission-based econc~ny. i t t o do so i s to ask i t t o bear a burden i t cannot sus ta in . This i s b x a u s e these questions a re o f a deep u- ethical character . Benefi t-cost analyses cer ta in ly cannot solve such questions and may well obscure them."42

To e x p x t

We sympathize w i t h the Comiission i n i t s desire not t o b? required t o

acknowledge the exi stance of a safeguards and diversion problem and i ts

apparent hope t h a t i t wil l n o t be required t o discuss the problem in the

evaluation o f the LMFBR.

t h a t society d i d not have to consider t h e i r implications i n such mundane

a c t i v i t i e s as consideration of a l te rna t ive wan5 of producing steam or I

e l e c t r i c i t y .

Ne t o o wish t h a t these problems did n o t exist and

That these considerations are new and tha t society has y e t t o

evolve means t o cope w i t h them has been noted by th . Br i t ish economist

E.J. Kishan, who wrote:

". . .only since the l a s t war have ni2n si:cccac!ed f i n a l l y i n prying opcn Pandora ' s b o x , and amoiq o t h 2 r exci t i i ig 1:hi r?.gs which f l e r o u t v a s t h ? secre t o f ins tan t annihi'lation o f

-I_--- -.-

V . 20-29

-28-

a l l l i v i n g th ings . Time, measured only i n sho r t yea r s , will disseminate t h i s sort o f knowledge ainong smaller , poorer and less s t a b l e nat ions, some of which a r e ruled by adventurers o r f a n a t i c s .... In sum, doomsday f ea r s o f yesterday had no r a t iona l bas i s . Those of today have ~ l e n t y . " 4 ~

These hazards do e x i s t .

not make them any l e s s r e a l .

Much as we would l i k e t o ignore them, doing So wil l

We c lose by reminding the authors of t he Final Environmental Irrpact

Statement f o r the LNFBR Program of comments by one of t he most staunch

supporters of nuclear energy:

"Are there moral t-esponsibil i t i e s t h a t we a s nuclear technologis t s ought t o face today, when the en te rp r i se i s small and the c o s t of e r r o r i s sniall, r a the r than defer these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o a l a t e r generat ion when the en te rp r i se i s huge and the c o s t of e r r o r inca lcu lab ly large? Are we doing a l l we can to assure t h a t future genwat ions wi l l n o t be faced with foreclosed opt ions wherever we do not s ee prec ise ly c l e a r and s a t i s f a c t o r y answers t o the techno-moral quest ions posed by the r e l ease of our i n t r i n s i c i a l l y dangerous nuclear f i r e ? . ..

"...we a r e indeed irmoral i f we do not exe r t every humanly poss ib le e f f o r t t o uncover, assess , and remedy whatever deficienc-ies we can f i n d in nuclear energy, not only when i t i s small and unimportant and the def ic ienc ies can be minimized, bu t a l s o when i t i s overwhelmingly important and the de f i c i enc ie s , i f unremediable, could irean catastrophe f o r t he human race . the burden of proof i s u p o n us: i t i s we who have crea ted the phoenix o f nuclear energy upon w h i c h the world wi l l probably depend; i t i s we who must bend every e f f o r t t o v i sua l i ze the problems i n t k i r f u l l magnitude, so t h a t i f any appear insuperable we can seek out appropriate a1 t e rna t ives .11*5

Atid

- 43/ E . J . Mishan, "On Making the Future Safe f o r Mankind," The Public I n t e r e s t , Sumner 1971, p. 36.

# # H i ? #

APPEFIDICES hTTACHED AS PART OF THESE CO:.!PIEP!TS:

- A/ Statement by TheodorE B. Taylor, Chairman of the Board, In te rna t iona l Research and Technology Corporation, before tlir! Jo in t Coami t t e e on Atoiriic Energy, Hearings on F!uclear Redctor Sdfety, January 28 , 1374 [This A p p m l i x i s 11 pages i n length.] B/ A summary, .___ Nuclear TI i :? f t : Risks by P!ason !*:illi-.ich and Theodore R . T a v l o r . t h ? atinoanccinents of publ ica t ion o f - t h e book. CThis Appendix i s 1 7 pages i n l e n g t h . ]

C/ ['rhis Appendix .is 5 payes i n lcngth.]

Allen V . Knwse, "The Faustian Darrjain," R C S O U T C C S , S!pternb?r 1974, p p . 1-5. ._-___ _ _

V.20-30

APPEiIDIX A --I-

- __ - . . - .. ._ - - - - . -. . .- -- - - - -- -- _- .- . . - . . . . .- - _. _-- . - . - __ ___

Statc-sent bay T':?odorc. 2 . Taylor Chiii l*man - o f the R m r t ! , Internat ionai Research and Tc-c!inologv Corooraticn

bc.r'or.e the Joint Co:?Xi t t e e on F.tozic Energy

tlearincjs on Ihc1car Reactor Safety

January 28, 1974

'Ir. C1iairm.r: and ?fenhers of the J o i n t Ccmii'itee: I aoprcciate the cpportunity tc? t e s t i f y a t these hearings on nuclear reactor s a f e t y . The- subjec t I siiall fccus CII concerns what I believe i s one o f the mcst urgent and c r i t i c a l . tasks now facing t h e United S ta tes arid the r c s t o f t h e \.:oi*ld. This t a s k i s t c e s t a b l i s h control s.vstei~~ns t h a t ~ f 1 . 1 reduce t o an scceptable level the t f i reat of des t ruc t ive use c f nuile6r mater ia l s dive:-ted or s to len outrS9hi f rcn comowntc, o f nuciear D O W ~

systens'. materials t h z n no!.! e x i s t or a r e d e f i n i t e l y planned, I fi.r:d i t credib lc t h a t nuclear violence may, within the next decade or t r3 , reaclr l e v e l s t h a t most of us would ccnsider in to le rab le .

I!-ithout much core s t r i n g e n t worl chide controls of nuclcc?r

These concerns have bsen explored i n considerable d e t a i l '11 ;? series These will o f a r t i c l e s bjr Jnhn %?l;ee i n the i.'a! YGP::-~P l a s t Decezbcr.

Ce. published i n hook fern und2r t l i e t i t l e Y?g f i t m ; ~ of XTL~?,YJ F);ZPS~

^,his- spring. Virginia , and I hz?? a l s o m d e a study o f thSs cubjsct for t h ? Eri??rSy Policy Prcject i i n5E t - the auspices of the Ford F o u i d a t i o i i . i t wil l !I?

pu5lished i i 1 Look f o : - ~ car ly t h i s VL?X, under the t i t l e E a 2 s aid SGfepinrE;..

!4ason'!~!i1ir5ch, Professor of 12:r a t the IJniversft,:: of

\..'e hzve coze t o t!:c foiloxing s i x conc!usiQ!1s:

1

V . 20-31

F i rs t , nuclear v/e~uons arc rela t:'!rcly casy t o make, assuming the r e q u i s i t e nuclcar i:iaterialL a r c avai lable . non-nuclear fi isterials, a n d equiprwnt t h a t \./duld be reqliired t o design and build a v a r i e t y o f t.wes of f i s s i o n explosives are readi ly a v a i l - . ab le t h r o u g h w t t h o world. would dcpend on the desired e f f ic iency , Dredicabil i t y , t o t a l w i g h t , and y i e l d o f t h e e x p l o s i v e s . a few Dersons, perhaps even one Derson working alone, who possessed about ten kilograms of plL1tOniLir:l or uraniurn-233 oxide or tv:o dozen kilograms o f highly enriched uranium oxide and a substant ia l amol:nt o-F h i g h explosive could, within several b!eeks, safe ly design and build 2 crude, t ransportable f j s s i o n bomb. By a !'crude, t ranspcrtable f i s s i o n bomb" I m?an one t h a t ~ o u l d he very l i k e l y t o ex?lode with a y i e l d equivalent t o a i l e a s t 100 tons o f ' h i g h explosive, and t h a t could be car r ied i n an autonobile. could bo purchased a t a hardxare s tore and f r o n conxercial suppl ie rs cf scien;; if ic equiprent and mater ia ls for student laborator ies . A I 1 . t y p e s of plutoniua, hfghly enrichEd urz.nium, or uranium-233 ncn ~ i s d or C O R -

teaplated fc r use by the nuclear - icdust l -y could be used for tliis pui-ncse, as long as they x-e n o t d i iu ted v;ith large m o u n t s of non-fissionab?c watcr ia l s G\- m i x e d w i t h dangero:is q a n t i t i e s of gmm-ray einitting r a d i o i s o t o y s , C O U : ~ , under m n y circui!isi;ances, k i l l a t l e a s t tens of thousands of peopl e.

All o f the inforioation,

The technical ski1 Is, and resourcCs r e n u i r e d

Ur:der conceivable circunstances, :'nr exaxplz,

Th is could be done u s i n g r ra ter ia ls and ecjuicment t h a t

SuCi i a s f i s s i o n prcducts. The exDlcsion o f such a device

V. 20-32

Second, the use of. nuclear cncryy t o generate e l e c t r i c p o w r a t rates now projected t;y the ACC would resltlt i n very la rge dornestic and foreiql i flows of materials t h a t can bct used t o make w c l e a r wciip9ns. The annual r a t e o f extract ion Jf plutonium f r c n reprocessed nuclear f u e l s f r o m 1 i g h t w t c r reac tc rs i n the !jt-iitc:! S t a t e s \.:wid be aboJt 30,l;W ki logrsix i n 1930. Ey the year 2900, l i g h t lvater re?.ctors and f a s t .breFdcr reac tors i n the U.S. would produce rore than 300,039 kilcgrarns annual 1.y. !.!orld- wide, annual alutcniiiin production would trz more ttlan Fl,O?r) k i l o q r m s i n 1980, r i s i n g t o roughly a mil l ion ki logram i n t h e p a r 2 T X . worldwide f1ob:s of highly enriched urapiicnl Zncl uranium-233 GSSO-

ciated with h i g h tw1Deratiir-e gas c c o l d reactors or o the r t y x s of reactors t h a t use t hz U233-tl~wi~~ri cycl E! may reach several htrndred thousand k i lograms o r nore by the end of the con'iilry.

In a d d i t i o n ,

T h i r d , there a re ifiportsnt differences betwen d i f f e r e n t reactor systciiis, and beiweer! d i f f ~ r e i i t par t s of the fuel cycle suDporting a p a r t i c u l a r t .we of r e a c t o r , i n the extzr,t t o which the nuclear fuel mater ia ls they ccntain a r e inh?rently vulnerable t o t i icf t o r ;/auld requi re chemical o r physical conversion t o be s u i t a b l e f o r d i rec t usq . , i ,n .. a nuclear explosive. before th?y a r e reprocessed, s i n c e gamma-rays from the fission products they contain wuuld d e l i v e r le tha l doses of r t d i a t i o n in minutes o r l e s s t o anyone trying t o handle t h m k i i t h o u t missive shielding. This type of self nro tec t i ng f e a t u r e d i sappea r s v:hen pllrtol>iui:l o r uran'uin-233 Pinve

been separated from f i s . s ion prcducts a t a reprocessing plant . High].? enriched uranium hexafluoride or oxide, used as feed material f o r ' m a k i n q fuel for high teeeiperature g a s cooled reactors itcd n:ost tyoes of research reactors, a re a l s o s a f e t o handle without shielding. enter t h , o process stresms a t Sue! fabr ica t ion p l? r* ts , thev a r e generall t , d i l u t e d , t o varyin!! dzsrees , a s ihcy ar'e incorporated i n t o f resh fuu2i. As i!iis haDp?ns, the totr i i w i g h t o f ob jec t s tb?t would have t3 be s t o i c n t o acquire s u f f i c i e n t .f:'ssionab:c tixter.ia1, vken scr)ar;tcti :rc:n t ! i ? tIi1i;-

In general , i r r a d i a t e d fue ls eleirirnts are la rge ly -self protect ing

Once these mater ia l s

3

t a n t s , t o make a f i s s i o n exDlosivc g e r m a l l y i n c r m s e s , h u t b y d i f f e r e n t anloutits f o r d i f f e r e n t types of reac tc r f u e l . weights of several types of fuel asscnbly mater ia ls t h a t wogld hzve t o be picked u u to provide thieves with enough contained f i ss ionable mster- i a l f o r a crude f i s s i o n bonib a r e roughly its follo:,s: h i g h teqperatui-e

For examole, the t o t a l

3as 'cooled rczctor ( t iTGR) f u e l , l r ) , D C C l b . ; l i g h t water reactor f u e l , 2000 lh.; f a s t breeder reac tors (LI'FE9 or G C F R ) , 50-75 l h . these examples t o i l l u s t r a t e t h a t , i n designing and assessing nuclear material s e c u r i t y measures a t d i f f e r e n t 9oints in fuel cyc les , more sho:rld be considered than s inply the types of f i ss ionable mater ia ls involved.

I o f f e r

Important changes a f fec t ing opportuni t ies f o r nuclear t h e f t czn occi!r a s the nuclear industry develops: I t happens; f o r e x m p l e , t h a t f109.v~ of f i s s i o n prodtrct-free Dlutmium and highly enriched uranium f o r c i v i l i a n o0:r.r p lants a r e no:.! p r a c t i c a l l y a t a s t a n d s t j l l , and a r e not expected t o reach l a r g e i n t e r - f a c i l i t y flow r a t e s f o r a t l e a s t sever21 years . mid-1972, when the Fluclear Fuel Services fuel reorocessi ng Dlant shti t down f o r exnansion and renovation, no Dlut3lliuiil has heen extracted a t cominercial reprocessing plznts i n the rjnitcd S ta tes . The General Electi-ic reprocessing p lan t a t Morris, I l l i n o i s has n o t yet; rcprccessed a n y i r r z - . d ia ted fuel , b u t i s expected t o s t a r t doing so v r i t h i n the next fevr r;;or.th_c. The amount of previously separated ccaxercial p l utoniun r10w a t the !!e:./ York S t a t e Atcniic and Space Developni2nt Au'chori t y ' s (ASW,) plutonium storage f a c i l i t y i s , I understand, l e s s t h a n ten percent of i t s s t o r a g s c a o x i t y of 2,090 kilograms of plutcnium. rap id ly , hob:?\r.er, i f the G . E . p lan t soon s t a r t s reoroccssing the l a r a e and growing backlog of i r r a d i a t e d fuel f ron l i g h t water reac tors . Uctil p l u t o n i u m recycle s t a r t s on a more'or l e s s rout ine bas i s , which may nst happen unt i l about 1980, most separatt.d p1i:tonim i s l j k e l y t o yo i q t o long term storaga or be used pi-iniarily f o r M D progrsm:. recycle s t a r t s , hos./ever, tctis o f t h o u s a n d s of I:i!cgranls O F ol i i tan im D C ~

year can bc expccteci t o i'lo!.r fro;:) storage t o fuel fabr ics t ior! plants a n d

8

Since

This s i t u a t i o n vi11 change

After plutoni!rm

V. 20- 34 n

on t o scnicthing l i k e a h u n d r 2 d Dower plants . o f the h i g h l y enriched u r a n i m rcquired t o refuel the F o r t S t . Vi-3it-1' l 5 G C reactor for t h ? next. few years i s already nixed w i t h tlioriuci a t t h ? General Atonic C G ~ C ; ~ I ; Y ' S t%R fuel fcbr icat ion f a c i l i t y . StartuD fuel for. the nw IITGI?'s noei on crtler wil l n o t be fahricated unt i l the l a t e 1970's . In shor t , there a n w a r s t o be a r e l a t i v e hiatus i n the flow of concentrated cc.rr,;ncrci'al plutonium and highly enriched uran.iim i n the United States t h a t wi l l probably l a s t f o r several years , t o

I a l so understand t h a t a l l

be followed hy a r a t h e r sudden increase in the flows. roughly sDeaking, appears t o hold f o r nuclear fuel cycles i n o ther countr ies . I should p o i n t o u i , hwever , t h a t Flows o f f i s s i o n Droduct- f r e e plutoniuin f o r RSD purposes a r e , and vi11 continue t o be s i g n i f i c a n t . In i5iscal year 1973, f o r exainple, there w r e a b o u t f o r t y s!;ipnents o f

more than t v o kilograms of plutonium by licensees i n the Ilnited S t a t e s . The t o t a l amount shipped was m r e t h a n 600 kilogrmis.

This s i t u a t i o n ,

Our fourth conclusion i s tAat, vi thout e f fec t ive safeguards t o prevent nuclear t h e f t , the developmnt of rillclear power ot? the sca le nolw i n prospect will c r e a t s subs tan t ia l r i s k s t o the American people a n d pecole- . generhl ly . . Individuals or groups nay attempt t o s tea l nuclear weaoon materials for money o r t o engage i n c o i i t i c a l Yllackniclil. I t brould be r e l a t i v e l y easy f o r 2 srriall groui, possessing nuclcar weapon mater ia ls t o use ;hen i n any t i u z h w of ways t o tiireaten o t h w Qrouns within s c e i c t v , cjcvcrtmentc, or en t i r e coxvcni t . ies . nuclear t h n f t at.temp.ts i n the f u t u r e i s 7il:ely t o be influcnced g r e a t l y n o t only by thc natur? of physical safeguards a g a i n s t t h e f t , b u t a l s o by the 5er.eral pol i t i ca1 cl Tina te and bv prevai 1 i ng a t t i t u d e s towai-d v-iolent

Thc frequency a m i cbaracter o f

hehavior w j t h i n s o c i e t i e s pihere oppor tuni t i c s :xist f o r such .thef L . F i f t h , tiie U.S. s;'stcr:i o f nucleaf inaterial sar'cyiards i s incomolete

a t t h i s time. A 1 t h o u g h rcccni: regulatory ac t ions liav? s-trengtiiennd r e q u i r c w n t s s i ibstznt ia l ly , son? basic issups wrtain-ing t o nhysicsl pr3t.cction a n d niatcri;tl s zcco~~nL-i!)il i ty 1::PasSitres !XVP n o t twen rc?solvcil.

5

V . 20-35

The prcsiithle to the ncw regulat ions conccrning nuclc.ar material in t r a n s i t , f o r exainFl e , s t a t c s t h a t the irczisiires are i ri-tcncicd t o protect the niater ia ls froii: any atteiiipted t h e f t "short of a s i g n i f i c a n t armed a t t a c k . 'I Are t ra ! i spwta t i on safeguards expected t o deal ~ f i l , ~ wi t h

;me guiding pr inc ip le a p p l y , by implication, to fixed s i t e s ? I f so, then, I subinit, l ic2nsees a r e n o t being asked t o protect these mater ia ls even as -::ell as f inanc ia l i n s t i t u t i o n s protect t h e i r mney. I f the A E C ' s rea l in ten t ion i s t o have l ice?Sces go s ign i f icant ly fur-ther t h a n this in Drotecting t h e i r m a t e r i a l s , then i t s object ives must be c l e a r l y spel led out. C)t'ierv:isc!, t!-e adversary nature of neqst ia t ions betwen the AEC regu'atciry s t a f f a n d 1 i c w s e e s i s l.iI.ely t o continue t o d r a g o u t the negot ia t ions and cause f u r t h e r delays i n the l icensing procedilre. .no!./ not op t imis t ic about representat ives a f the nuc:ear fndustry of fe r ing t o go s u b s t a n t i a l l y beyonc! sa t i s fy ing the l e t t e r o f the A E C regulat ions arid guides i n cases v:!:ei-'e the d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t costs of doing su are l i l Ie ly t o be sut.stan.tia1.

safeguzrds. Eho should pay the added cos ts of; rle:.i safeguards rieasures, and by \chat mechanism? n u c l c a r . e l e c t r i c po:.:er are riv~ch higher a t some points ir; the fuel cycle than a t oti iors. The cos ts of transp3i-.t.:tioii of concenti-.;.ted plctoniurn or highly e c r i c h d uriliiitini, for exmple , ? , ~ e nicch 'lower thn t!ie costs of c a p i t a l depreciation and opclrations a . t nuclear po:.;er Flants . E u t the c o s t s of e f f e c t i v e safeguards t o prc.ver;t t h e f t of mater ia ls i n t r a n s i t may be muc!i higher t h a n t h e i r costs a t nuclear c;:.:er plants . Thus a plut0niui;i shipper ma!/ see h i s cos ts r i s i c g sl?arpl\r, perhaos evzn by more than lOCX, a s a r e s u l t of ne\.! safegusrd rcgulat 'ons, !<bile a uti1jt .y coinpan); inay r,ee a p r a c t i c a l l y ins igni f icant r!;e i n cos t Der I:ilo1;e,tt h o u r 0.7 de1iverc.d c l e c t r i c i ti/ 2 s a reSul t of t k SailiF! ?ct ioi>. I f the plutoniani shipper allsorbs the costs of a really ~ o o d r~hj'sical

znszg7?~.J7,~=:;: t . . .* . am2d at,tacl:s, o r s i g n i f i c a n t , u - , ; q w r ! atta:ks?, Does, t h i s

I am - .

This leads ne. 'io another .important unresolvec! i s s u e concerning

Present contrihutions t o the overall cos t of

G

V .20-36 n

protcct ion system, he rtiay have to pr ice hiniself above his competitors and 90 o u t of business. How can the acidcd c o s t s of highly e f f e c t i v e safeguards be equi t.ah1.v d i s t r i huted across the e n t i r e fuel cycle , so t h a t they a re f i n a l l y hornc! by the consumers of nuclear e l e c t r i c 'power? s t a teriier! t .

loped t h a t will Cecp the r i s k s of t h e f t o f nuclear weapon n a t e r i a l s froin the nuclear power industry a t very lo^ l e v e l s , without in te r fe r ing s i g n i f i c a n t l y wi tti the c2ntinued 'rapid acvelopnent of nuclear po1iw. have suggested a guiding princ-iple, ca l led the "Princinle of Containxent" for use i n designing such a system.

So r.!e have t h i s question:

I sha l l return t o t h i s b r i e f l y l a t e r in my

Fina l ly , we have concluded t h a t a system of safeguards can be deve-

\/e

According t o this pr inc ip le , the overall object.ive o f a sa fegua rds system would be t o d e t e c t cttemnts a t t h e f t of nuclear inaterisls from authorized channels as ear ly as possible , and t o place s u f f i c i e n t irnoedirnents i n the way q f oeoDle attempting a t h e f t t o assure t h a t lv!haiever reserve forccs a r e required can be brought - t ~ the scene i n time t o control any credible t h e f t operat ion. i n t o f i v e broad categories: ..

1. b a r r i e r s designed t o prevent unauthorized penetration long enough t o

d i 3 l e t y p e of atteinpted t h e f t to a r r i v e a t the scene before t!!e t h e f t i s cornpl e ted.

designed t o r c s ' s t p z r ~ t r a t i o n , t ransfer of the shipnient t o another vsh ic le , o r cmnandecri ng of the vehicle or reserve gua rd forces t o be a b l e to d e a l e f fec t ive ly with G Z ~ cmx.>?c

Yeasures t h a t could be used f o r applying t h i s rx-iric'iple f a l l

, * .

Contaiment of nuclear n a t e r i a l s a t f ixed s i t e s within physical

a1 low on-si t e o r reserve y a r d fGl.CeS capable o f dealing wi t h --t-s cpc-

2. Siripaent of nuc'lcar n a t e r i a l s i n massive containers and vc?hicles

i t s e l f long enough f o r accom;inying 7 .-

t:!eft G 2 tcr/i;7 t .

7

V. 20-37

3. Pr'ovision of aiitcni2t:c alarnis t ! i a t will iiiir:iedial:c.ly d e t e c t atteL1Pts t o 1'cix':e material s fro!n authorized channels a n d sound a l a r m a t several specif icd control ao in ts .

o f 'ci'enying acdess of '1:nauthcrized peo?le t o places vi5erc naclear material S

exist . 5. Provision of oii-call l a / enforcewilt forces t h a t can be b r o u g h t

t o the .scene o f an atteiiipted t h e f t before TI t h e f t can be coxpletc:l, along w i t h secure cciwnuniciations between t h 2 coiit.ro1 poi!its \.!here the a l a r m are sounc!ea a n 3 the o f f - s i t e forces .

In addi t ion , mater ia ls accounting Drocediii-es should De used a s a backup. t o t h e akove types o f physical secur i ty nieasures , t o help assure detect ion of any covert divers ion o f n x t e r i a l s n o t detected ,by t h o a1 arm sys tens .

T!ic oresent P!EC aooroach t o safenuards i s , i n f a c t , alcnc: these general ~ir,c!s ! j u t s innly docs n o t qo a n J v l i p r c ' r i ~ ~ a r f a r e!iwr,!: t o oreveqt t h e f t s by grouns o f people ~ i t i i a t l c s s t the sk i l l s a n d resogrces that have been used f o r n:ajor t h e f t s o f other -,:aluai?lcs in the p a s t . I am ,

convinced i;:S?t, a :;a-?cgusrds svsten t h a t \wild acconolis? t h i s okiect ive could bc dosigned a.nd iiylcrientcd i n t h e IJnite.1 S t a t e s ::efo-r.e t.he r e l a - t i v e h ia tus ifi t h e flo:.: of comercia1 Fiss-ioiiahle materials c o x s t o an end in the l a t e 1970's 0:' e a r l y 1QSO's. Cui: t h i s v!ill i13t h3ppcn, i n n!_v vie:.,, iinless k a t h t he AX stid tlic cl rc lpar i n d u s t r y co!;sid;.;r7hlv f x r c a s e tl7e iritensi ty o f n r r s c n t e f f o r t s t o I?ri n9 t h i s nrohlcr: under cont ro l .

4. Prol/ision of on-si te and i n - t r a n s i t gua rd forces f o r the mrnost?

. )

The nuclear ii;dustry has i m n v ov t ions f o r dcsiqr;ir;g hiq3l.v cffcctivcl nuclear s a f e g i ~ a x l s i n t o i t s s.vstems, 2nd b o t h tho A E C Fiilcl the industr\: should dev isc ! and iR31W:etit Dracticahlc m v s t o resnocd t o these 0~~301'-

t u n i t i c s . I wtild 1il:c t o iii,?rition a f c Fossible o:i\sinles. Thes?, alo:,q with

other a1 t c r r ! ? t i \ ~ ~ s , slioultl olwi orrslv bc t l i ~ i r o ~ i ~ l i l v a s s ; . s s ~ i befGre t h ? ~ a r e ii::i)l r:::i:.ntcd.

SO:^.:! p l r t i c!il ; r l y vu1 ix!ra!l.!c trdr!snsrt;l.tio!i 1 i 1:!:5 {:o:ild !!cl )'c!i1oVcii i f l~ucl:';\i- f:it.l cycit. f ? . c i l i i i v < v!t?ri? l o c ~ t c c ! iit t;ic <t~;:!:3 :;i?c1s. F ' I i r J -

V.20-38

mcnts of concentrated plutotliui11 ox ide or plutonium n i t r a t c could be avoided i f fuel reprOCcSSiny . f a c i l < t i e s ant! fuel fabr icat ion Dlail'iS t h a t use t h e i r o u t p u t were next t o cacti other: conversion of plutoti im o r liighlv enriched ui-'animi, which a r e of ten not/ located by t h e i : x e i w s , could or fabr ica t ion ' f a c i l i t i e s . As ' an extreme, b u t possibly gcneraily . a t t rac- t i ve option, - a l l fuel cycle cmponents t h a t handle f i ss ionable n x t e r i a l s , including very h i g h capacity p o w r reactors , could be. located a t the satiie s i t e . f i s s ionable mater ia ls over la rge d is tances , h u t \/auld a l so reduce, through econoi:iies 3-f s c a l e , the overal l costs of sa-feguards for a com- p l e t e fuel cycle.

ray and, i n sone cases, neutron shielding will be required t o insirre i n s i g n i f i c a n t racliation cx;;osui-e t o viorkers a t 211 Goillts it? the ftlal cycle f o r s.vyste;;ls t h a t use recycled ?lutoniuni o r uraniiin-233. -[his would mezn t h a t , fo r ' reasons ,!of: connected w ' i t h safeguards , heavy containers and h a r r i e r s will . have t o he used in the s torane, t ransr ;or t , and fabr icz t ion of nuclear f u e l s froa the time they a r e separated a t a reprocessi ng p! a n t t o the time they arc pl aced i n reactors .for refuel 1 i ng . T!;ese bar r ie rs and cotitafriers ;rill n a k e ' t h e f t much n o m d i f f i c u l t .

F a c i l i t i e s for intermediate

integral Darts o f fuel reprocessing

T h i s would n o t only reiiiove the !teed f o r t ransnortat ion o f

*

As another exainpl e , i t now appears 1 i (el)/ that 1-athzr massive g a m a -

Fina l ly , I piant t o ctenl-ion a Dossihi l i ty -For nrovicling exoert Dro- t c c t i v e secl;ri ty s e r v i c e s t o the n!iclcar industry -in a wa!~ t h a t would assure t h C g r e a t e s t pract icable secur i ty along w i t h an equi table pay the added c o s t s . personnel , eqi i i?net i t ,cc :n i r ;un ic~t ions syct?;ils, a n d so on--v:ere p r o v i d e d ,

t o I f t h i s scrvice--including the required profcssional

\.!here 2nd l : j neetleci, b y the fcdcral governn!ent, the industry would xit bave t o deal with t h e problms 0-7 ai-iiiing i t s o:;n ei;ioloyees o r depennl!ing on pr ivate protpctivcl. scrvic?s vhosc c f fcc t iveness iaay vary cons-idcrably from olace t o nlcce. I f , f u r t h e r , the costs o f such a service v E r C

p a i d f o r o u 5 o f a fcdcral ftrnd 1.2-iscd b y taxcs or1 t.hc l r t i l i t i c s t11;rt.

9

V. 20-39

the 1-cquired iii'otccti\rc s r r v i c c s would be cciiii t a h l v Dc;zsed on t o tile corisuiwi-s of nilclear e l e c t r i c DO:.I.?I-. I shou'ld winhssize t h a t t h i s i s on ly O l i ? C f a nL!r.txr o f p 0 s s i b i : i t i c s t h a t I believe sh9uld be 'chorouq!ily assessed.

T h i s leads me t o t h e primary recormendation I woti16 l i ke t o Place before t h i s Co?ii!iitte?. Th? k E C should ta!:e the leadership i n asspa51 i l l 3 a task force of experts t h a t represent the .ititei*ests .and exper t i se of govwnxent, t h e nuclear i c d u s ' i i - v , u n i v e r s i t i e s , and t h c general prthlic t o ~o1.I: f u l l tin:e on the conception and assessxent of' a l t e r n a t i v e ways t o estchl i sh aiic! maintain an e f f c c t i v p i;uclear T;i3tel'ia! safyius.rd sys tc !n

i l l .itie 1Init.cjd S t a t e s . By a .systci:i I mecn t o include everythin? froci i t s

10

V . 20-40

s u f f i c i e n t t o cover i hc cos ts 0-f the k i n d s o f safegLltii-tis I propose. Thi rd the c o s t t o society O F a n Gzzd:q!!nteZy s a f c g u z r d d national nuclear poi;!?r ;ysl:c;n i s 1ikt.l.y t o be f a r grea te r t h a n the dcll ; l)- cos t s of any conceiv;lilc s a f e g u a r d systcni.

Ioplcneiitation o f . (7 hi:rlily . .effective safcguar,(s sys tc tn ' in t h e I.Jni tccl S ta tes i s a ncccssary, b u t n o t s u f f i c i e n t resuonsc t o tlx wrldwidc t h r e a t o f nuclear violcnce follov!ins nircicar t h e f t . now hive or at-e plannir,q t o h u i l d nuclear pzlwr reac tors . Achieving

' a y:orldi;::de Icvel o f control o f nuclear iriaterial; t h a t wi11 keep these r i s k s a t acceptable leve ls i s amoiiCj the g r e a t e s t challenges humanity has ever f a c e d . B u t r e s p o n d agressively t~ t h i s challe'nqe we m s t Y or face the projpects o f l iv ing i n a world in which t;uclcar violence my becoine cormonplace.

. t

h t l e a s t t h i r t y tmtions

\.le haifc l i t t l e time, and much t o (lo. The f . i r s t task i n order. mustcr t o v!ork w i t h people i n cither countr ies t o k i n g t h i s problem under g l o b a l con.ti-0'1 , The.funclanenta1 reason :.thy I now believe t h i s goa i can be achieved i s t h a t i s i s so evidently in the best s e l f i n t e r e s t s cf every nation i n the world.

f o r those of us t h a t l i v e i n th-is country i s t o g e t ou r own house As we do t h i s , we rn!!~.: use a.11 the c rea t ive energies :.re can

1 1

n

V. 20-41

APPEI'jDIX B

A SUMMhRY

NUCLEAR THEFT: RISKS IWD SAFEGUARDS by Mason Wi l l r i ch and Theodore B. Taylor

This book ana lyzes t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t nuc lear m a t e r i a l s

may be s t o l e n from t h e fast-growing U.S. nuclear power i n d u s t r y

and used t o make weapons.

tial" u n l e s s e f f e c t i v e s t e p s a r e taken t o a s s u r e t h e p u b l i c ' s

s i f e t y and t h e n a t i o n ' s s e c u r i t y .

It f i n d s t h e r i s k w i l l be "substan-

* Nuclear energy i s r a p i d l y becoming a major source of

~ ' e c t r i c power i n the U.S. and nany o the r coun t r i e s . The

same materials, plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, t h a t

form t h e explos ive co res ' o f atomic bombs, a r e a l s o produced

and used a s f u e l i n nuc lea r power r e a c t o r s .

yea r s , t e n s of thousands of kilograms of these f i s s i o n a b l e

materials w i l l be f lowing through t h e U.S. nuc lear power

indus t ry . A few ki lograms of t hese same materials a r e

enough f o r an atomic bomb; and a few grams of plutonium

are enough f o r a dev ice t h a t could cause widespread rad io-

a c t i v e contaminat ion.

Within a f e w

The des ign and manufacture of a crilde f i s s i o n bomb i s

no longer a d i f f i c u l t t a s k t e c h n i c a l l y , once nuc lear

m a t e r i a l s a r e a t hand; making a plutonium d i s p e r s a l device

is even s i m p l e r .

V. 20-42 n

-2-

Effect ive safeguard measures a r e therefore necessary, s o t h a t

materials intended f o r use as nuclear f u e l s are not s t o l e n and

misused by cr iminals o r t e r r o r i s t s .

and Taylor f ind t h a t t he U. S. program t o guard aga ins t the r i s k

of nuclear t h e f t i s improving but incomplete; comparable measures

Based on t h e i r study, Wil l r ich

i n o the r nat ions with nuclear power programs a l s o need improvement.

But t he re are safeguards which, i f implemented-, w i l l reduce the r i s k

of nuclear t h e f t t o a very low l e v e l -- an acceptable l e v e l , i n t h e

authors’ judgment. They are convinced t h a t the c o s t s of t hese

safeguards w i l l be small compared to the ove ra l l c o s t s of nuclear

power.

safeguards system are i n s t i t u t i o n a l and p o l i t i c a l , not technical ,

i n character .

. The most d i f f i c u l t problems i n developing an e f f e c t i v e

Many policymakers i n the energy f i e l d are only vaguely aware

of the nuclear t h e f t problem, and most o f the general pub l i c does

not know t h a t i t e x i s t s . This study is intended t o con t r ibu te t o

publ ic understanding oE the technical f a c t s and pol icy i s s u e s in-

volved. It contains no c l a s s i f i e d information. Drawing from ex-

tensive unclassif ied data , i t descr ibes i n general terms what materials

and s k i l l s a r e required t o make crude atomic weapons; how much des t ruc t ion

they could cause; where i n the nuclear power industry the key m a t e r i a l s

f o r such weapons are present ; and why and how cr iminals o r t e r r o r i s t s

might t r y to s t e a l them.

How much does the public need t o know about the r i s k s of nuclear

t h e f t ?

t ha t such an e f f o r t might i n s p i r e warped or e v i l minds. But t he f a c t

The most compelling argument against informing the publ ic i s

V . 20-43

-3-

is t h a t a l a r g e amount of in format ion , i n more t echn ica l d e t a i l

t han t h i s s tudy p r e s e n t s , i s a l r eady i n t h e pub l i c domain.

More b a s i c a l l y , t he s e c u r i t y r i s k s which a r e i n t r i n s i c i n

nuc lea r power a r e n o t temporary; they a r e an inescapable cha rac t e r -

i s t i c of t h e use of nuc lea r energy t o meet more and more of t h e wor ld ' s

demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y .

ahead provide t h e las t chance t o develop long-term safeguards .

The pub l i c needs t o know t h a t t h e y e a r s j u s t

n h c e n u c l e a r m a t e r i a l s are flowing through t h e power i n d u s t r y a t

t h e l e v e l s expected i n a few y e a r s , ' i t w i l l be too l a t e t o begin

t o develop e f f e c t i v e safeguards a g a i n s t t h e f t . a

On t h e b a s i s of an ex tens ive review of publ i shed m a t e r i a l ' o p e n

t o the p u b l i c , u n c l a s s i f i e d conversa t ions wi th e x p e r t s , and cons ider -

a b l e thought , t h e au tho r s conclude:

Under conceivable c i r cuns t ances , a few persons , poss ib ly even one person working a lone , who possessed about t e n ki lograms of plutonium oxide and a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of chemical h igh explos ive could , w i t h i n several weeks, des ign and b u i l d a crude fission bomb. "

II

F i s s i o n exp los ives can a l s o be mads wi th a few ki lograms of

high-enriched.uraniurn, o r wi th uranium-233.

found i n the c i v i l i a n nuc lea r power indus t ry .

m a t e r i a l and chemical exp los ives , t h e o t h e r m a t e r i a l s necessary f o r

making a crude f i s s i o n bomb can be bought i n hardware s t o r e s o r from

commercial s u p p l i e r s of s c i e n t i f i c equipment f o r s tuden t s .

All t hese materials are

Besides nuc lear

V. 20-44

-4-

People involved i n t h i s kind of c r imina l e n t e r p r i s e would need

some l abora to ry and machine shop s k i l l s .

reasonably inven t ive , and a b l e t o f i n d and understand t h e unc la s s i -

They would have t o be

f i e d l i t e r a t u r e t h a t d e a l s w i th nuc lea r exp los ives , n u c l e a r r e a c t o r

s a f e t y , and o rd ina ry explos ives .

t ake moderate r i s k s of s e r i o u s i n j u r y o r dea th .

They would have t o be w i l l i n g t o

"Whatever op in ions anyone may have about t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t

an ind iv idua l o r ve ry small group of people would a c t u a l l y steal

nuc lea r materials and use them t o make f i s s i o n bombs, t hose opin ions

should n o t be based on a presumption t h a t a l l types of f i s s i o n bombs

are v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o make," t h e au tho r s say.

A "crude f i s s i o n bomb" is def ined as one which has a n e x c e l l e n t

chance of exploding, w i th a probable y i e l d equal of a t . l ea s t 100

tons of chemical h igh exp los ive , and a p o s s i b l e y i e l d of as much a s

a few k i l o t o n s .

havoc.

b u t a l s o l e t h a l r a d i a t i o n . The e f f e c t s of a nuc lea r weapon depend on

t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t he t a r g e t as w e l l as of t h e weapon i t s e l f .

In a t y p i c a l suburban r e s i d e n t i a l area, a "crude f i s s i o n bomb" might

Even a "small" nuc lea r explosion could cause enormous

A nuc lea r explos ion produces no t on ly a b l a s t wave and h e a t ,

k i l l 2000 people , most ly by exposure t o r a d i o a c t i v e f a l l o u t . The

same explos ion i n a parking l o t beneath a skyscraper could k i l l a s

many as 50,000 people and d e s t r o y t h e e n t i r e bu i ld ing .

In c r imina l hands, plutonium could be a danger n o t on ly as raw

m a t e r i a l f o r a bomb, bu t a l s o in a r e l a t i v e l y s imply d i s p e r s a l device.

Plutonium is among the most t o x i c subs tances known.

m a l l enough t o be ba re ly v i s i b l e can cause f i b r o s i s o r cancer of t h e

lung. The amounts th7.t could pose a t h r e a t t o s o c i e t y are accord ingly

Airborne p a r t i c l e s

n

V . 20-45

-5-

very small.

the s t u f f could be a deadly risk to everyone working i n a l a r g e

o f f i c e b u i l d i n g o r f a c t o r y , i f i t were e f f e c t i v e l y d i spe r sed .

In open a i r , t he e f f e c t s would be more d i l u t e d by wind and weather ,

One hundred grams ( t h r e e and one hslE ounces) of

b u t they would s t i l l be s e r i o u s and long- l a s t ing .

I n t h e ve ry near f u t u r e , nuc lea r materials w i l l be c i r c u l a t i n g

in huge q u a n t i t i e s through t h e f u e l c y c l e s of nuc lea r power p l a n t s .

By 1980, t e n s of thousands of ki lograms w i l l be p re sen t i n t h e U. S.

i n d u s t r y , and s e v e r a l thousand ki lograms w i l l be f lowing through

c iv i l i an f u e l c y c l e s i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . T h e r e a f t e r , i t i s expected

t h a t t h e t o t a l amounts of t h e s e materials i n nuc lea r power i n d u s t r i e s

throughout t h e world r r i l l r a p i d l y inc rease .

Some p a r t s of t h e nuc lea r f u e l c y c l e s are i n h e r e n t l y more vul-

n e r a b l e t o t h e f t than o t h e r s .

i t s own d i s t i n c t i v e f u e l c y c l e , p r e s e n t s d i f f e r e n t problems.

Each kind of nuc lea r r e a c t o r , w i th

The most common r e a c t o r i n use today i s t h e l igh t -water r e a c t o r

(LWR). The p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r t h e f t i n t he LWX f u e l c y c l e , as i t

now o p e r a t e s , are minimal. The low-enriched uranium the LIJR u s e s

for f u e l i s n o t a t p r e s e n t a u s a b l e nuc lea r weapon m a t e r i a l . However,

t h e l igh t -water r e a c t o r does produce plutonium (which now goes i n t o

s t o r a g e b u t w i l l by the l a t e 1970's be r ecyc led as LIJR f u e l ) . The

plutonium i s w e l l p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e f t from t h e t i m e i t i s made

i n the r e a c t o r u n t i l a f t e r i t is sepa ra t ed from i n t e n s e l y r a d i o a c t i v e

spen t f u e l at a rep rocess ing p l a n t ; t h e r a d i o a c t i v i t y i t sel f i s a

b u i l t - i n safeguard a g a i n s t t h e € t . The only p o i n t s i r t the p resen t

LITR c y c l e where t h e f t o f plutonium miCht occur a r e a f t e r c e p s r a t i o n

a t a fue? r ep rocess ing p l a n t , du r inz sh ipnent t.o a :jC<)rase p l ~ l n t , or

V. 20-46

-6-

a t t h e s t o r a g e p l a n t i t s e l f . Transpor ta t ion , a s i n . a l l t h e f u e l

c y c l e s , is probably t h e weakest s e c u r i t y l i n k .

When LWR's begin t o use recyc led plutonium as f u e l , t h e chances

f o r t h e f t w i l l mul t ip ly .

w i l l be a t t h e reprocess ing p l a n t , a t t h e f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t ,

and dur ing shipment between these sites. Completed f u e l assembl ies

con ta in ing plutonium could a l s o be s t o l e n , b u t t h e heavy weight of

The most vu lne rab le p a r t s of t h e f u e l c y c l e

such assembl ies would make i t a d i f f i c u l t undertaking.

One high-temperature gad-cooled r e a c t o r (HTGR) i s ready to start

up i n 1974, as a demonstrat ion model; several commercial-scale IiTGR

p l a n t s are on o rde r .

may p lay a l a r g e r r o l e .

uranium (which is 90 t o 95 pe rcen t U-235) as f u e l , and create uranium

233; la ter uranium 233 w i l l be recycled and used a s f u e l .

The p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t uranium 233 might be s t o l e n from t h e

I n t h e more d i s t a n t f u t u r e t h i s kihd of r e a c t o r

To begin wi th , t h e HTGR w i l l u se high-enriched

HTGR f u e l c y c l e p a r a l l e l i n gene ra l t hose f o r plutonium i n t h e l i g h t -

w a t e r r e a c t o r cyc le . However, f a b r i c a t e d HTGR f u e l i s much more d i l u t e

and d i f f i c u l t t o conver t t o forma t h a t would be u s a b l e i n nuc lea r ex-

p los ives . High-enriched uranium, t h e o t h e r HTGR f u e l , is e s p e c i a l l y

vu lne rab le a t these p o i n t s : as it l eaves t h e f u e l enrichment p l a n t ,

i n t he form of a h igh ly enriched uranium gas; wh i l e i t is i n t r a n s i t

t o a chemical conversion p l a n t ( t o be converted i n t o s o l i d form); a t

t h e conversion p l a n t ; nnd dur ing s h i p m n t t o t h e f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l an t .

The l i q u i d r s i t a l fas t : breeder r e a c t o r (ULF3R) is s t i l l a t an e a r l y

stage today. B r i t i n t ens ive development is underway, and the I.?EJiR nay

become the mainstay of nuc lear power product ion tovard t h e end of the

century b1;cauue It i s ab le t o "breed" from common uraniun more nuc lea r

1

I

-7-

V . 20 -47

f u e l than i t burns. The LNFBR d rama t i ca l ly cs t t lnds trhe l iEe t i ine of

uranium r e s e r v e s .

The weak p o i n t s i n t h e LFFBR f u e l c y c l e are the same a s i n t h e

LWR c y c l e which inc ludes a plutonium recyc le .

however. The f a s t b r e e d e r ' s f u e l assembl ies c o n t a i n a much h ighe r

concen t r a t ion of plutonium than t h e LWR's; and i t i s e a s i e r t o e x t r a c t .

There i s a d i f f e r e n c e

The p r o b a b i l i t y of nuc lea r t h e f t i s very low, y e t i f i t d i d

happen t h e consequences could be c a t a s t r o p h i c . I n t h i s way, t h e

r i s k of n u c l e a r t h e f t i s s imilar t o t h e r i s k of a major acc iden t

i n a nuc lea r power p l a n t . But i t i s more d i f f i c u l t t o assess t he

l i k e l i h o o d of t h e f t , bEcause t h e r i s k s a r i se p r i m a r i l y , n o t from

mal funct ioning machines, bu t from malfunct ioning people. The p o s s i b l e

damage from nuc lea r t h e f t i s even g r e a t e r than from t h e niaximum c r e d i b l e

r e a c t o r a c c i d e n t .

T e r r o r i s t s o r c r i m i n a l s o r even a s i n g l e f a n a t i c might t r y t o

steal nuc lea r weapon m a t e r i a l s , f o r money o r f o r purposes o f p o l i -

t i ca l coerc ion . I f they succeeded, they could use the naterials

i n a number of ways t o t h r e a t e n groups, governments, or whole con-

muni t ies . It is l i k e l y t h a t nuc lea r t h e f t a t t empt s will be very much

inf luenced by t h e gene ra l s o c i a l and p o l L t i c a l c l imate . F a c t o r s o v 2 r

which t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y has no c o n t r o l xd11, i n o t h e r words,

l a r g e l y determine the range of t h r i x t s . Without e f f e c t i v e s a f e p a r d s

V. 20-48

-8-

safeguard requirer?.ents i n r e c e n t yea r s , some h a s i c i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g

to phys ica l p r o t e c t i o n have not y e t been reso lved .

I n many a r e a s p re sen t s e c u r i t y r e g u l a t i o n s a r e vaguely def ined .

The AEC i s now a t work developing b e t t e r gu ides f o r some, such as

des ign s t anda rds f o r a s a f e secu re v e h i c l e t o t r a n s p o r t nuc lea r

weapon ma te r i a l s . For o t h e r s , s e r i o u s amhigu t t i e s s t i l l remain.

I n still o t h e r areas , requirements are p r e c i s e l y def ined , b u t in -

adequate. For example, t h e r e are no s p e c i f i c requi rements f o r t h e

phys ica l p r o t e c t i o n of less than two kilograms of plutonium, even

though a smal l f r a c t i o n of t h a t amount i s enough t o make a radio-

l o g i c a l weapon. For another example, . the requirements f o r keeping

con tac t wi th v e h i c l e s whi le they c a r r y nuc lea r s h i p n e n t s a r e ine f -

f ective .

a .

There are no AEC o r i n t e rna t iona l ly -admin i s t e red requirements

for t h e phys ica l p r o t e c t i o n of nuc lea r m a t e r i a l s which t h e U. S . e x p o r t s

f o r o t h e r c o u n t r i e s t o u s e i n t h e i r nuc lea r power programs. Thef t

of such m a t e r i a l s could pose a s e r i o u s r i s k t o t h e s e c u r i t y of t h e

U. S. as w e l l as 0th2r c o u n t r i e s . This w i l l be a d i f f i c u l t need t o

f u l f i l l , though t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Atomic Energy Agency i n Vienna does

adminis te r an i n t e r n a t i o n a l system of nuc lea r m a t e r i a l s accountancy. ( / ,,

Taken toge the r , p re sen t U. S . safeguards do n o t c o n s t i t u t e a

system. An e f f e c t i v e system of sa feguards may evolve , i f p rz sen t

t r ends cont inue . Today, t h e r e is no b a s i s f o r eva lua t ing such a

system as i t develops, becausa the AEC has no t determined the maxi.mum

V . 20-49

-9-

e s s e n t i a l s of t h e safeguard system are, hidden from p u b l i c view,

i n t h e p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y p l a n s which n u c l e a r l i c e n s e e s f i l e w i t h

t h e AEC on a c o n f i d e n t i a l b a s i s .

It is c l e a r l y n e c e s s a r y t o keep d e t a i l e d p l a n s a s e c r e t .

But t h e need f o r s e c r e c y makes i t doubly impor tan t f o r t h e M C t o

deve lop s p e c i f i c s a f e g u a r d s t a n d a r d s t h a t can be j u s t i f i e d i n pub-

lic h e a r i n g s , and t o develop a n i n s p e c t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t w i l l make

s u r e t h e s t a n d a r d s are m e t .

"A sys tem of s a f e g u a r d s c a n b e developed t h a t w i l l keep t h e

r i s k s of t h e f t of n u c l e a r weapon m a t e r i a l s from t h e n u c l e a r power

i n d u s t r y a t v e r y low l e v e l s , " W i l l r i c h and Taylor conclude.

sys tem should emphasize t h e p r e v e n t i o n of t h e f t and t h e d e t e c t i o n

of any t h e f t in t i m e t o p r e v e n t i t s c o a p l e t i o n .

The

The p r i n c i p l e of c o n t a i n x e n t should be t h e b a s i s f o r s a f e -

guard measures. The p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s and s e c u r i t y f o r c e s t h a t are

des igned t o p r o t e c t n u c l e a r weapon msterials should be capable of

d e f e a t i n g the naxinun c r e d i b l e t h r e a t t h a t can be reasonably ex-

p e c t e d anywhere i n any n u c l s a r f u e l c y c l e . That t h r e a t might i n -

volve an.at tack by a group of p e r h a p f i v e t o t en p e r s o n s u s i n g

s o p h i s t i c a t e d f i r e a r m s and equipment.

I n s o f a r a s p r a c t i c a l , t echniquaa should be developed t o pro-

v i d e a t i m e l y , a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e of t h e n a t e r i a l f lows i n t h e v a r i o u s

n u c l e a r f u e l c y c l e s , s o t h a t any noverr.ent of n u c l e a r weapon materials

o u t s i d e a u t h o r i z e d channels can be Tnnedia tc ly decec tcd .

V. 20-50

-10-

The s tudy recommends:

The AEC should des ign a d e t a i l e d system of sa feguards f o r

each of the nuc lea r f u e l cyc le s base,d on use of t he b e s t a v a i l a -

b l e technology and i n s t i t u t i o n a l mechanisms. (The safeguard

des igns could than bk eva lua ted f o r cos t - e f f ec t iveness , t o he lp

determine what requirements should be adopted f o r t h e nuc lear

power i n d u s t r y , what safeguard R & D p r i o r i t i e s should be esta-

b l i s h e d , and what r i s k s of nuc lea r t h e f t should be accepted . )

The AEC should c o n s e r t h e es tab l i shment of a f e d e r a l nuc lea r

materials s e c u r i t y s e r v i c e with t he sole r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of pro-

t e c t i n g n u c l e a r m a t e r i a l s sub jec t t o s a f e g u a r -

The AEC s h o u u e v e l o p and pub l i sh a set of procedures f o r

t h e review of phys i ca l s e c u r i t y plans submit ted by i n d u s t r y l i c e n -

sees. (These procedures should provide the nuc lea r i n d u s t r y and t h e

pub l i c w i th s t r o n g assurance t h a t t h e s e c u r i t y p l ans proposed by

l i c e n s e e s w i l l be asses sed thoroughly; t h a t s tandards w i l l be uni-

form and e q u i t a b l e ; t h a t a l l p l ans w i l l r e s u l t i n e f f e c t i v e measures

t o prevent t h e f t . )

The U . S . Government should i n i t i a t e d i scuss ions wi th t h e g o v e r z

ments of o t h e r n a t i o n s c r i t h s u b s t a n t i a l nuc lea r power p r o g r a p wi th

a view t o developing a cormon po l i cy i n f avor o f e f f e c t i v e safe-

guards a g a i n s t nuc lea r t h e f t anywhere i n the w o r l c

n

V . 20-51

-11-

"None of man's previous discoveries compare with nuclear energy

in terms of t h e demands placed on him to u s e it wisely," the authors

conclude. "Indeed the widespread use of nuclear energy requires the

rapid development of near p e r f e c t social and political institutions.

T h i s is the unprecedented challenge b e f o r e us."

V.20-52

APPENDIX C

Some findings ;ind conjccturcs froin rccciit rcsc;trcli into environmcntnl quality and rcsotircc tlcvclopmcnt and use

The cost of n thiria is the nmorrrit’of w)rnt I will cull lifr i~.~hicIi is required io be exchnirged for it, iniinedlitely or ii1 thelon? 1 m .

I-I. D. Thorenu: kb trldrn

SEPTENBER 1973 NUMBER 44 RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, 1r.x.

In its original form, this stntement bore the somewhat abstrnct title, “Benefit-Cost Analysis and Unschediiled Events in the Nricleur Fuel Cycle.” The Atomic Energy Cornniission had asked for comrnents on one o f its docrrrtients, rioting tficit envirorrrnetrtnl statenrents for a power reuctor slio~rlrl contain a cost-benefit arinlysis which, among other things, “considers and balnnces the adverse environmeritnl egects rind the envirotirtrentol, econonric, technical nnd ofher benefits of the facilily.” In response to the invitation, Allen V . Kneese, director of RFF’s program of stirdies in the quality of the environment, srtbmitted the following remarks.

AM SUBMfTTING this statement as a longtime student Lind practitioner of benefit-cost analysis, not

as a specialist in nuclear cnergy. It is my belief that benefit-cost analysis cannot answer the most important policy questions associated with the desirability of developing a largescale, fission-based economy. To expect it to do so is to ask it to bear a burden it cannot sustain. This is so becausc these questions are of a deep ethical character. Benefit-cost analyses cer- ta idy cannot solve such questions and may well obscurz them.

These questions have to do with whether society should strike the Faustian bargain with atomic scientists and cnyineers, described by Alvin JM. Wcinberg i n Scirnce. If so unforgiving a technology as large-scale nuclc.;ir fissinn cnrrgy production is adopted, it will inipohc. n btirdcn of continiicrus nionitorinz and sophisticated ninnagment of a clnnjierous mntcrinl, csscritidly fowvtx. The penalty of not bsiriiig this burden may be unp:irallclrd disastrr. ‘l‘liis irreversible burtlcn would

bz imposed even iE nuclear fission were to hz used only for a fcw decades, a mcre instant in the pertinent time scales.

Clearly, there are some major advantages in using nuclear fission technology, else it would not have so many wcll-intentioned . and intelligent advocates. Residual hcat is produced to a greater extent by current nuclear generating plants than by fossil fuel-fired ones. But, otherwise, the cnvironmentd impact ot routine operation o f the nuclear fuel cycle, including burning the fuel in the rcactor, can very likely bi: brought to a lower level than will be possible with fossil fuel-fired plants. This superiority may not, however, extend to some forms of other alternatives, such as solar and gzothermal cncrgy, which have received

coniparativcly littlc rcsc:IrcJi ant1 devclopiiicnt d l o r t . 1usnr;ir :IS thr: usual In;lr.kct costs arc corlccrncd. thcrc arc fcw publishccl cstir1i;ltcs of tllc costs of vxious altcriiativcs, and those which arc availahlc arc afflicted with much unccrtaiiity, I n general, howcvcr, the costs o l 1111- clear and fossil fucl cncrgy (when residuals generation i n the latter is controllctl to it high dcgrec) do not seem to be so grc:;rtly diifcient. Early evidcncc suggests t int othcr as yet undeveloped altcriiatives (such as hot rock gcothermal energy) might be econoniically attractivc.

Unfortunately, ,the advantages of fission are much inorc rcadily quan- tificd in the format of ii bincfit-cost analysis than are the associated hazards. Therefore, there exists the danger that the benefits may seem more real. Furthermore, the conceptual basis of benefit-cost analysis requires that the redistributional cffccts o f the action be, for one or another reason, inconsequential. Here we are speaking of hazards that may affect hnnianity many generations hence and equity questions that can neither be ncglcctcd as incoiisequcntial nor evaluated on any known theoretical or empirical basis. 'This nicans that technicrrl people, bz they physicists or ccon- ornists, cannot Icgitimately make the decision to generate such hazards. Our society confronts a moral problzm o l a great profundity; in my opinion, i t is one of thc most consequential that has ever facsd mankind. Ir i R ticmocrntic socicty the only 1:gitiniatc n i c a i i ~ lor niak- ing such a clioicc is through thc m<chanisiris of rcprcscritativc government.

For this reason, during the short interval aliend while tlependence on fission cnergy could still be kept within some bouiids, I hslicve the Congress should make an open and explicit decision about this Faustian bargain. This would best be clone aEtcr f u l l national discussion at a level of scriousncss anc l tlct;iil that thc m t u r i of tlic issue clc*niantls. An appropri;its starting point could be hcarings bcl'orc :I cc~iiirnittcc or Congress with R broad nation;d policy rcspomihility. l 'cc~l~iiicdly oricrilcd or spcci:iIixd co:iiiiiittccs woul~.l riot 11: suitnlilc t o th is t 'l'lie Join: T:conc;inic C'oiliiniticc

1 1 bz nrjpi 'opi ink. ~ ~ i ~ o t l i ~ i ~ pcis- ty wotrld bc for til.: C'oii;:rc..s

2

V . 20-53

to appoint a sclcct conxiiittcc to consider this and otl!cr large ctliical qucsticrns nssoci:ltccl wi t t i clcvclop- iiig t ~ d ~ ~ i o l o ~ y . 'Tlic w w l y chtall- l is l ict l Oliicc of .l'cchiology Assess- riicrit could he w r y useful to such a conimittcz.

U C H HAS been written about hazards associatcd with the

production of fission energy. Until recently, most statements emanating from thz scientific community ivcrc very reaswring on this matter. But scveral cvents in the past year or two have rcapened thc issue of hazards antl revealctl it as a real one. 1 t h ink the p,xtinent hnzsrds can usefully be divided into t\\o categories-those associated \vith the actual operation of the fuel cycle for power production and those associated with the Ion:-term storage of radioactive waste. I will d iscus both brielly. ,

Th:: recent failttrc of a sniall physical test of erncrgcncy core cooling cquipmeiit for the prcscnt gcnerati,ori of 1ight-w:itcr rezctvrs was an :darnling event. This is in part because thc failure casts douht upon ivhzther tlte systcai woulci function in the uriiikcly, but not iin- possible, evcnt it would be callsd upon in an actual energy rc'xtor. But it also illustrates the grcnt clifii- ctrlty of forecasting bchavior of components ir i tliis complex titch- nulogy whzre pcr:iitcnt cxpsrimen- tation is always clifficcilt and may sonictimcs be iinpc.;\ible. Orher rcwnt unscheduled cvcrits were the partial collap~c o f fucl rock i n sorne reactors.

s i ~ p p r c ~ ~ ~ d d(mli:h within :!-e s c r c ~ - t i t i c coiiiinunity ; i l l o u t thc atli'ciu:~~) o f rL,:ictor 5:tfctjr r t 11 e ::I c o n 6 c I 11 pli i \I o I! c I L*YC I ( 1 pi :i 2

Tl lcrc have 1011g bccn t l c q ~ ,hut

Union of Coiiccrncd Scientists has cal lcd ptiblic attention t o tlic hazards of nuclcar fissiori and ;isLcd for a iirnratoriirrn OH the con\tructiun of I X \ V plants ant l stringcrit opcrating controls on cxisting oiics. wlc divisiori of opiriiori in tlic scientific conmiunily about a inattcr of such monicrit is dccply disturbing to ;in outsider.

No doubt t h e are sonic atldi- tional surprises alicad when other parts of the fucl cyclc bcconic niore active, particularly in transportation of spent fucl elements and in fucl reprocessing facilitizs. As yet, there has bccn essentially no commercial cxperiencz in recycling the plutonium produced in nuclcar reactors. Furtliemiore, it is m y [in- dci-standing that thc inventory of plutonium in the breeder reactor fuel cycle will be several tinies greater than the inventory in the light-water reactor fuel cyclc with plutonium recycle. Plutoriiurn is one of thc dcadliest substances known to man. 'i-lie inhal;!iion of a mil- liarith of a gam-the size of a grain of poflen-appears to be sufficient to cause lung cancer.

Although i t is well known i n the nuclear community, perhaps the general public is unaware of thc niagnitutlc of tlir: disaster w-liich would occur i n the event of a severc accidcrit at a nucli-ar facility. I am told that i f an accident occurred at one of totlay's nuclear plants, rcsulting in thc rclease oE only live percent of only tlic more \,uIntife fission products, the numl?cr of casualtiss cotrld total betwccii 1,000 and 10,000. The cstinintctl range aplxrcntly could shift up or down by a factor of ten or so, clcpsncling on assumptions of population clcn- sity arid meteorological conditions.

With breeder reactors, the acci- dsiital release of plritonium may be of grcatcr conseqncncs tl inii thc rc- Icasc of' tlic iiiors volntils fission pruducts. Plutoniuni is onc or thz most potent rcspirntoiy carcinaigcns i n cxistcncc. In addition to :i grcat varicty of other rddioactivc sl.ib- stances. 0i.cctIcrs will conlaiii cine, or i i i o r i , tciris nf pllltoliiLiil1. ?vliilt: the f rxt ion t l i ; i t c'ciiili! hc r t l fo!loi\ if?; ;L crcrliblc ncciclcnt is cx- trcnl;lJ, 11!ic.?Ii;1in. it is cIL*%!r t l l i l t

a;:c O F this iiivciltory \ \x i~ i ;e l llc 1'(1\ii\':\li'i\t to t l r r . ~ C ! L > ~ > C of <i!l tflc voI:itiIc f ih .< io i r jirntlwt:; in c~nc trf

toi.l:iy's niiclcxr p1:ints. Or:x l c ~ : ~ t t o

illL: [ c l c m 01' 011ly :L snt;~ll p L - 1 n v r -

thc ensfiroiimcnt, t h e plutonium not ipystcd 1 q ~ p o p l c i n the first few Iiours followiiig an accident would bc around tc i txkc its toll for gcner-

' ations to c~itiic-fui. tens of thuu- sands of ycwb. \VIi:n OIIC factors i n thc possibility of sabotage and wir- fare, wherc powcr plants are prime targets not just in tlic United States but also in less devclopetl countries no\v striving to establish a nuclcar industry, tlicn there is almost 110 limit to the size of the catastrophe one can envisage.

It is argued that thc probabilities of such disa&ous cvents arc so low that these events fall into the ncgli- gible risk category. Perhaps so, but d o we really know this? Recent unexpected cvents raisc doubts. How, for example, docs one calcullitc the actions of a fanatical terrorist?

The use of plutoniufn as an article of commerce and the presence of large quantities of plutonium in the nuclear fuel cycles also worries a number of informed persons in another connection. Plutonium is readily used in+ the production of nuclear weapons, and governments, possibly cven private parties, riot now having :tccess to such weapons might value i t highly for this pur- posz. Although an illicit market has not yct been established, its value

has been cstimatcd to be com- pai~ible to that of heroin (around SS,OOO per pound). A certain nuin- ber of people may be tcinptctl to takc great risks to obtain i t . AEC Coinmissioner Larscn, anicing olhers, h:is cnllccl attLntion t o this posibility. This , a Iar;:e-scalc fission cncrgy economy coultl in- atlvcrtently coritrihutz to tht: p ro - 1ifcr;ition of tiuclcw. weapons. 7 1 1 ~ ~ ~ c

V. 20-54

nii!:ht f;dl i n t o the. h:ii iA d cwt i - tries with little to loji., o r of n i ; d n m , cif whom wc Il:i\c S C C I I scvcr-;~l i n high pliices within r ory.

In his csccllcnt article rcfcrrcd to above, Weiiilx*r~ cmpliasizcd [lint pxrt of the Faustian biirpiii i.; ( h a t t o use fission technology safely, sn- cicty m u s t cxcrcisc g ~ a t vigi1:iricc and thc highcst Icvcls of quality control, continuously and i/ide/i- nifc[y. As the fission encrgy economy grows, many plants will be built ant1 operated i n countries with compara!ively low levels of tcchno- logical competence and a grcatcr propensity to take risks. A much larger amount of transportation of hazardous m a tcrial s v-i 1 I pro b ab I y occur, and safety will become t h i province of thc sea captain iis well as the scientist. Ivlm-cover, cvcn i n countries with higher 1:vcls of tcsh- nological competence. continued succcss can lead to rcduccd vigilance. We should recall that we managed to incinerate three astro- nauts in a w r y straightforward accident in an extremely high tcchnology operation wlicrz the utmost precautions were allegedly being taken.

EEPER MORAL qucstions also surround the storagz of high-

level radioactive \vastc's. Estimates of how long these waste materials must be isolated from the biosphere apparently contain major elements of uncertainty, but current ones seem to agrce on "at least two hundred thousand years."

Favorable considcration has been given to the storage of thzsc wastes in salt formations, and a site for experimental storage w s sclccted at Lyons, Kansas. 'This particular sitc proved to be defective. Oil companies had drilled the area full of holes, and there had also been solution mining in the area which left behind an unknown residue of water. But comments of the Kansas Geological Survey raiszd far deeper and more general questions about the behavior of the pcrtinent fornia- tions under stress arid the opcra- tioris of gcological forccs on them. T h e ability or solid earth geophybics to prctlict for the time scales t-e- quircd proves very lirnitcd. 0:ily now arc gcologists hcsnning to iin- ravel thc plate rxtonic t1icoi.y. Purtlierriiorc. t h : x is tlic politic:il factor. An increasingly iiiforrrictl and envirorirnent;tlly aware public

is likcly t o rc.bi5t thc Ioca!ion of a pcrrn:iriciit 5tcir:i;c' kici lily :my- ivhcrc.

Bcc;ui\c t l i c sitc sclcctcd prt)~:cd dcfcctivc, aiid I)ossihly in an!ii:i;ia- tioii of politicat p[(~Iilctiis. prim;lr). ciiiph:tbis is n o i v being I ~!,ic~:tl u p t i thc <!:sign or surlaee stclrnsz incili- tics intcndzcl to Ia r t n Iiuclcli-L-ci years or so, while t ! v starch for a pcr- rnancnt sitc continuss. T l i ~ s : surface storagc sites wvould require continuous nionilol.irig and in:lr1- agcmcnt of a inost soplii.;ticutcd kind. A complete cooling sj'stcni breakdown would soon prcivc disastrous and cvcn grcater tiagi'dics can be imagined.

Just io get nn idea of the scalc of disaster that could take placc, considcr the following scensrio. Political factors force the feclcral government to rely on a single above- groiind storage site fur all high- level radioactive wast,: accumulated through thz year 2000. Some of the more obvious possibilitiss wn~tld be existing storage sites like Manford or Savannah, \vhich would sccm to be likcly military targets. A tactical nuclear weapon hits the site and vaporizes a iarge fraction of the contents of this storagz area. The weapon could come from one of the principal nuclear powers, a lesser developed country with om or more nuclear power plants, or it might be crutlely fabricated by R terrorist organization from blnck- niarket plutonium. I ani told that the radiation fallout from such a n event could exceed that from all past nuclear testing by a facior of 500 or. so, with radiation doses es- cccding thc annual dosc from nat- uta1 backgioutltl raclia:iuii b y m ortlcr of magilitudz. This ivould bring about a drastically i.i:if:tvor- able, and long-lasting change in the environment of the majority of mankind. The cxact m a y d u c k of the disaster is uncertain. 'i-!i:tt massive numbers of dzaths might rcsult seems clear. Furthsimc\re, by thz year 2000. high-level viastes would have just begun to acctiini.t- late. Estimates for 2020 put than at about three times the 2OCO figure.

OMET[MES, aiialogics nr2 u ly l

placet1 upon future gcncrations by

3

s t o suggcsi that ihc b11rtl;n

V . 20-55

. _--

existence. With siilficieiit eflort the Pymmitls could have bcen tlis- mantled and the Plinraolis crcm;itctl if a chungxl doctrine so tlcniariclctl. It is also worth recalling that most of the tombs nerc looted already i n ancicnt times. I n the 19.50s the Dutch tiikcs wei-c i n fact brcachcd by the Nor th Sea. TI-aZic property losscs, but 110 dcstntctiori of h u m i n life, ensued. Pcrh:ips ;I more apt example of thc sc:i!c of tlic Faii:tiiin bargain wo!iltl bc the irrigntion systcni o ! ancient Persin. \ V k n Tnnier- lane tlest!-iiyctl i t i n thz 14tl: ccn-

None of t h e x histoi-ical c s m p l c s tcll us niuch abo1.it tht: tiine sc;iles pertinent here. Onc 5pcnks of two hundred thous:iriti years. Oiily a littlit iiiore than oiie-liunc!rcclth of that timc sp; in has p a s ~ c d sinzc: t i le

i i o governincat wl iow lice \V;IS t i iorc than an iiistant by conilurisoii with the half-lift. of plutoniiim.

I t scents cle;ir t: int I l icrc iiic niariy fiii:[ors h2Ic \:;/iicIi ;I l>L~ l i~ : l~ t~ cost :iii:llyhis c:in ncvc.i c;!!>turc: i i i qu:iiitih!i\,c. cc,iiiiiic.ri,iir;i!ile tc;iii<. I t i i l<o \ c s i i i i j tiiii,L>;ili:,tic t o L , l ; i i i i i that t l i i i i \ ic Icxr fue l c!.c,l: \vi11 i l o i

scini ,: I i I 11 c, xi I 11 c IiLt r:, c,., 1 r i c n (;': i i i : t jor uii\L,licd 11 Ictl i c,)ii!tI M I I ~ in i?i,t!r,:ii!t:(lc l:xinl

tury, a civiliz:ttion ciic!cJ. 0

Parthenon \VX Oti i l t . \\ic know of

local cvc'iits, l i ke tlis fire a t t l ic Rock)- hlotiiit:iiii !\rscii:il. t o : i i i esti .c~riic tlisns1c.r ::licc.tiiig nio\t of niaiikintl. \\'lictlic.r t l icv: h:iznicls arc wriith iiic,iiiriiig iii \,iciv ( i f tlic beliefit\ achicw<I i s \ v l ~ a t Alvin \VcinOcrg l ins rL,.fL,i red t n as a t i nns- sciciitilic qiicsti(~ii. A s profL,sioii:il specialisis we c n i i ti-y t o pi-ovitlc pcrtiil'cnt iii[tirni:itioii, but \vc ca i i - not Icgitiinately rii;ikc the dc'ckioii, a r i d i t sliotild riot be l e f t in our hands.

Oiic qiicstioii 1 have not yct addressed i s whether i t i s i n fact not a1re:idy ' too late. €lavz we already accuoiulatcd such n store ol' high- level \VV; \S~C that furclier adtlitioiis would only inereax ths risks innr- ginally? \\'hilt the prcscr7t waste (primarily from t l i t military program plus the plL!toniuni nncl hichly enriched uranicm contained i n bombs antl nii l i tnry stockpiles) i s by no means in:;igriificant, the answer to the question appears to be ,110. I a m iiifoi-med that tlic pro- jccted high-lc\~cl waste to Iic accuniulated from the civilian nuclc.ar power program \vi11 contain niorc radioLiciivity t h a n ths military w ~ t c by 1980 n r short ly thereafter. 13y 2020 the radioactivity in thc ni i l i - tnry nastc would rcprescnt only a s m a l l pcriciitags of the total. Nc\.cr- thcli.\.z, \YE arc alrcatly faced with n subs t ii n t i ;I I Io rig-te r ni \vast i: s t or- age piobleni. Devcloprnsnt of a full-scalr f i s i on c n c q y cioiicmiy \ r ~ u l d nclil overwtislmingly to i t . I r i any case, i t i s ncvcr too late to makc a decision, only latcr.

rcnctois arc vcry liiic 7rtnin .it , t l r i \ point. Tl icy iipp,car, :iiiioli!: i i t 1 i L . r

things, to s t i l l he qiii(L,. coiitiiigciit on dcsigii decisions Ii:ivi!is IO cIt'r with s i fc ty . ' l ' ltc (Irci i in 'p i \ \ .cr too clicnp to rnctcr" was cx;ictly Ill at.

Another near-tcrm benefit i s [l int fission plants will c o n t r i h t c t o o u r supply during tlic cncrgy "ci ibis" that l ies alieatl for the nest d ~ a d c . . or so. One should take note tliat this crisis was in p x t c: iuxt l by clclays in getting fissinn plants oil the line. Also, thcrc sccms to be a severc l imitation .in w i n g nilclc:tr plants to tlc.al with short-tcrin phs- tionicn3. T h e i r lead time is half again ;IS long as fossil fuel plants- c?n the or tkr o f a decade.

Thc loiig-term advantage of fission i s that once thc breeder i s developed we wi l l have a nearly litriit- less, although i:ot ncccsari ly ellcap, supply of energy. This is very important but it docs not nccsssarily argur: for a near-term introduction of a full-scale fission cconorny. Coal supplies arc vast, a t least atlequatc for fciv hundred ).cars, : I I I ~ \VC air: beginning to Icarii i:iore rrboiit how to copc wiih tliz ' 'known dcvils" of coal. Oi l sh;ilcs niid tar sands :dso are t)ntcntially vcry large soiirccs of cner-gy, alilioiigh thcir csploitation wil l present problems. Gcothsrmal antl solni soiirccs have hardly been cniisidzred hut look prornisiiig. Scientists :it thc AEC's Los Alnnios Inborntory arc ciptirnistic tliat 1:irgz geothcrmnl souices c;tn he cIcv~I- cyxd at low cobt froni deep hot rocks-whish arc almo.il linit!:ss i n supply. This of coiirsc i s \'cry u i l - certaiii since the nccc. nology has Ixcii or:ly One of the potential benefits of solar energy i s that i t s u i ~ docs not heat the planzt. l r i the long term this niay be very importarit.

Fusioii, of cour>r', is ti:e t7rzntcst Icing-term tiope, 1Ccct:ntiy. 'j<ac~er.; of t l i z U.S. fusiori rebsarcti c f k l r t :innounccd that a tti5ion tltrii~~ri.;ti 'n- tiori rmctor I)y the mid- 1900.; i:; no\v corisitlcrsd pds>ibIe. i\lthotl;!i tlicrc is :I rihk tli:lt the fii<iori O ~ I - t ion I-iray m v c r bc :!chicvc,Ll, i t ;

tiori i \ t o 1)ii:ib: o i i t t i i t 1'r'c\:lit ~ . : t of l i~ , \ io i i rL,:ictors, I>,iii I:!I.;:L: Llitic)i[iits 01' i*: \ t iurccs iiilo (IcJiii:;

4

V.20-56

t:ith t h i ciivii oiiiiiciit;il p r~~b lc i i i s of : fosil fu i . l \ , ; r i i d 1Jrii.c cril~ryy at i t \

fu l l soci;il cost, whicli \vi11 hclp to limit t lsi i iai id go \v th . l 'o~sil~ly i t would ; r I \ o tui-ii ou t to tic (lc\ir:ililc to use ;i liriiitctl i i i i i i i l m of l isioii rcactors' to hui-n tlic lircsciit stocks of plutoriiurii and tiweby transfom them into less tin;.nrdous substaiices. At thc s x n c tirnc, the vast scientific resoiirccs that have dcvclopcd around our fission program could be turnctl to Lvork on fusion, deep gcotlicrmnl, solar, and other large energy supply suiirces whilc continuing research on various typcs of brecdcrs. It sccms quitc possible that this program would result , i n the displaccinznt of fission as the preferrcd tcchnology for clcctricity production within a. few decades. Dzspite the estra costs we might have incurred, kve would then have reduced the poss scale energy-iissociatcd nuclear disaster in our timr: and would be Icav- ing a much smaller Icgacy of "permanent" hazajcl. On the oilier

11 a II d, wc \v011 I tl prt lbn l l I y 11 :I vc t [ I

sun'cr tlic ~"""erlcc of I11oIc sl lort- l i v e d uircIcsii~:ibli~ ~u i i \ ta i i cc*s i i i tlic cnvironriicrit i i i the ii2:ir t c m .

This stia(cgy iiiight fail to tur i i up an ahuiid:iiit clcnri source of cnccgy i n tlic loiig tcriii. I n t l i ; i t cvcrit, wc would still li;ivc: fission at hand a s a tlcvclopcil tcchiiolo;:icnl standby, and tlic ctliical validity of using, i t would tlicii pxhaps appear in qiiitc a tlilFcrcnt lig!it.

We arc concerned with issues of grcat monicnt. Tkncfit-cost analysis can supply uscful inputs to th; political process for niakirig policy decisions, but i t cannot begin to provide a complete answer, cspe- cially to questions with such far- rcaehing implications for socicty. The issues should bc aired fully : i d

conipletely bcforc a committcc of Congress having broad policy rc- sponsibilities. An cxplicit clccisioii should then bc macle by the entirc Congress as to whethsr the risks are worth the benefits.

9

V . 20-57

UNITED STATES

ATOM I c EN ERG Y COM rv: I ss I ON WASHINGTON. D C 2 0 5 4 5

Dr. Dean E. Abrahamson 1092-25th Avenue, S.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414

D e a r D r . Abrahamson:

Thank you f o r your let ter of Apr i l 24 , 1914 t r a n s m i t t i n g comments by t h e Na tu ra l Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on the Atomic Energy Commission's Draf t Environnental Statement on the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program. Thz Statement has been r ev i sed where a p p r a p f i a t e i n response t o the many comments received. I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e Safeguards s e c t i o n has been s i g n i f i c a n t l y expanded i n t h e F i n a l Statenlent and w e b e l i e v e t h a t i t addresses t h e major concerns expressed by the NKDC. The enclosed s t a f f response i d e n t i f i e s t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n your le t ter and o f f e r s s p e c i f i c responses.

The NRDC comments were very h e l p f u l t o thc AEC i n t he p repa ra t ion of the Final Statement , a copy of d i l c h is enclosed f o r your Information. Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR Program and a s s i s t a n c e i n t h i s matter are apprec ia ted .

S ince re ly ,

h

Ja e's L. Liverman (A$ s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedical & Environmental Research & Safe ty Programs

Enclosures: 1. AEC S t a f f Response t o

2. F i n a l Environmental Statement , Comments

UIFBR Program (WASB-1535)

CC: J. G. Speth, NRDC, with enc losure 1.

V.20-58

Enclosure 1

AEc S t a f f Response To Comments By The Na tu ra l Resources Defense Council

1. Nature of t he Threa t

Comment -- Page 7 -"Given then t h a t SXl exists i n large q u a n t i t i e s i n t h e LIIFRR f u e l cyc le , t h a t were i t d i v e r t e d i t could form t he b a s i s f o r t h e f a b r i c a t i o n of e i t h e r an a t o a i c bomb cr a r a d i a t i o n weapon, what does the Draf t Environmental s ta tement have. t o say about those who n i g h t wish t o u t i l i z e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r t h i s 'new form of a n t i - s o c i a l behavior '?"

Response

Sec t ion 7.4.3 of t he F ina l Statement addresses t h i s ques t ion . It is , of course , no t p o s s i b l e t o d e f i n e the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t he adversary wi th confidencc? and i t becomes necessary t o r e f l e c t t h i s f a c t i n t he na tu re of t h e safeguards employed. The b a s i s f o r f u t u r e safeguards is descr ibed i n Sec t ion 7.4.8,

2. Future AEC Safeguards

Comment

Page 2 - "...we assumed t h a t t h e AEC would t ake t h e oppor tuni ty a f fo rded by t h e Dra f t Environmental Statement of t he LMFUR.. . t o o u t l i n e i n d e t a i l t h e measures being taken o r a n t i c i p a t e d t o cope wi th the r i s k s of d iver - s i o n from the UIFBR f u e l cyc le ..." Page 3 - "'Ihe manner i n which these d ive r s ions w i l l be a t tempted t o be prevented o r t he e f f e c t s should d ive r s ions take p l ace are t o t a l l y ignored. Fu r the r , t h e Dra f t Statement does no t desc r ibe s t u d i e s underway which address the va r ious a spec t s of t he safeguards and d i v e r s i o n p rob l e m . ' I

Page 8 - "A& t h e goa l is a b s o l u t e prevent ion of any t h e f t : seeks t o prevent any d i v e r s i o n of nuc lear material and does no t recognize any q u a n t i t a t i v e limit on t h i s ob jec t ive . ' How t h i s goa l of p e r f e c t conta inment , of abso lu t e prevent ion of t h e f t o r recovery of SIC1 should t h e r e be a t h e f t , is t o be achieved is l e f t t o t he r e a d e r ' s imagination.. . I '

Page 9 - " A t t h i s po in t i n the Draf t Environmental Statement t he reader would expect t o f i n d a f u l l , candid, and e x p l i c i t discussion. . .of t he n a t u r e of t he a n t i c i p a t e d measures t o 'expand and modify' and t o 'upgrade and s t r eng then ' the e x i s t i n g safeguards program. a f l a t u l e n t expos i t i on of t he ' sa feguards measures p r e s e n t l y i n p l ace , ' . . .I1

'The AEC

What in s t ead i s found is

V .20-59

2

Response

S e c t i o n 1.4.8 d e s c r i b e s t h e b a s i s f o r development of s a f e g u a r d s f o r f u t u r e f u e l cyc les . I t recognizes t h e need to provide p r o t e c t i o n commensurate w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l consequences. t i p l e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o i n t e r r u p t t h e sequences of a c t i o n s t h a t would be necessary t o c a r r y o u t t h e adversary ' s purpose. countermeasures , one a i m would be to make t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e system as independent h p o s s i b l e of t h e n a t u r e of t h e adversary.

The b a s i c p r i n c i p l e is to provide mul-

I n s e l e c t i n g t h e set of

Where t h e p o t e n t i a l consequences of a p a r t i c u l a r adversary a c t i o n sequence are extreme, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y or l i k e l i h o o d of s u c c e s s m u s t be reduced t o near zero levels. It is n o t expected t h a t a p e r f e c t system'can be devised; hwaever, i t is n o t cons idered u s e f u l to e s t a b l i s h a q u a n t i t a t i v e l i m i t on such an o b j e c t i v e .

The development of s a f e g u a r d s measures is a cont inuing , dynamic procedure o f review and e v a l u a t i o n . The r e s e a r c h and development a c t i v i t i e s , des- c r i b e d i n g e n e r a l t e r n in S e c t i c n 7.4.8, i n c l u d e b o t h e f f o r t s t o d e f i n e the problem and e f f o r t s t o r e s o l v e it.

3. Cost of Future S a f e w a r d s

Comments

Page 3 - "No mention is made i n t h e economic a n a l y s i s of t h e c o s t of s a f e g u a r d s programs o r t h e c o s t s which could accrue t o s o c i e t y should t h e r e be a f a i l u r e of t h e safeguards ,"

Page 12 - "...the AEC should t a k e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y a f f o r d e d by t h e F i n d LMFBR Program Impact Statement t o p r e s e n t a full d i s c u s s i o n of the t e c h n i c a l and economic merits and p e n a l t i e s of denatur ing."

Page 13 - "The D r a f t Environmental Statement...does n o t even c o n t a i n s u p e r f i c i a l , d i s c u s s i o n of t h e advantages and d isadvantages of n u c l e a r p a r k s , say n o t h i n g of t h e d e t a i l e d ana lys i s - - inc luding a n a l y s e s of t h e economic and i n s t i t u t i o n a l fac tors - -which a n adequate Environmental Impact Statement demands .'I

Response

S e c t i o n 7.4.9 of t h e Final Statement provides p r e l i r r i n a r y estimates of t h e economic impact of sz feguards on t h e UGBR f u e l cyc le . are n e c e s s a r i l y pre l iminary s i n c e commercial L'IFBR f u e l c y c l e s are n o t l i k e l y t o become o p e r a t i o n a l u n t i l t h e l a t e 1980's and t h e d e t a i l e d

The estimates

V. 20-60

3

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have not y e t been determined. The conclusions of the c o s t e8 timaees are :

. The opera t ing c o s t of sa feguards wi th a high l e v e l of e f f e c t i v e n e s s w i l l be less than two percenC of t he t o t a l ope ra t ing c o s t s of a l a r g e (80,000 HWe) f u e l cyc le module.

. The c a p i t a l c o s t s of sa feguards eqdipment w i l l be less than one percent of t he LPEBR f u e l c y c l e c a p i t a l cos t s .

. Safeguards c o s t s f o r LWR without plutonium recyc le would be about h a l f of LWBR safeguards costs.

The c o s t s of safeguard ing companents of L I F B R f u e l cyc le s w i l l be aomwhat g r e a t e r than the c o s t s of sa feguard ing cornponents of llTCR, LWR wi th plutonium recyc le , o r MSBR, and comparable t o t he COS:^ of safeguard ing GCFR f u e l cyc les .

.

The merits of "denaturing" and nuc lear parks and o t h e r p o s s i b l e changes i n t h e LXFFBR f u e l cyc1.e t o improve t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o r reduce t h e c o ~ t s of Safeguards are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 7.4.9.4.

4. S e f e p n r d s k p c c t s of LXFJP, and Other Fual Cycles

Comments

Page 3 - "Nowhere does t h e Dra f t Statement inc lude even the most rudimentary d e s c r i p t i o n of t he ZIFBR f u e l cyc le inc luding such th ings as t h e q u a n t i t i e s and chemical o r phys i ca l form of s p e c i a l nuc lear materials a t each po in t i n the f u e l cycle . No mention is tlade of the r e l a t i v e advantages o r disadvantages, from the s t andpo in t of prevent ion [sic) d ive r s ions of SPIM, of a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e LNFBR Program."

- Pa& - '.'...(the Dra f t Statement) is t o t a l l y inadequate t o permit t he r eade r t o - a p p r e c i a t e t he d i s t r i b u t i o n , and the chemical and phys ica l form, of t h e SNX a t var ious po in t s of t he fu(e1 cycle."

- Pape 26 - "The Draf t Statement does no t inc lude a comparison of t he safeguards and d ive r s ion impl ica t ions of a l t e r n a t i v e f i s s i o n prograris , al though the var ious f i s s i o n systems are known t o d i f f e r in t h a t regard."

Res p onse

Sec t ion 7.4.6 of the F i n a l Statement d i scusses t h e LMFBR and o t h e r f u e l cyc le s from a safeguards viewpoint. I n a d d i t i o n , Sec t ion 7.4.9 examines

n

V. 20-61

4

t h e economic aspects of sa feguard ing d i f f e r e n t f u e l cyc le s and d i f f e r e n t nuc lea r power genera t ion "mixes".

It is pos tu l a t ed t h a t t h e materials i n t h e var ious p a r t s of t h e d i f f e r - e n t f u e l cyc le s r ep resen t an a t t r a c t i v e target i n inve r se propor t ion t o the amount of process ing necessary t o ob ta in f i s s i l e r a t e r i a l i n pu re r concent ra ted form. Various p o s s i b i l i t i e s e x i s t f o r reducing the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a t t r a c t i v e materials i n the f u e l cyc le s (e.%. co- p r e c i p i t a t i o n of f i s s i l e and fer t i le product a t t he reprocess ing p lane o r co- locat ion of f a b r i c a t i o n and reprocess ing p l a n t s ) . The s e l e c t i o n of t hese depends on t he n a t u r e and design of t h e p a r t i c u l a r . f a c i l i t i e s and does no t lend i t s e l f t o genera l ized d iscuss ion ,

All f i s s i o n systems e i t h e r use o r produce materials t h a t would be uscable in a nuclear explos ive a f t e r chemical processing. The range of d i f f i c u l t y .of sa feguard ing t h e var ious fw.1 cyc le s , as expressed by t h e range of c o s t s I does no t appear t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e i n comparison t o the o t h e r v a r i a b l e s involved i n t h e s e l e c t i o n of a f u t u r e technology.

5 . Consequences of Successfu l Theft or Sabotage

Come n t s

Page 1 7 - "...the Statement con ta ins a comment on t he ease i n c o n s t r w t i n g a nuclear explos ive : 'The cons t ruc t ion of G workable nuc lear exp lc s ive device is a complex and d i f f i c u l t t a sk r equ i r ing s p e c i a l i z e d s k i l l s and cons iderable resources . Without t e s t i n g , t h e r e i s a s u b s t a n t i a l p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e would b c no nuclear y i e l d a t a l l . ' This statcmeiit is unsupported e i t h e r by material inc luded i n t h e Dra f t Environmental Statement or included by re ference . The s ta tement is a l s o i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o conclusions reached and supported by exhaus t ive ly d e t a i l e d r e p o r t s by persons acknowledged t o be e x p e r t i n t he des ign of f i s s i o n bombs."

Page 20 - "Are w e t o be l i eve t h a t t he AEC is incapable of imagining the circumstances a t t he time and p l a c e of t he de tona t ion of a n i l l e g a l nuc lea r weapon i n t h e hands of a n i n d i v i d u a l o r group bent on ' a n t i - s o c i a l behavior? ' s p e c i f y i n g the e f fec ts - - in terms of proper ty l o s s , de tahs and i n j u r i e s , and of p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l responses--for an a r r a y o f ' c i rcurrs tances a t the tirue ar.d p lace ' which would b racke t t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s in s u f f i - c i e n t d e t a i l f o r po l icy considerat ions."

A r e we t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e AEC is incapable of

V. 20-62

5

Response

The debate on whether i t is easy t o cons t ruc t a nuc lea r ex los ion device revolves around matters of degree. There (appears t o be gene ra l agrecment t h a t , given t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of t he r e q u i s i t e nuc lear material, the cons t ruc t ion of an i l l i c i t explos ion device r equ i r e s a c e r t a i n l e v e l and range of s k i l l s and resources . Disagreement arises wi th r e spec t t o t h e way t h e l e v e l o r requi red s k i l l s and resources are charac te r ized . This is important because i f t he t a s k is made t o appear too d i f f i c u l t , t h e safeguards problem might no t be seen i n i t : 3 t r u e dimension; i f i t is made t o appear too easy , t h a t could s t i m u l a t e overconfidence among thosa who might be encouraged t o a t tempt such acts. easy for one man or group might be d i f f l c u f t for another. and implementation of the AEC's sa feguards system is based on t h e premise t h a t making an i l l i c i t nuc lea r explos ive €1; w i th in t h e range of s k i l l s and resources a v a i l a b l e t o persons o r g o u p s ope ra t ing o u t s i d e t h e l a w .

The des t ruc t iveness of arAy i l l i c i t nuc lear explos ion depends on t h e circumstances a t t h e t i m e and p l ace of i t s de tona t ion and on its y ie ld . The circumstances are a matter of choice €o r t h e adversary , as a f f e c t e d by s w h c o n s t r a i n t s as l o g i s t i c s and t a r g e t a c c e s s i b i l i t y , and w i l l depend on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t he nuc lea r material and t h e s k i l l s and resources GE i h e adversary. The p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of the use of i l l i c i t weapons is d iscussed i n a speculat i tve way i n Sec t ion 7.4.5.1.1 of t h e F i n a l Statement.

Clear ly , what.wou1d b e The design

6. Socio-Pol i t ica l Impl i ca t ions

Comrcent

Page I5 - "The F i n a l Environmental Statement must i nc lude a f u l l and candid d i scuss ion of e i t h e r how the AEC proposes t o enac t and en fo rce t h e safeguards program which i t contends wi.11 be necessary wi th t h e LMFBR without t h e eupport and coopera t ion of t he nuc lear i ndus t ry , o r t h e means t h a t are a n t i c i p a t e d to proceed wi th the LbiFBR wi thout depending on indus t ry p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n matters involv ing p o t e n t i a l d i v e r s i o n s of s p e c i a l nuc lear materials."

Pages 15-16 - "...the e x t e n t t o which the e!xis tence of t h e LMFBR program, which cannot, of course , be divorced from o t h e r c i v i l i a n f i s s i o n programs, w i l l impose t h e necess i ty f o r behav io ra l , s o c i a l , and o t h e r c o n t r o l s is among the most profound and grave of a l l of' t h e many ques t ions surround- i n g the development of t he LMFBR Program. What are t h e changes, no t i n technology, bu t i n our very s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t map be d i c t a t e d by a d e c i s i o n t o proceed wi th the UlFBR Program?. . . 'I

V . 20-63

6

Response

The Atoinic Energy Act provides t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r t he U.S. governnent t o e s t a b l i s h and enforce safeguards requirements on f a c i l - i t i es such as those i n tile LPFBR program. Whereas t h i s provides a mechanism f o r u n i l a t e r a l impos i t ion of t hese requirements we are conf iden t t h a t t he t r a d i t i o i l OE coopera t ion by t h e nuc lear i n d u s t r y , which has been exemplary in natters of s a f e t y and n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t , w i l l r e s u l t i n f u l l indus+.ry p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the development and implementation of t he safeguards program.

There is ample evidence t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e nuc lea r i n d u s t r y f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e s t he need f o r appropr i a t e sa feguards and t h a t t he c o s t s of safeguards are p a r t of t h e c o s t s of doinp, bus iness . Sec t ion 7 . b . 9 . 7 of the F i n d . Statement d i scusses p o s s i b l e ways of d i s t r i b u t i n g these cos t s . '

Sec t ions 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 d e a l wi th t h e broader a s p e c t s of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l impl ica t ions . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h r e e types of e f f e c t s are d iscussed: (a) e f f e c t s on employees and p o t e n t i a l employees of nuc lea r i n d u s t r i e s ; (b) e f f e c t s on the genera l popula t ion during ronna l per iods a r i s i n g from impleaenta t ion of sa feguards , 2nd ( c ) e f f e c t s on the p u b l i c dur ing recovery ope ra t ions fol lowing a t h e f t of nuc lea r materials.

Plany of t h e most s z r i o u s i s s u e s e n t a i l va lue judgments as w e l l as l a r g e u n c e r t a i n t i e s and coinplex t echn ica l f a c t o r s t h a t cannot be d e a l t w i th i n t he a b s o l u t e d o l l a r s and c e n t s terms of cas t -bene f i t . Unsa t i s f ac to ry as t h i s may be t o those w h o want to pro\.e a c c e p t a b i l i t y or non-acceptab i l i ty of a technn?ogy, no such proof is p o s s i b l e wi th regard t o many 02 t hese i s s u e s . ihny of them, such as t he ques t ion of sa feguards , have such d i r e c t s o c i a l a l imp l i ca t ions t h a t they w i l l be the s u b j e c t of cont inuing p u b l i c d i scuss ion . By t h a t d i scuss ion , s o c i e t y can c o n t r i b u t e t o , and assure t h a t : i t s values are r e f l e c t e d i n , t h e eva lua t ion of the program. I n i t s most- genera l a spec t , t h e i n t e n t of t h e Statement is t o provtde oppor tun i ty f o r t h a t process of pub l i c d i scourse .

7. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Impl ica t ions

Comment

Page 5 - "It is noteworthy t h a t t h e Draf t Statement does not claim t h a t t h e p re sen t i n t e r n a t i o n a l sa feguards sys tern is adequate even f o r today 's r e a c t o r economy, but simply states t h a t ' t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework for an e f f e c t i v e i n t e r n a t i o n a l sa feguards program does e x i s t . ' Fur ther ,

V. 210-64

7

n m h e r e i n the Draf t Statement is t h e r e conment on t h e degree t o which o t h e r na t ions have found t h e present i n t e r n a t i o n a l sa feguards program acceptab le , o r t he degree t o which t h e r e is acceptance t h a t t h i s program m u s t undergo ' s i g n i f i c a n t expansion and modi f ica t ion ' .I'

- P a E z - "On t h e ques t ions associat :ed wi th the i n t e r n a t i o n a l safeguards i s s u e t h e Dra f t Report is complete1.y s i l e n t . address ing t h i s t o p i c a l though the u n c l a s s i f i e d l i t e r a t u r e is r e p l e t e wi th such disci iss ions."

There is n o t a s i n g l e word

Page 23 - "Regarding the i n t e r n a t i o n a l imp l i ca t ions of a f a i l u r e of t h e systems designed t o 'p revent t h e d ive r s ion of material s u i t a b l e f o r weapons product ion from peacefu l app l i ca t i>ns ' , w e f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e t h a t thero, are developments i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n of U E 3 R ' s t h a t could l e a d t o nuc lear weapons cepabl i l i ty be ing extended t o v i r t u a l l y any na t ion-s ta te . I f , however, t he AEC: i e a rguing t h a t i t need n o t d i scuss t h e weapons p r o l i f e r a t i o n impl i ca t ions of t he L ? F B R on the grounds Chat o t h e r developments, f o r example, i n new uranium enrichinent technology, a s s u r e t h a t t h i s c a p a b i l i t y w i l l be developed q u i t e independent ly of t he d e c i s i o n to proceed wi th the L!.fFBR, then the AEC has the o b l i g a t i o n t o f u l l y d i scuss these o t h e r developments i n t h e F i n a l Impact Statement."

There are two i n t e r n a t i o n a l a spec t s t o safeguards. One relates t o the questi,on of sub-nat ional a t tempts a.t d i v e r s i o n i n o the r coun t r i e s . s u b j e c t is d iscussed i n Sec t ion 7.4.4.2. l i f e r a t i o n i s s u e addressed by your comments. That s u b j e c t is covered i n Sec t ion 5.4.3.

That 'The second a spec t is t h e pro-

8. The Current SafepGards System

Comment

Page 17 - '"It seems t o us t h a t a n adequate F i n a l Impact Statement must a l s o inc lude a candid and complete d i scuss ion OF t h e ci rcumstances which p reva i l ed wi th in the Atomic Energy Commission through a t least t h e summer of 1972 and which permi t ted t h i s l a x , and given the degree of t h e hazard , i r r e s p o n s i b l e abrogat ion of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the p r o t e c t i o n of s p e c i a l nuc lea r materials. 'I

Response

The F i n a l S t a t e n e c t d i scusses the adequacy of t h e c u r r e n t AEC safeguards system i n Sec t ion 7.4.7.6. The GAO r e p o r t t o which your comment r e f e r s *

*Improvement Needed i n the Program f o r t h e P ro tec t ion of S p e c i a l Nuclear Material, Report No. B-164105, U.S. General Accoilntinz Of f i ce , Xov. 7 , 1973.

V. 20-65

8

i d e n t i f i e d d e f i c i e n c i e s , o r apparent de f i c i enc ie s , many of whlch were due t o condi t ions t h a t would be resolved by t h e regula tory amendments then under review. These amendments became e f f e c t i v e March 6 , 1974, and r ep resen t a s i g n i f i c a n t s t rengthening of t h e previous regula t ions . ameudments r e s u l t e d from i n t e r n a l AEC review and s t a f f s tudy c a r r i e d ou t over a per iod of s e v e r a l years .

The

9. Appendices

Comment

Three appendices were a t t ached as p a r t of t h e comments.

Response

It is bel ieved t h a t the safeguards-related p o i n t s r a i sed i n these appendices have been t r e a t e d i n the response t o ind iv idua l comments above, o r i n the F ina l Statement.

v.21-1 G WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY PULLMAN, WASHINGTON 99163

~~ ~~

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH DIVISION

Apr i l 23, 1974

Of f i ce of t h e Ass i s t an t General Manager €o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Sa fe ty Programs

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

Gentlemen:

The AEC should be complimented f o r i t s at tempt t o prepare a NEPA environmental impact s ta tement on a very complex and far-reaching program, t h e Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Program. I hope t h a t t h e fol lowing comments on WASH-1535 w i l l be h e l p f u l t o t h e AEC.

1. Ansual Dose from Nuclear F a c i l i t i e s (Vol. 111, 9.1.3.1, P 9.1-30)

It appears t h a t t h e AEC has conserva t ive ly es t imated t h e environmental r a d i a t i o n impacts b u t i t is impossible t o check t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e da t a as summarized i n t h e TVR and UMRB (WASH-1209) s t u d i e s . S tudies of t he "Year 2000" type can be very misleading. Bas i ca l ly , t h e "Year 2000" s t u d i e s , which use the HERMES code (HEDL-TME-71-168), are analogous t o F o r r e s t e r type model- l i n g -- " L i m i t s of Growth, Urban Dynamics, e tc . " .

If one examines t h e modelling l i t e r a t u r e , i t appears t h a t models are used t o j u s t i f y a p o s i t i o n o r opinion about how th ings ought, should, o r might be. The p e s s i m i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Meadows, e t a l . and t h e o p t i m i s t i c ones of S t a r r , e t a l . , bo th dea l ing wi th t h e same t o p i c , are two such examples.

No model, whether i t is t h e "Year 2000" s tudy o r "World Dynamics", are unique r ep resen ta t ions of rea l o r n a t u r a l systems. mations o r a b s t r a c t i o n s of a system which, i f c a r e f u l l y and though t fu l ly cons t ruc ted , may g ive some i n s i g h t on t h e behavior of n a t u r a l systems. C. Pa t t en has d iscussed t h i s po in t a t length i n h i s r ecen t books.

Models are rough approxi-

Bernard

Models have an unce r t a in ty p r i n c i p l e , which is very loose ly analogous t o t h e Heisenberg unce r t a in ty p r i n c i p l e . (See r ecen t I E E E Trans , , Systems, Man, Cybernet ics) . Hypothesis, p 217) observa t ion t h a t t h e r e are no unique mechanisms. S ince models have some of t h e a t t r i b u t e s of mechanisms, and s i n c e t h e "Year 2000" s t u d i e s are models, t h e r e are o the r models of t h e TVR and UMRB t h a t may be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .

It is probably more r e l a t e d t o Henri Po inca i r e ' s (Science and

These p o s s i b i l i t i e s should be recognized.

v.21-2

Off i ce of t h e Ass i s t an t General Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Sa fe ty Programs

Page 2 A p r i l 23, 1974

S t o c h a s t i c p e r t u r b a t i o n s , such as weather , should be considered i n t h e "Year 2000" a n a l y s i s , o r at l ea s t t h e r e should be some q u a l i f i c a t i o n t h a t s t o c h a s t i c e f f e c t s make p r e d i c t i o n s very uncer ta in . It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t Eberhardt and Hanson (Health Phys. 17, 793 (1969)), who were s tudying the s imple lichen-caribou-eskimo system, could n o t adequately analyze t h e sys t e m because of a s t o c h a s t i c e f f e c t . and UMRB systems.

The s i t u a t i o n is obviously worse f o r t h e TVR

When one cons iders t h e low success ra te of demographic p red ic t ions , which have more subs tance than those of t h e "Year 2000" s t u d i e s , i t seems t o m e t h a t the AEC should express some re se rva t ions o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s about t he "Year 2000" s t u d i e s . S tud ie s of t h i s type are unprovalble a t one end, d i f f i c u l t t o d i sprove f o r those wi thout access t o l a r g e computers, misleading t o t h e un-informed, and most l i k e l y i n c o r r e c t a t t h e o t h e r end.

I make t h e s e comments as one who has used a computer f o r a number of yea r s and who th inks t h a t computers are very useEul machines. But I th ink t h a t pre- s e n t a t i o n of computer d a t a should be done wi th care, no t t o "hoodwink" o t h e r s , a c c i d e n t a l l y o r otherwise.

2. Reactor Heat Generat ion System (Vol. I'K, p a r t 1 of 2 , 4.1.2.1.1, P 4.2-27 and Vol. I11 appendix 111-B)

There appears t o be no s a t i s f a c t o r y d i scuss ion of p o t e n t i a l environmental impacts of a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l s such as plutonium n i t r i d e s and carb ides . The use of t hese f u e l s obviously w i l l r e s u l t i n vary in environmental impacts. N i t r i d e f u e l s probably w i l l genera te l a r g e amounts of H4C which, i f no t t rapped, w i l l be r e l eased t o t h e environment. S imi l a r impacts can be expected f o r ca rb ide f u e l s , though much smaller. My c a l c u l a t i o n s , which are admit tedly very rough, a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t oxide f u e l s may genera te s u b s t a n t i a l 14C through t h e 170 (n,a)l4C r e a c t i o n i n t h e core and b lanket . The 1 4 ~ carbon product ion ra te may be one t o t en percent of t he tritium product ion rate. This c a l c u l a t i o n probably should be done wi th computer codes, such as ORIGEN o r ISOGEN, t o g e t a b e t t e r f i x on t h e 14C genera t ion rate.

3. S i t i n g Cons idera t ions (Vol. 11, p a r t l:, 4.2.21, P 4.2-4)

It i s my opinion t h a t t h e AEC underest imates the problems a s soc ia t ed wi th t h e s i t i n g of any type of r e a c t o r , e s p e c i a l l y t en t o t h i r t y years from now. The acceptab le sites may n o t be a v a i l a b l e a t t h a t t i m e .

4. Transmission Requirements (Vol. 11, p a r t 1, 4.1.1.2, P 4.2-17)

The d i scuss ion of t he rou t ing of t ransmiss ion l i n e s i s inadequate because i t does n o t cons ider t h e l o s t t imber and a g r i c u l t u r a l product ion .caused by a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of t ransmiss ion l i n e s and co r r ido r s . Here i n the P a c i f i c Northwest,

n

v.21-3

O f f i c e of t h e A s s i s t a n t Gene ra l Manager f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and S a f e t y Programs

Page 3 A p r i l 2 2 , 1974

t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n l o s t t o t r a n s m i s s i o n c o r r i d o r s i s a s e r i o u s economic l o s s . Did t h e AEC c o n s i d e r such f a c t o r s i n t h e B/C a n a l y s i s ? A s t h e t i c s and r e c r e a t i o n were h a r d l y c o n s i d e r e d a t a l l .

5. The Role o f Energy i n Economic Growth (Vol. 111, 5 .2 .1 , P 5-4)

It a p p e a r s t h a t F e d e r a l Agencies b e l i e v e i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p shown i n F i g u r e 5.2-3 more t h a n p r o f e s s i o n a l economists . economis t , who worked on t h e Ford Foundat ion Energy s t u d y , i n d i c a t e d t h a t p l o t s similar t o F i g u r e 5.2-3 have q u e s t i o n a b l e v a l i d i t y . The u s e of D. C. White’s a r t i c l e as a r e f e r e n c e seems u n f o r t u n a t e s i n c e a more r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s i s needed. I ’ m hop ing t h a t a Ford Foundat ion economist w i l l d i s c u s s t h i s a s p e c t i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l .

My c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h an

John C. Sheppard A s s o c i a t e Nuclear Eng inee r and Head,

R a d i o i s o t o p e s and R a d i a t i o n s Labora to ry

JCS/ag

V .2 1 -4. n

UNITEID STATES

ATOMIC ENEfi!GY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

mc 3 1 1974

Mr. John C. Sheppard Assoc ia te Nuclear Engineer and Head,, Radioisotopes and Radia t ions Laborat:ory Washington S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Pullman, Washington 99163

Dear Mr. Sheppard:

Thank you f o r your le t ter of A p r i l 213, 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic Energy Commission's Draf t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid ?fetal F a s t Breeder Reactor (UlFBR) Program. The Statement has been rev ised where a p p r o p r i a t e i n response t o the! many comments rece ived , and a copy of t h e F i n a l Statement is enclosed f'or your information. P l e a s e see t h e o t h e r e n c l o s u r e t o t h i s let ter f o r responses to your s p e c i f i c coIIlIIlen t s . We a p p r e c i a t e d r e c e i v i n g your comments and found them h e l p f u l i n p r e p a r a r i n g t h e F i n a l Statement. Thank you f o r your i n t e r e s t i n the LMFBR Program.

S incere ly , - /Ja ( W - L es L. Liverman ( h d s i s t a n t General ManaRer

Enclosures : 1. AEC S t a f f Responses t o Comments 2. F i n a l Environmental Statement,

LMFBR Program (VAS€!-1535)

f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and S a f e t y Procrams

V.21-5

EKCLGSLJXE 1

AEC S t a f f Response t o Comments by John C. Sheppard

"Bas ica l ly , ?he 'Year 2000' s t u d i e s , which use t h e HEQXES code (HEDL-'I?!E-71-168), are analogous t o For re s t e r type modeling- "Limits of Growth, Urban Dynamics, etc."

"Studies of t h i s type are unprovable a t one end, d i f f i c u l t t o d i sprove f o r those without access t o large computers, misleadinK t o t h e un-informed and most l i k e l y inco r rec t a t t he o t h e r end.''

Response :

An explana t ion of t he purpose and scope of t he "Year 2000" S tudies is contained i n Sect ion 3.6.4. The KERMES model is not analogous t o "For re s t e r type modeling," system f o r i nd iv idua l r a d i o l o g i c a l pathway eva lua t ions . 2000" Studies examine pe r tu rba t ions i n the var ious inuut parameters , whi le t h e base case c o n s i s t s of t he bes t known estimates of t h e parameters , The r e s u l t s r e f l e c t t he p o t e n t i a l r a d i o l o g i c a l implica- t i o n s of opera t ing a l a r g e number of nuc lear f a c i l i t i e s . The s i z e of t h e p ro jec t ed nuc lear i ndus t ry is cons i s t en t with t h e economics d iscussed i n Sec t ion 11 of the enclosed F ina l Statement. Thus, t he s tudy r e s u l t s are important as an ind ica t ion of p o t e n t i a l environmental impacts. The r e s u l t s should not be considered an abso lu te f o r e c a s t o f f u t u r e condi t ions .

The mcdel is a computerized account ing The "Year

2. Comment: (p. 2)

"Ni t r ide f u e l s probably w i l l genera te l a r g e amounts of I4C which, if no t t rapped, will he released to the environment. S i m i l a r impact can be expected f o r ca rb ide f u e l s , though much smaller." "The "C carbon product ion ra te [ i n oxide f u e l s ] pay be one t o t e n percent of t he tritium product ion rate. This c a l c u l a t i o n probably should be done with compute codes, such a s ORZCEN or ISOGEN, t o g e t a b e t t e r f i x on the ''C genera t ion rate."

Response:

E f f luen t characteristics were ca lcu la t ed us ing t h e ORZCEN code and codes which s imula te t h e . r a d i o n u c l i d e release pa thravs i n r e a c t o r systems. Carbon-14 releases from advanced f u e l s t r i l l c e r t a i n l y have t o be examined as p a r t of t h e f u t u r e development of t h e fue l s .

3. Coment: (p. 2)

"It is my opinion t h a t t he AEC underest imates t h e problems a s soc ia t ed wi th the s i t i n g of any type o f r e a c t o r , e s p e c i a l l y t e n t o t h i r t y yea r s from now. The acceptab le si tes may no t be a v a i l a b l e a t t h a t t i m e . "

V.2'1-6

2

Response:

The AEC has, f o r a number of years , supported research s t u d i e s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e s i t i n g of nuc lear power p l a n t s . ?€any of these s t u d i e s have been d i r e c t e d toward ob ta in ing a b e t t e r understanding of s p e c i f i c s i t i n g problems, such as the a b i l i t y of a v a i l a b l e bodies of water as r ecep to r s f o r nuc lear p l a n t waste hea t and t h e impl ica t ions of seismic a c t i v i t y on nuc lear power p l a n t s i t i n g . I n conducting these s t u d i e s , emphasis has been placed upon a t tempt ing t o understand t h e imp l i ca t ions of t h e pro jec ted increased demands f o r nuc lea r power p l a n t sites i n t h e fu tu re . It is a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t f u t u r e r e a c t o r s i t i n g w i l l be f a c i l i t a t e d through increased use of coooline, towers (both wet and d r y ) , cool ing ponds, loca- t i o n of power p l a n t s on barges i n of f - shore loca t ions , and through t h e development of nuc lear energy cen te r s .

4. Comment: (p. 2)

"The d i scuss ion of t h e rou t ing of t ransmiss ion l i n e s is inadequate because i t does no t cons ider t he l o s t t imber and a g r i c u l t u r a l produc t ion caused by a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of t ransmiss ion l i n e s and cor r idors . "

Response:

The t ransmiss ion requirements d i scussfon you r e fe rence i n your comments was supported by a d d i t i o n a l discussioins i n t h e Dra f t Statement, The impact of t ransmiss ion l i n e cons t ruc t ion was given on pages 4.2-76 and 4.2-77 of t he Draft Statement. Ecological e f f e c t s and r e l a t e d impacts were d iscussed on pages 4.2-81 t o 4.2-84. Since t h i s Statement does n o t t reat t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e , i t is no t appropr i a t e t o d i scuss s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s t h a t are unique t o a c e r t a i n p a r t of t h e country, such as t h e P a c i f i c Northwest. These e f f e c t s w i l l be eva lua ted i n the environmental s ta tements prepared f o r s p e c i f i c p l a n t s , and w i l l i nc lude t h e economic f a c t o r s and beneEi t /cos t ana lyses a s soc ia t ed wi th t imber and a g r i c u l t u r e product ion when appropr ia te . r e c r e a t i o n a l va lues w i l l a l s o be considered. See Sec t ions 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.4.1.2 of t h e F i n a l Statement.

Aes the t i c and

5. Comment: (p. 3)

"My conversa t ion with an economi!st, who worked on t h e Ford Foundation Energy s tudy, ind ica ted t h a t p l o t s similar t o F igure 5.2-3 have ques t ionable v a l i d i t y . "

Response:

I n r e fe rence to pour comments on t h e r o l e of energy i n economic growth, you w i l l f i n d a n expanded d i scuss ion i n Sec t ion 11.2 of t h e F ina l Statement on t h e energy demand p r o j e c t i o n s used i n the cos t -benef i t s tudy. Assumptions and methodology leading t o t h e s e v e r a l energy demand p r o j e c t i o n s are explained and p r o j e c t i o n s from o t h e r sources a re .d i scussed . c a p i t a energy use on ly as an i n d i c a t o r of t h e r o l e of energy i n n a t i o n s wi th s t rong , i n d u s t r i a l economies.

F igure 5.2-3 d e p i c t s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of GNP and per

v.22-1

4950 Cherry Room 326, Kansas City, Missouri 64110 (816) 531-8711

April 24, 1974

Office of the Assistant General Kanager for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Trogrms,

U . S . Atomic Znergy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545

Dear Sirs:

Our organization has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement entitled: "Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Programt1 (WASH- 15351, and is submitting the following comments to be made a part of the review record and to be considered in preparation of the final statement. We think it is essential that extensive hearings be held before and following the issuance of the Final Environ- mental Impact Statement, in vieid of the gross deficiencies in the present draft statement, the inadequate time allowed f o r review and the extreme importance of the issues being decided.

I. General comments and Summary Points

I A. Mechanics of the Statement

1. The AZC had inadequate preparation time f o r an analysis of this magnitude, as evidenced by inconsistant projection dates, great redundancy in presentation, poorly organized summations and comparisons of impacts and alternatives and superficial consideration of energy demand and supply alternatives.

2 . Inadequate time was provided Cor the public and agencies to evaluate the report and to prepare well organized written rcssonses of n qunlity, accuracy z n d thoroughness worthy of the magnitude o f the decisions being weighed in the LMFBR program.

E. Scope and Content of the Statement

1. One of the greatest shortcomings of the draft statement is that estimates of environmental impact and hazards for radioactive materials in the fuel cycle are all minimal, based on unavoidable or release

.lid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives 2/24/74

v. 22-2

Page 2

2 .

3.

4.

5.

6.

a very narrow range of accidents are considered and consequences are, even then, not always explicitely evaluated. As an outstanding exmple, the assun?tion ti‘at only about one millicurie per year of transuranics (per 1000 bfde) will be release3, from a fuel cycle involving millions of curies of Pu, is neither conservative n o r credible. It is everywhere assumed that the machines work, and the side effects from normal functioning are usually minimal. However, it is the extreme danger of the nuclear fuel cycle coinponants, and the extrmene consequences of major failures that we are most concerned with. To this concern the final impact statement should address itself.

The questions of sabotage,, terrorism and safeguards are not fully, honestly and openly dealt with. Perhags one of the most serious omissions is discussion of the consequences of the existance of the Retrievable Surface Storage Facility or the Noble Gas storage facility as a target for nuclear weapons.

Bnvironmental impacts are pinimized by assuming a 365-day cooling period f o r spent fuals before shipment. Yet shorter cooling times are planned and the base-case for cost-benefit analysis asswnes a 120-day cooling.

The case for the LMFBF!, arid against some of the alternatives, is hopelessy biased by the narrow range of energy and electricity demand projections considered. Altern- atives should be evaluated with demand scenarios ranging downward at least to a no-growth-in-per-capita-use case. The variation of only plus or minus 2C$ in the year 2020 demand, used in tha economic analysis, is a practically trivial range for considering nlternatives. Likewise the potential contribution of alternative sup2ly systemc and conservation 2ractice.s are seriousZ;* downgraded by reference only to the base-case energy demand growth projec t ions.

No discussion is presented of the environmental impacts, and trade implications, if the LMiiER or any other combination of energy supply systems enable the U . S . to achieve the projected growth in GN? to the year 2020. Of particular concern are the implications of a continued growth in energy intensive living on the natural world and the looming scarcity of a variety of basic minerals that the projected energy intensive growth of GNP would involve.

Finally, no attempt is made to evaluate a scenario in which a combination of alternate energy resources are developed with the S ~ Q optomistic engineering and economic’ assumgtions as are made for the LPWB3; in which energy demand i s held at a nearly constant per-capita level; and in which maximum possible .hazards of the nuclear fuel

J

v . 22-3

Kid-America Coalition for * Energy Alternatives

cycle and its alternatives are presented for risk/benefit judgement.

XI. Specific Questions and Comments

WASH- 15-35 Pane No. Comment or Question

4.1-13

4.2-10

4-2-11

4.2-18

4.2-27

l+ 2- 15 7

0

When the base case of the economic analysis assumes spent fuel cooling of 120 days, and when announced goals of the AZC and industry are to eventually lower the cooling time to as little as 30 days, this chapter should include impacts, routine and accidental, lor the short-cooling case, not just the much easier 365 day case. why is the RSSF proposed only to yezr 2000, while the NGSF is conceptualized to year 20207

Table 14.1.4. seems to assume a linear rate of demand for depleted Uranium for FER refueling from 2000 to 2030. Is this consistant with LlrlFBR growth projections from 2000 to 20207 With tLe forec.,;t that reactors will be located nearer population centers than at present, do estimates of accident a n d routine keleade hazards take this conservatively into account 7 The plant and cooling pond area of 2,500 acres, plus only tens of acres per added unit does not seem conservative. In W s a s , two progosed nuclear sites are requiring 10,000 or more acres each. It is stated that advanced design power plants will use 765-1,500 iW lines requiring right- of-way widths of 280-560 ft. Why assunc 775 ft. right-of-way on page 4.2-767 Where is the cumulative total of l a n d required for right- of-way to the year 2020 shown? Cwulative land for power plants to year 20207

Shouldn’t the engineering details of the active or passive core-restraint system by spelled out as they affect accident probabilitiss m d consequences?

Even thou211 U C ju2ges probability of clacz 9 accidents to be lot:, their envirormental impact should be assessed. After all, if such basic behavior as swelling of LI.,FDH fuel and core materials can come as a recent surprise, perhaps estimates of accident probabilities are similarly fa.1libl.a. Further, class 9 accidonts consequences are relovent in

Mid-America Coalition for ' Bnergy Alternatives 4/24/74

v.22-4 n

Page 4

VASH- 15 35 Pago No. Comment or Question

k . 2- 157 terms of sabotage and war-related acts.

. 4.2-159 It is stated thzt the ovepall safety of the LblFBR carmot be assessed until design details not yet: available are provided. This seems to be Emothei- rezson to include worst- case estimateis (as in YASE-740) for class 9 accidents.

4.2- 163

4.2- 177

4.2-795

4.4-2

4.4-3

4.4-4

Does the lower design pressure requirenent for tho LMr'BFL containment building (10 p s i vs 60 psi for LiJR's) imply a greater suscep- tibility to sabotage of acta or acts of war? (e.g. ability of containment to withstand shock wave f r o m nearby chemical or nuclear bombs)

Confidence in tornado resistent design seems incons$stent with recent announcement of a 1-year, $150,000 study of tornado effects to help establish design criteria for nuclear power plants and structures. (Nuclear News, March, 1974). Vhzt about tornado impact at other steps in the fuel cycle? Would 30 days, or even 365 days cooled spent fuel cask or rail car be inunune to direct tornado impact? Would a liquid, high-level waste tank? Would PuOx fuel, in truck shipments, remain confined in a tornado incident? It d o e s not seem conservative to simply pos- tulate that no major radioactive release c2n occurr and hence ignore maximum possible consequences. Why would the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 be needed if the case is that coin- pe 1 1 ing ? With stated goal of eventunlly handling 30- day cooled spent fuel, potential environmental impacts for this case should be discussed throughout the nuclear fuel cycle. The g r e a t e r the ignorance of details of handling such fuel, the broader should be the scope of credible accidents discussed.

In view of uncertanties expressed here, c2n economics of LMFBR fuel reprocessing be reliably predicted?

How can routine re leases of I;! be @i,irantaed at the low values reported, w h m processes and technique have not been developed or tested? The environmental impacts discussed seem to be more nearly goals, rather than conservative,worst-case projections.

. . . . . . . . . _ _ .

Q

Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives 4/24/74

WASH- 1535 Page No. Comment or Qie s t ion

4.4- 1 4 The normal and accident imsacts of sodium- cooled, short-dcciy spent fue l shipping should be dizcussed in view of ennounced goals.

ducts for short-coole i u e l niuat be concidered in looking at impact of shipping and rcpr-oces- sing.

4.4-52,53 These huge increaser; in volatile fissicm p r o -

4.4-54

4.4-55

4.4-60-64

4.4-87

4.5-3

4.5-25

4.5-48

4.5-55

4.5-58

If short-decay time case ccmnot be meaningfully assessed then worst case consequences shoulc! be discussed. There is a consistent thene here of simply ignoi-trig impacts of steps where knowledge is lacking.

What about accident effects at 30-120 days cooling? Why choose 780 as the shortest tiix for estimates i..ihen even 120 cooling is the base case assurqtion?

Similar calculations should be made f o r 30 day and 120 day cooling cases. Why asswne a 70 f o l d im9rovement in particulate retention in LMFBS facilities. The report seems to be postulating improvement2 to support a desired design impact, rzther than 1oo:cing at conservative ranges of containment.

Accident consequences f o r 30 and 120 cooled fuel should a l s o be estimated. Only assumes fuel assembly brss!.age o r other accidents inside containment strkctures. What about accidents or brezkagz in open? What about E2-02 ex2losions in the high-level liquid storage tanks? Consequencss of such an accident have already been estimate2 (OWL-4451) Table 4.5.7 shows almost 600 Kg of PuO, per ti-i*clc shipment. The iiiglijzckiq irnplizations of this should be dizcusse",, essecially sincc shipient is plamec! iy common carriers.

Table 4.5.3.2. should show activities ,and thermal power for 30 day and 120 dey cooled 'fuel since these are definitely under considera t ion.

What is the hijacking attractiveness to a t2.r- rorist of a truck shipnient of almost 1 iiiillion curies of 85 K r 7 Ilaxirnm fl.une tonpcrntures of 1475OF do not seem conservative i, these days of massive shipments of a variety of high-energy mzter- ials.

The calculation of rupture rn:irgins doe.: not seem conservativc. Im?drities, outgassing,

Mid-America C o a l i t i o n f o r ' Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s 4/24/74

V.2'2-6

Page 6

WASH- 1535 PaGe No. Comment or Q u e s t i o n

4.5-58 e t c . czn i n c r e a s e i n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e g e n e r a t e d a t h igh t e r p c r a t u r a z . C e r t a i n l y sabotage

4.5-63

4.5-73

4.6-1/2

4-6-76

4.6-47

4.6-47/48

coc ld expose the 2uC2 t o more severe con- d i t i o n s . Coiisequences shoulf l be di;cu.;;ed. I t seems l i k e a double stdridard t o l e t the U02 l e a k a l i t t l e b i t , but t o p o s t u l a t s o r assert t h a t pci leakage of A 0 2 w i l l evcr occur. H e r e again, w i t h a l e s s e r !iazard than Pu02 leakage i s allowed t o be p o s t u l a t e d .

Table 4.5.5.6 l i s t ; ca tegory 5 acc ident prob a b i l i t i e s as low as 8 :: IC-13 p e r year yet i n c l u d e s no probabi1it .y for PuC2 r e l e a s e . A ceL-o p r o b a b i l i t y for PuG2 r e l e a s e appears to be a w i l l f u l d i s t o r t i o n 01- t r u e hazard es t imat ion . Even i f such low a c c i d e n t p r o b a b i l i t i e s \:ere r e a l i z e d , t h e p r o b l e x o f malevolent-act r e - l e z s e s w.ould l i k e l y dominace the hazard and should be es t imated and diccuosed. S torage o f s o l i d i f i e d h i g h l e v e l wastes for thousands o f y e a r s i s n o t descr ibed. Credib le unnatural f o r c e s (war and sabotage) should a l s o be provided f o r and discus;cd. Consequences o f cask r u p t u r e o u t s i d e a conta i rment b u i l d i n g chould be discussed. How w o u l d c p i l l e d m a t e r i a l be r e t r i e v e d ? I iow w o u l d a i r p l z n e crashas i n t o s t o r a g e areas be handled i n a r e a s rrhich a r e all remotely con- t r o l l e d ?

4.6-50

4 6-53 para. 2

4-6-48

4.7-7

Yo statement 011 ty-pe or' compound, cont,;inel- and s c a l t o be x s e d for iodinr . ; it i s notc- w0rtk-y t h a t thf? 55 gal. di-u-' .'-. :r.entioncd l o r t h e o t h e r s are not used here .

"No c r e d i t i s taken f o r containment provided by t h e package:: once t h e y are bur ied ." If any a l p h a einitI:ers a r e bur ied , i t should bc prevented t h i t t h e y become a i rborne . It i:: suggested t n a t all a l p h a e m i t t e r s be t r s n s - mutated by neut ron bombardment i n a r a n c t o r . Hare a g a i n , where a v e r y re r iouv hcrzarr? ir, involved, i t i s as.?u.,ied t h a t engineer ing w i l l make t h e event (inel t d o m ) i n c r e d i b l e . Thi:; avoj lc: honest 'c:oiisideration o f real danger:-. I n , t h e l i s t i n g o f a r e a s froia which p l u t o n i u l might be re leaz ,ed , the p o t e n t i a l relea.-e f ro i ;~ a s torago q i t e i.: n o c mcntioned.

,Mid-Amei-ica Coalition f o r Energy Alternatives 1+/24/74

v .22-7

Page 7

WASH- 1 5 35 PaPe No. Comment or Guestion

4.7-2 Stack releases of 1 mCi alpha pqticles for 1000 MWE, which might contain 1O0-1O9 Ci, appear prayerfully small.

4.A-12 No consideration given to sinking of a barge. 4.2-6

4. E-a

4.G-51

4. G-63 4.G-64

4.G-69

5-7

5-7

The values for plutonium appear meaningless without specifying whether it is absorbed as a metal or as a particular saZt. Probably a soluble salt is implied since values are higher in liver and bone than lung doses. But why is the GI dose even higher than the

In Table 45, more total body radiation and tissue effects are zssigned to a - 2 3 9 after ingestion than after inhalation. This is contrary to absorption data which show a low re - tention and absorption from the gut and a l - most IOO$ retention f rom the lung. Again, over-emphasis on plutonium effects on bone and liver, and insufficient consideration of the inhalation of metallic plutonium or plutonium oxide into the lung where its biologic halflife is greater than a hwmn l i f e time. No consideration of tertogenic effects. A some?rlhat cursory consiCeration only of the possibility that linear evtra2olation actually is too conssi-vntiva since at higher d o s e s carcinogenesis is inhibited by killin=: some of the cells. A l s o there is no mantion of an important scientific paper 011 this subject which would be required to better evaluate this problem. I am referring to Baum, Population Heterogeneity Eypothesis on Radi- ation Induced Cancer, H e a l t h Thysics 3 : 9 7 - 7 0 4 , 1973 Estimates are all minimal, based on unavoidable o r llnorrnall' releases. There iire no accident assumptions and their consequences.

In Figure 5.2-1 and in many other figures, tables and discussions, a uniform presentation of projections to tlle year 2020 siiouls be mado. Equally, if not more striking in Figure 5.2-3 is the enormous verticle range o€ G::? f o r a givan par capita income,.e.g., a rp.nt;e of about 50 to 130 millions STU ser capita for countries in the ;lJ5OO-i2,OOO GNP pi'r capita range. Two conclusions might Le drawn: ( 7 ) ~ o u n t r i e s f a l l on different-slope

lung?

#id-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives

v.22-8

Page 8

WASH- 1 5 35

5-7 Page ~ J o .

5-9

5-13

*

5-37

5-32

5-33

6 - 1 , 2

7-2 1

Comnient or Quest ion

lines of BTU vs GNP depending on life styles, values, habits, etc. or (2) there is a lzw of diminishing returns thpt causes the curve of BTU/GNP to curvG uiz~ exponentially, from New Zesland to the U.S. Figure 5.2-3 which appears to play a key role in the fcture energy use projection that is the basis of the present report, can be used also to argue that the U.S. neednot com.it itself to the projected increase in BTU/GNP to achieve continued well be ing.

Reversal oz" electrical rat e structures should be coiisiderec! liere to alleviats burden on poor.

Capital requirements for adequate liability insurance siiould be estimated here, as an alternative to continued subsidy by the Price-Anderson Act. Such costs should be fully internallzed in a study such as this one. This impact statement does not honestly address the hzzards of fission power if a "stable social order" ceases to exist f o r a time, either in the U.S. or in other countries to which export of our nuclear techolo,sy is targeted . Havirij raised the issue of less political freedon with a Pu economy, sone discussion of iniplications should be included. Vi11 our nuclear energy ecoaomy be abnnc?oned if int erna t ional agreements and ins t i t uc ions to assure that the cornrnon good, is indeed, protected," do not come to pass? C2n there ever be such a guarantee? Wilbrich and Taylor's book should be referenced and discussed.

Just because "reliable and precise quantitative information on the expected frequency of occurrance of major accidental releases in the W:FBR fuel cycle is not available c?t this time" does not justify not discussing their environmental impacts. It malies a mockery of NEPA to ignore consequences on the assum2tion that they can be engineered a:. ' y , or that their probability is unknown. .:t the very 1 east a " P a r m c r 1 imi t - 1 ine It discus sion of releases should be included for eveyy phase of the f u e l cycle.

De f i c i enc i e s in s ea1 in6 present-day c 01 1 t ain- ment vesselJ art3 alludod too. TIic i r r ~ p ~ t c t of

e.g. ,

6 ) Mid-America Coalition for

* Energy Alternatives 4/2)+/74

v. 22-51

f \

WASII- 1 5 35 Page No.

7-21

7-36

7-38

7-4 1

7-42

7-55

7-64

7-72

9.1-2

9.1-4

9.1-19

9.1-21

Comment or Question

such sealing problems should be discussed in accident cases.

Why are the confinement factors f o r 13II and 1291 different? Are these adequate for the 30-day cooled fuel cpse?

The general approach to irni7act discussion seems to be that rrhcre the hazard is roally great, engineering is postulated to make the hazard "incredible" a n d , therefore, it can be ignored. Thus U02 and W2'2 are alloved to escape containment in hypothetical accidents but Pu02 is not. Consequences of worst-czsi accidentr should be discussed, even though of hoped for low probability. What fractions of casks for LMFBR can likely be shipped by barge? With regard to the RSSF, the statement that "the requirement for continusd human action in no w a y v:ealcens the sa:'ety of the surface storage approach to rnanageinent of high-level waste" is an afPront to co.mon sense.

Such advocacy of 211 erpedinnt, recent solution t o a long-neglected proble;.: area destroys credibility wit11 regard to the whole ragort.

Sabotage is mentioned in this concept, where it is l ea s t credible. I ihy is it not discussed at each step of the proposed fuel cycle?

It is stated that: "The possibility of sabotage of facilities resulting in radiological incidents m u s t also be conzidered." Y6t this is not done consistently throughout the re- p o r t . What about inherent sabot3ge protection f o r fuel cycle cornponints other th?n the reacto?? Figure 9.1-1. Vi11 fossil fuel peaking units r e a l l y decrease s o much, percentage-wise, relative to central station cagacity? If fossil fuel sy:teri capacity is increasinb e-xponentially at ,'ear 2020, as shown in F ie - ures 3.12 to 3.13, is this consistant vttk c o d projection3 in rig. 9.1-4 t o 9.1-6? AI^ projections should extent to 2020,

Curies of waste whould be listed a l s o . liore important thp.n volume.

The rclcase ~ i u ~ i b e r s in Table 9. 1-1+ arc whatever the U C aiid tha 1fianuf3cturc=.'s decide to engineer. ; i h y bias the LWI? in this wny relative to LIWDR?

Mid-America Coalition f o r Energy A1 tornatives 4/24/7h

WASH- 1 5 35 Page No.

9.1-32

9.1-34

9.1-69

9 2-5

10-27

70-34

10-35

10-36

71.7-3

7 1 1-14

v. 22-10

Page 10

Conunent or Question

Table 9.7-7. k'hy not contain the Krypton in the LWr? and HTGR cases? Again seems to deliberately bias for the L!&DR.

Can Table 9.1-8 numbers be justified f o r 30 day cooled spent fuel 7

How can one clairn there will be less radioactive releases frorn LG'i3R, except as a chosen design objective? If the LKFSR has truly "arrived", w h y so many unanswered design a d process questions alluded to earlier?

If dismantling costs are presently 10-152 of construction costs, theii a conservative assumption is that they w i l ? escalatc at a large fraction of the discount rate sercent- age and w i l l always be an appr-eciable fraction in cost -benefit analysis . Some estimate should be made o f the security- safeguards personnel likely to be needed in Pu-economy.

The argument about man-made artifacts is particularly specious. O f what relevance to tnc perpetual guardianship of high-level wzstes is it that man-made artifacts were conrtructed with physical ,?roperties preventing physical deterioration f o r over 1000 years. It is more relevant to point out that man probably destroyed or d.ispersed all but a tiny sur- viving fraction of such artifacts. What happens when a portion o f the human race doesn't desire the safekeeping of these wastes? The question o:f nuclear sabotage o f the in- credibly spatially concentrated RSSF and NGSF should be addressed. The minirnurri obligation to future generations of merely maintaining records of radioactive waste seenis like a minimum morality indoe".

A more direct consideration of the first CLQ alternative should be given in detail. The idea that no action on the L14?ER neccsritatcs supplying the projected air iunt of electricity needs by other syrtems is riot in any ssnse part oi' their first alterxative. it, in fact, forecloses tils first alternative discussion: "idhat her energy should be produced and whet levcl of ericrgy consurnption is consistent with ec:ononric and envirunmcncal con-. siderat ions. It

How can deco~r~issioni~lg costs bo so confi&rltly

v . 22-1 1

Mid-America Coalition f o r Energy Alternatives 1~/24/71&

Page 11

WASH- 15 35

11.1-4 dismissed in the face of similar uncertainties?

Page No. ' Comment or Question

11.2-5

11.2-8

11.2-13

11.2-14

11.2-7

11.3-2

1 1 -3-3

11.3-13

11.3-17

11-3-34

1 1 - 3 - 4 2

The l o w energy case,.-20$ of projected 2020 usage is not at a l l conservative. Substan- tial decrease in usage, (factors of 2-3) such as. that postulp.ted by the recent Ford F'ound- ation.Study, should be included in ths cost/ benefit analysis.

Three-hundred and sixty-five Jay cooling is treated as an exception in cost/benefit analysis, but is the assumed cooling period in discxssing environmental impact. This seems like a conveaient double standard to highlight favorable factors.

A case should be ran with optimistic i.:raiW supply, low energy demanc? (Pactor of 2 - 3 ) , 1997 introduction of LIDBi7, high L W B 2 capital costs, 365 clay cooling and no carbide bel. Can a net savings of only 11$ in the discomted cost of power be viewed as significant with all the design 2nd process uncertainties of

Does Tabie 11.3-5 assme 36.5 day cooling of fuel? Vhat is included under insurance? Where is t h e Frice Anderson Act discussed, and the hidden subsidy cost that ir represents?

The iinpacts or alternative energy systems should be compared for the case of d r n s t i c z l l y l o w e r energy use also, e.g., Ford Foundation " z e r o grov:thff case. if the corn3arison of total iinpacts emphasizes only "cormon o r everydzy variety risks" tha conclusion is foregone since the assiunption is nade that the LbPER fuel cycle w i l l be designed and operated to make impacts negligible.

Table 11.3-5 assumes 20 man-rems in reprocessing plant, vs 20 nian-,nel;rE for the Lii2. L'kiy? Is the 30 day cooling case assume2 here? The "upper lini i. I. s" of public health effccts for the nuclezr fuel cycles a.ssumc no seriou.5 accidents can occurr. Is this norn1i;l usage of the term?

If the LNFBR replEces retired fossil cs.2rrcity after year 2000, why does t h e fossil component in Figures 9 . 1 - 2 and 9.1-3 keep rising? If these i',itality nuT5ers were really c r e d i b l e , then why is Price-Anderson riecessary for nuclear and not for c o a l ?

the L r u m ?

v . 22-1 2

Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives 4/24/74

UASH- 7 5 35 Page No. ComenL o r Question

17.4-1

11.4-2

17.4-3

11 .4-73

111 -A- 1

111-A-2

I I r - A- 3

Page 12

The key alternative is left out, nariely, reducing energy "needs" by conservLtion and other means. Here, as in many other places in WASH- 1535, the presumed continued exponential g r c l w t l i (give o r talre a token 20;') in electricity use dominates the whole discus si on.

A quite different lesson can be inferrec? f r o m the recent oil tfcrisi31t- , e . g . , loo:; at the lives saved by speed m d mileage reductions in auto travel and the potential beneI"its from a shift to bGs, train a;ld mass trznsit. Where, in this re?ort, is a serious atterxpt made to deterrnixe t h e "future rea l n e e d for energy?? The report seems to uncritically accept the historical increase1

Why lur.zp ;alar energy recovery with fusion? One has.been denonstrated and the other has not. One doesn't need as many central station solar electric plant- if s o l z r heating acd cooling of buildings is agplioc?. If Iiznsas City Power and Light projections are tflicnl, one of the big future forces for increasinz grovth in dern?&Td w i l l be f o r electrical space heating . Again, soems to a5swe central station nee2.c are immune to solar space heating and coolins. Vhy are not wj ie2ower an2 conservation mentioned at t!?is point?

The concomitant benefit of developing and cx- portins expertise in solar, wind, and geothermal is ignored.

The tfevidencef' that the breeder should be viewed as a last resort is the concern about the unanct:ered questions of sabotage, Pu diversion and accumulation of high l e v e l w a s t e s . Is it really contended that present safeguard; ai-e adequzte f o r protection againct dcdicateil groqJs of zuicitlzl t e r r o r i s t s and oth2:r- lo:: probab ili t j r t hrrat s?

Y i n l d s and circumztFaces for use of iilegz1 nuclear weapons cpn ba prec'icted. The i.!ci?hea- Taylor series in tile New Yorker should be re- ferencecl.

Cases of radiological weapons use should bs postulated. i3ne need not wait to I;nois! by experience tho tilethod and circumstance of U C G .

V .22-13

Mid-Americz Coalition f o r Energy Alternatives 4/24/7lr

Page 13

WASH- 1 5 35 Page No.

III-A-~

111-A- 4

I I I- A- 5

=I-B, 2-6

111-B, 3-13

111-E , 3-21. ' I I I - B , 3-35

III-B, 3-41

111-B, 3-43

I Ir-B, 3-49

111-B, 3-60

111-B, 4-11

Comment o r Question It can be alleged that thc RSSF, NGSF, and possibly high-level liquid waste storage tanks at fuel reprocessing plants do pose a possible new and significant threat to our national security. The effects of a high-yield nuclear wea2on completely crater- ing, and dispersing in the atmosphere, the RSSP at year 2020 should be estimated and presented.

If conventional weapons detonation can damage nuclear facilities other ti1a.n reactors, than the consequence should be estirndted. Chester's studies at O R " should be referenced in this context.

Are such dLangers as ?u weapons manufacture and the operation oi a Pu black market so credible that c!iscursing tken with only mi- classifizd , zv7xilable in5ornatioii will lessen our security?

What spent-fuel cooling time is assumed if breeding by year 2010 sustains a 65 yearly e - lectrical growth rEte?

Increzse of only $100 aillion for a 2090 MWe plant th3t h3.s not yet been designed does not seem consarvative I Why don't Table 3 . 3 . 5 and Table 11.2-5 agree? If projected values o Z study parameters re7re- sent such a consenzus, then at least the 120- day cooling case should have been considered for fuel cycle impacts.

What is the annual growth rate change to p r o - duce only a net variation of 2oCi in projected year-2020 demand?

It would be helpful to know how much cdpitP.1 costs of a 1000 I440 LI.ir'3H would have to be changed to wipe out the cost/benefit advantage over Lk'R's for various assumed parameters. There seems to be more concern about direct costs of 3.1 iiivcntorias in relation to spent fuel cooling tiriies than in estimates of hazards to the e3viron;nt;nt as a function of cooling tine.

The figures in the reference cc?sc for fozsil mix do not match thoss given in Table l&.l!h.

If singlc-loop cool i r i , is Loritemplated tkcn accident hazarciz and routiiie relc?.;e s l iou ld

V.22-14

.J.Iid-rlmerica Coalition for Znergy Alternatives 4/24/7&

WASH- 1535 Page No.

111-2, 4-71

1x1-B, 4-12

111-B 4-78

111-B, 4-20

111-B, 4-30

111-B, 4-37

M I - B , LI-32

111-B, 4-33

A-5

a- 6

A . 5 - 15

A . 5-2 1

A. 5-30

Page 14

Comment o r C,ue;tion

be assessed in earlier discussions.

In Table 4.5 what cooling' period f o r spent fuel is assumed?

How will environmental imj?acts vary if we go to "very large units?"

What cooling t h e was sssmed for shisping cost and re9roccssin; estimates?

Why are fuel circle times for LlWBH s2ent fuel shipping and reprocessing assmned to be faster than LWK case?

What insurance costs are rcferred to? Pow w o u l d they d i f f e r ::ithout 2rice-Anderson or with new plans u n d e r consideration?

The energy forecast assumption of Table 4.73 seriously biases alternative. The case of near-zero per ccrpita energy use should be considered as well . Isn't there a recent trent toward higher energy use per GNF increment? Doesn't recent data shox that total cost of electricity is rising faster than the general price level?

Is a l l this materials - engineering advance really more credible than solar energy storage 2nd collection advances7

Access to a "virtually limitless supply of low-cost electricity," even if attainabls, should not be assumed to b b an unmitigated blessing. Adverse effects of cheap ener;;. and energy-intensive applications deserve consideration in the broad focus that che LMFBR imsact statement should achieve. The treatment of the history and status of solar energy devices is unfairly shallow. IJhere are referencec to recent developr:~onts such as the NASA-Let;is patented solar iierrtinc- cooling hoxe system, to name just one?

How can it be statoc! that solar coolint; of buildings would not affect utility p o w e r system facilitiss in those large areas where peak load is dorninaLed by summer heat waves ?

What could s o l z r enorGy contribute vitll 3 comnitment of policy and financial bacl~ing equal to that biling given tho LNFSR? Is the 15.5$ ca;)ital char,:o consistent with the nunibers used in Section 4 of Appciidix

3kLd-America CoAition for Energy Alternntives 4/24/74

'J.22-75

Page 75

WASH- 15 35 Page No. Comment or Question

A.5-30 1rr-m A.5-34 How minor will solar applications be by

year 20007 Give feasible upper percent limits for replacing electric heating and air conditioning.

A. 6- 7 Here, as elsewhere, contributions of individual alternatives are made to look small when compared with projected exponential growth in electricity. If per capita energy and electricity use were held constant, how iiqortant could wind-power be?

c. 1 - 1

C. 7-6

The real conservation question is by-gassed --namely, can we lcarn to live less energy- intensively, thus stopping the continued growth of per capita energy consumption.

A table should be shown summarizing the energy savings for each conservation measure and the contribution of each alternative, such as wind power. Iiith several assurncd energy growth forecasts, these alternatives can be put in truer perspective and real options discussed.

Respectfully submitted

Mid-America Coalition for o'nergy Alternatives

I / , , - / , . ,/*

Thoxas A. Milne ?hD, Physical Chemistry

Jack K. Frenkel M.D., Pathology

Diane Tegtrneier Co-chairperson, MCEA

V . i!2- 16

UN ITF'D STATES

A T 0 M ! C EN E RIG 1' C OM M ! SS ! 0 N V' /AnSti INGTON. D.C. 20545

Ms. Diane Tegtmeier Co-chairperson, Xd-America C o a l i t i o n f o r

Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s 4950 Cherry, Room 326 Kansas Ci ty , i f i s sour1 64110

Dea.r Els. 'I'egtmeier :

Thank you f o r your le t ter of A p r i l 24, 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic Energy Coxnnission's Draf t Znvironmental S t a t enen t on the Liquid :!eta1 Fast Breeder Reactor (Ly'lFSR) Program., The Statement has been rev ised whew a p p r o p r i a t e i n response t o t h e mzny c o m e n t s rece ived , and a copy of the Fin31 Statement is enclosed f o r your i n f o m a t i o n . Please see the other enclosure t o t h i s l e t t e r f o r response t o your s p e c i f i c comrients. Addi t iona l discirss ion regard ing some of t h e major p o i n t s you r a i s e d i s provided below.

The IL1CEA concern

' I . . . t lrat estimates of enviroiimental impact and hazards for r a d i o a c t i v e r m t e r i s l s i n the h c ! l cyc l e are a l l minina l , based on unavoidable or n o r m 1 releases.

was addressed i n ccns ide rab le d e t a i l i n t he Dra f t S t a t enen t ( s e e , f o r exanplc , ?'ages 4.2-152 t o 4.2-135, 4,,3-130 t o 4.3-148, 4.4-101 t o 4.4-103, 4.5-74 t o 4.5-1-6, 4.6-47 t o 4.G-43, 4.6-57 and 4.6-58, 4 . 6 - 6 7 and 4.G-5 and 4.G-6, a l l OL rqhich contclln estimates of t i l€ environr.entn2. impact of zccidcntal . r e l e a s e s i n t he LIF3R f u e l cyc le) . in format ion concerning acc iden t s1 rcleases of t r a i su rop ic s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o 20rr.d r&i.eaScS is prcsentcd i n Appendix 1I.G of thc Fi l ia l S t r t m c n t . T h e ir?.pnct of s!iipping and reprocess ing L:iFCR f u e l f o r cool ing t i n e s s l i o r t e r than 365 days :is a l s o addressed i n the F i n a l S t a t e - ment ( see Sec t ion 7.3.4 and Appendix 1I.P r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .

. Idd i t iona l

The XACEA concerns t h a t

"The cues t i o n of sabotage , t e r ro r i sm and safeguards are n o t f u l l y , hones t ly and openly d e a l t wi th . Perhaps one of t he r.iost s e r i o u s on i s s ions i s d i scuss ion of t he consequences of t h e ex i s t ence of t h e Re t r i evab le Surface Storage F a c i l i t y o r t he Xoblc Gas Storage F a c i l i t y as a t a r g e t €or nuclear weapons .'I

have been addressed i n tl:e Fina l Statement. You are r e f e r r e d t o Sec t ions 7.4.3, 7.4.4.1 and 7.4.5.2 f o r d i scuss ions of these concerns.

MS. Diane Tegtne ier

v ,2247

2

The NACEA concerns regard ing energy demand p r o j e c t i o n s and the eva lua t ion of a l t e r n a t i v e s are a l s o t r e a t e d i n the F i n a l S t a t enen t i n Sec t ions 6C and 11. The F ina l Statement cons iders a low growth ra te energy denand curve which r e s u l t s i n a 50% reduct ion i n t h e year 2020 energy demand compared t o t h e base p ro jec t ion .

The LTIFBR Program proposes t o provide the LEfFBR as an op t ion f o r t h e gene ra t ion of electrical energy. A t t h i s po in t i n t i n e , t h e p o t e n t i a l of t h e L W B R t o s a t i s f y p ro jec t ed needs is promising. The engineer ing and economic assumptions f o r t he LIIFBR are n o t o p t i m i s t i c , bu t r a t h e r r e f l e c t p ro j ec t ed LIG’CR technology. inipacts were def ined f o r o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s i n Chapter 8 of t h e Draf t Environmental Statement (Sec t ion 6 i n the -F ina l Statement) .

Evalua t ion of t he environmental and economic impact of va r ious t o t a l energy denarid p r o j e c t i o n s is beyond t h e scope of the LNFBR Program Environmental Statement , and is the re fo re not d i scussed .

Comparative economics and environmental

We hope t h a t t h i s information and the enc losures are s u f f i c i e n t l y respons ive t o your concerns. Thank you f o r your comments and f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t he I2fFBR Program.

S ince re ly ,

u s i s t r t n t General Ihnager for Bionedical and Environnental Research and Sa fe ty Programs

Enclosures: 1. MC Ssaff Response - t o

2. F i n a l Environmental Statement , S p e t i f i c Comments

LXFBR Program (WASH-1535)

V.22-18

En c l o s u r Z 2

AEC S t a f f Response t o Cmnents by t h e Mid-America Coa l i t i on €or Energy Al t e rna t ives ( M A X

1. Conment (page 3):

4.1-13 When t h e base case of t h e economic a n a l y s i s assumes spen t f u e l coo l ing of 120 days, and when announced goa ls of t h e AEC and indus t ry are t o even tua l ly lower t h e coo l ing t ine 'as l i t t l e as 30 days, t h i s chap te r should inc lude impacts , r o u t i n e and a c c i d e n t a l , f o r t h e shor t -cool ing case, n o t j u s t t h e Euch easier 365 day case."

Response :

The impacts of r ep rocess ing short-cooled LMFBR f u e l a r e given i n Appendix 1I.P of the F i n a l Statement. Transportation of short-cooled f u e l is discussgd i n Sec t ion 7.3.4 of t h e F i n a l Statement.

2. Comment (page 3):

4.1-19 "Why is t h e RSSF proposed only t o yea r 2000, while the NGSF is conceptua l ized t o yea r 20201"

Response:

U s e o f t h e RSSF i s n o t proposed t o extend on ly t~ the yea r 2GOC. As s t a t e d on page 4.6-27 of the Draf t Statement , "The s t o r J g e f a c i l i t y w u i d be b u i l t I n modules to meet inc reas ing inventory r enu i r rnen ta . "lib- p l a n f o r expansion t o a t o t a l of 165 storsgie bas ins by t:ie year 2 O i O ~ ~ 1 3 ~ i l l u s - t r a t e d previous ly i n F igure 4.6.3. Approximately li) percen t spPre bas in capac i ty would be maintained a t a l l t imes."


4.1-23 "Table 4.1.4 seems t o assume a l i n e a r rate of demand f o r dep le t ed Uranium f o r FBR r e f u e l i n g from 2000 t o 2030. Is t h i s c o n s i s t a n t wi th LMFBR growth p ro jec t ions f ron 2000 t o 2020?"

Response :

Table 4.1.4 does assume a l i n e a r rate of demand f o r dep le t ed Uranium f o r FBR r e f u e l i n g from 2000 t o 2030 f o r r e a c t o r s i n ope ra t ion by the y e a r 2000.

V.22-19

2

4. Comment (page 3) : c-

4.2-10 “With t h e f o r e c a s t t h a t r e a c t o r s w i l l b e l o c a t e d nearer p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r s t han a t p r e s e n t , do estimates o f a c c i d e n t and r o u t i n e release !iazards t a k e t h i s c o n s e r v a t i v e l y i n t o account ? ”

Response :

P o p u l a t i o n dose estimates from r o u t i n e r e l e a s e s a r e based on r e g i o n a l s t u d i e s e x t r a p o l a t e d t o t!ie y e a r 2000 ( S e c t i c n 9), t h u s t a k i n g i n t o account t h e r o u t i n e r e l e a s e r i s k s f o r a t h e when n u c l e a r e l e c t r i c i t y is expec ted t o b e t h e p redon inan t s o u r c e i n t h e U.S. P o p u l a t i o n risks from r e a c t o r p l a n t a c c i d e n t s are expec ted t o b e exceedinEly small, b u t numer i ca l e s t i m a t e s w i l l have t o a w a i t s p e c i f i c d e s i g n s .

-

5 . Comment (page 3 ) :

4.2-11 i “The plant- and c o o l i n g pond a r e a of 2,500 acres, p l u s o n l y t e n s of acres p e r added u n i t does n o t seem c o n s e r v a t i v e , I n Kansas, two proposed n u c l e a r s i t es are r e q u i r i n g 10,000 or more acres each.”

Response :

The l a n d r e q u j r e d € o r a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s z t a s i t e would depend upon t h e method of c o o l i n g t o be w e d by t h e a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s . As s t a t e d on page 4.2-11 - “ I f a c o o l i n g pond i s used f o r t h e d i s s i p a t i o n of waste h e a t , a n a d d i t i o n a l 1000 t o 2000 acres w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r each r e a c t o r p l a n t u n i t depending OR s p e c i f i c s i t e l o c a t i o n and p r e v a i l i n g m e t e o r o l o g i c a l c o n d i t ions. I ’

-- 6. Comment (page 3 ) :

4.2-18 “It is s t a t e d t h a t advanced desip,n power p l a n t s w i l l u s e 765- lf500 KV l i n e s r e q u i r i n g right-of-way w i d t h s of 280-560 f t . Why assume 175 f t . r ight-of-way on page 4.2-76? Where i s t h e cuniulat ive t o t a l of l a n d r e q u i r e d f o r right-of-way t o t h e y e a r 2020 shown? Cumulative l a n d f o r power p l a n t s t o y e a r 2020?”

Response :

The 175 f t . r i g h t - o f - m y i s f o r a s i n g l e 1000 ?fWe power p l a n t w i t h a 500-KV t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . The c u n u l a t i v e l a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r LNFBR power p l a n t s and r i c h t - o f - v a y through t h e y e a r 2020 were n o t p iven i n t h e D r a f t E n v i r o n n e n t d S t a t e m n t b u t are found In S e c t i o n 10 of t h e F i n a l Environmental S t a c c r e n t .

v.22-20

3

7. Comnent (page 3 ) :

4.2-27 I' Shouldn ' t t he engineer ing d e t a i l s of t h e z c t i v e o r pas s ive c o r e - r e s t r a i n t s y s t m be s p e l l e d ou t as they a f f e c t acc iden t p r o b a b i l i t i e s and consequences?"

Response :

Core r e s t r a i n t systems (both a c t i v e and pass ive) are d iscussed i n t h e LMFBR p l a n t accident. d i scuss ion (Sec t ion 4 . 2 ! . 7 . 4 ) .

8. Coolnent (page 3):

4.2-157 "Even though AJX judges probabi1it :y of class 9 acc iden t s t o be low, t h e i r environmental impact: should be assessed. Af t e r a l l , i f such b a s i c behavior as swel l ing of LNFBR f u e l and core materials can come as a r ecen t s u r p r i s e , perhaps estimates of acc iden t p r o b a b i l i t i a are s i n i l a s l y f a l l i b l e . Fur ther , class 9 a c c i d e n t s ccnsequences are re l even t i n terms of sabotage and war-related acts.

9. Comnent (page 4 ) :

4 .2-159 "It is s t a t e d t h a t t h e o v e r a l l s a f e t y of t h e LIWBR cannot be aesesaed u n t i l design d e t a i l s no t y e t a v a i l a b l e are provided. This seems t o be another reason t o inc lude worst-case estimates (as i n \$ASH-740) f o r class 9 acc idents . "

Response- (To Comments 8 and 9 ) :

It is n o t e n t i r e l y c o r r e c t t o say t h a t swe l l ing came as a s u r p r i s e . Swell- i n g of nietal f u e l and voids i n metall ic cladding had been observed i n t h e 1950's ; t he n a t u r e of voids i n rnetallic c ladding induced by f a s t neutrons was observed i n the mid 19GOs. vo ids produced without commensurate product ion of hydrogen o r hclium, bu t t h e appearance of voids and a s soc ia t ed swe l l ing w a s no t a complete sur - p r i s e .

I t was somewhat s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d these

HCDAs are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 4 . 2 . 7 . 8 of the F i n a l Statement , a l though i t is t he A E C ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t IICDA events are remote i n p o s s i b i l i t y . IlCDA even t s o r o t h e r even t s of such a magnitude as t o produce "WASH-740 type r e s u l t s " are extremely remote i n p o s s i b i l i t y and t h e r i s k s of such events are considered very small. However, they are d iscussed f u r t h e r i n the F i n a l Statement.

10. Comment (page 4 ) :

4.2-163 "Does t h e l.ower des ign p res su re requirement f o r t he Llfl?BR con- t a i r n e n t b u i l d i n g (10 p s i vs 60 p s i f o r LWR's) imply a g r e a t e r

v.22-21

4

s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o sabotage o r a c t s of war? containment t o wi ths tand shock waves from nearby chemical o r nuc lear bombs).

(e.g. , a b i l i t y o f

Response :

A l l o t h e r t h ings be ing equal , a containment s t r u c t u r e designed f o r 10 p s i i n t e r n a l p re s su re would of f e r less r e s i s t a n c e t o a d e l i b e r a t e breaching a t tempt than a s t r u c t u r e designed f o r 60 psi pressure . Hcwever, i t would n o t be poss ib l e t o conclude t h a t an ElFBR is i n h e r e n t l y less r e s i s t a n t t o sahotage o r an act of war than a n LiJR wi thout a comparison of des ign d e t a i l s , which i s no t p o s s i b l e a t t h i s time because commercial I3lFBRs have no t y e t been designed. I n any even t , i t is in tended t h a t UEBRs w i l l be designed, cons t ruc ted and t e s t e d t o provide assurance of adequate r e s i s t a n c e t o c r e d i b l e unusual even t s , i nc lud ing a c t s of sabotage. Although r e s i s t a n c e t o acts of war is not, a design c r i t e r i o n , a c e r t a i n degree of p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t such aces w i l l r e s u l t from confom-ance wi th t h e o t h e r cr i ter ia .

11.1 C o w n t (page 4 ) :

4.2-177 "Confidence it-. tornado r e s i s t e n t des ign seems i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th r ecen t annauncenent of a 1-year , $150,000 s tudy of tornado e f f e c t s t o he lp e s t a b l i s h des ign c r i te r ia f o r nuc lear power p l a n t s and s t r u c t u r e s . (Nuclear N e w s , Plarch 1974) . f i a t about tornado impact a t o t h e r s t e p s i n the f u e l cyc le? Would 30 days, o r even 365 days cooled spent f u e l cask o r r a i l car be immune t o d i r e c t tornado impact? Would a l i q u i d , h igh- leve l waste tank? Would P d x f u e l , i n t r u c k shipments , remain confined i n a tornado inc iden t?"

Response :

Criteria fully compatible w i t h regulatory requirements for tornado resistance w i l l be employed i n LIFBR power p l a n t s and f u e l cyc le f a c i l i t i e s . The s tudy mentioned is an a t tempt t o b e t t e r d e f i n e l o c a l and r eg iona l v a r i a t i o n s i n tornado frequency and s e v e r i t y , as one means of b e t t e r q u a n t i f y i n g t h e very l o w r i s k s of a seve re tornado. I t is expected t h a t spen t f u e l casks and high l e v e l waste tanks would x i t h s t a n d tornado impacts. However, PuOx f u e l might n o t remain completely confined i n a tornado inc iden t .


4.2-195 "It does n o t seem conse rva t ive t o simply p o s t u l a t e t h a t no major r a d i o a c t i v e release can occur and hence ignore maximum p o s s i b l e consequences. Why would t h e Price-Anderson A c t of 1957 be needed i f t h e case is t h a t compelling?''

v 22-22

5

me d i scnss i on r e i c r r e d t o has been cons iderably rev ised and expanded. Extens-;vc a m 1 y s c s have been perforricd on consequences of severe acc idents . These are c i t e d i n Sec t ion 4.2.7.8. The Price-Anderson A c t w a s needed i n the extremely un l ike ly event rhot t h e cos t of damages t h a t d g h t r e s u l t f r o n a severe nuc lcar acc iden t Would exceed t h a t amount of insurance c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e f ron p r i v a t e sources . Iiowever, a s notcd l a t e i i n t h e response t o comment no. 36, governnent i n d e r n i f i c s - t i o n nay b e phased out i n the f u t u r e wi th the indus t ry assumin:; i t s own risks .as t he use of nuc lea r power inc reases .

13. Cornoents (pages 4-5):

4.4-2 "With s t a t e d goa l of even tua l ly handl ing 3G-day cooled spent f u e l , p o t e n t i a l environmental impacts f o r t h i s cdse should he discussed throughout t he nuc lear f u e l cyc le . T h e g r e a t e r t he i g n o r a c e of d e t a i l s of handl ing such f u e l , t h e broader should be t h e scope of c r e d i b l e acc iden t s discussed.1t

4.4-14 "The normal and acc iden t impacts of sodium-cooled , short-decay spent f u e l sh ipping should be d iscussed i n vicw cf announced goals.

4.4-52,53 "These huge inc reases i n vlolatile f i s s i o n products f o r si iort- cooled fuel must be considered i n looking a t i r lpac t of s!d.p~~irig and reprocessing. 'I

I t If: short-decay t i n e case Itannot be meaningful ly assessed then worst case consequences should be discussed. There is a c o n s i s t e n t theme he re of simply ignor inq inpoc t s of s t e p s where knowledge i s lacking, , ' I

"What about acc iden t e f fec1:s a t 30-120 days cool ing? choose 180 as the s h o r t e s t t i m e f o r estimates when even 120 cool ing is the base case assumption?"

4.4-60-64 "Similar c a l c u l a t i o n s shoultd be made f o r 30 day and 120 day cool ing cases. !Jliy assume a 20 f o l d improvement i n pa r t i cu - la te r e t e n t i o n i n L:!FBR f a c i l i t i e s . The r e p o r t seems t o be p o s t u l a t i n g improvements t o support a des i r ed dcs icn i n n a c t , r a t h e r than looking a t conserva t ive ranges of c o n t a i m e n t. ' I

4.4-54

4.4-55 IJhy

4.4-87 "Accident consequences f o r 30 and 120 cooled f u e l should a l s o be es t imated . Only assumes f u e l assembly breakage o r o t h e r acc iden t s i n s i d e containment s t r u c t u r e s . What about H2-02 explosions i n the high-level l i q u i d s to rage tanks? Conse- quences of such an accident: have a l ready been e s t i n a t e d (OWJL-4451) . I '

V. 22-23

6 Response:

The im7act of r e p r o c e s s i n g s h o r t coo led f u e l i s t r e a t e d i n Appendix 1I.f o f t h e F i n a l C n v i r c n r e n t a l S t n t e n e n t . bel. e lemen t s a r e n o t ;~andlecl i n t h e open; hence, t h e r e would be no breahape i n t h e open. Rezardini: t;ie q u e s t i o n conce rn ing C -0 e x p l o s i o n s i n h i g h l e v e l l i q u i d (waste) s t o r a g e t a n k s , v a r i o u s neaps ?sone of which were nen t ioned j n O%L-4451) are a v h i l a b l e f o r r e n d e r i n g such a n e v e n t i n c r e d i b l e . ThercEore, t h a t a c c i d e n t and i t s conseaucnces were n o t d i s c u s s e d . A 20-fold inprovement i n p a r t i c u l a t e r e t e n t i o n can be j u s t i f i e d because of u s e of b e t t e r f i l t e r s , b e t t e r f i l t e r i n s t a l l a t i o n s , and b e t t e r t e s t i n g a d mor.itoriny: p r a c t i c e s in t h e f u t u r e than e x i s t e d i n t h e p a s t ( s e e F i n a l Environmental S t a t emen t f o r a d d i t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n ) .

2

14.. Comment (page 4):

"How can r o u t i n e r e l e a s e s of I b e gua ran teed a t t h e low 2 v a l u e s r e p o r t e d , when p r o c e s s e s and t e c h n i q u e s have n o t been developed o r t e s t e d ? T h e env i ronmen ta l impac t s d i s c u s s e d seem t o be more q e a r l y g o a l s , r a t h e r t h a n ConsPrva t ive , wors t - case p r o j e c t i o n s . "

4.4-4

Response : -- There have been many tests which i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e c o v e r i e s t h a t trere i n d i c a t e d are a t t a i n a b l e ove r a s h o r t p e r i o d w i t h s t r e a m s t h a t s i m u l a t e p r o c e s s c f f - g a s , F u r t h e r development work may r e v e a l some a d d i t i o n a l problems, bu t t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t a t e c h n i c a l s o l u t r o n d o e s n o t e x i s t , o r canno t be found, f o r t h i s t e c h n i c a l problem.

15. Comment (pape 5):

4.5-25 "Table 4.5.3.2 should show a c t i v i t i e s and the rma l power fo r 30 day and 120 day coo led f u e l s i n c e t h e s e are d e f i n i t e l y under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . "

Response :

It is c u r r e n t l y assumed t h a t t h e s p e n t LWBR f u e l w i l l be coo led 360 d a y s b e f o r e s h i p p i n g from t h e r e a c t o r s i t e t o a r e p r o c e s s i n g s i t e . It is f u r t t . e r assumed t h a t such f u e l c a n b e c a r r i e d i n a cask b u i l t t o c u r r e n t r e g u l a t o r y s t a n d a r d s and n o t c r e a t e u n a c c e p t a b l e consequences i n t h e >vent- t h a t i t is invo lved w i t h a n ex t r eme ly s e v e r e a c c i d e n t t h a t v i o l a t e s contzinment and some r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l i s f o r c e d o u t i n t o t h e environment ( s e e S e c t . 4.5.5.16 and 4.5.6.2). Such a c a s k n i g h t n o t b e adequate ' f o r s h o r t coo led f u e l and conse- q u e n t l y s h o r t cooled f u e l w i l l n o t b e sh ipped u n t i l adequ;te test. i n f o r m a t i o n is a v a i l a b l e , which i n d i c a t e s t h a t a s p e n t f u e l c a s k can

v.22-24

7

be designed which w i l l n o t permit s i g n i f i c a n t l o s s of material even under extremely severe acc iden t condi t ions . Current cask development e f f o r t s , (discussed b r i e f l y i n Sec t . 7.3.4) provide a s t rong i n d i c a t i o n t h a t such casks can be designed. This r e sea rch and development program i s n o t complete., however, and i s expected t o cont inue f o r a number of yea r s a t a s u b s t a n t i a l fundinp l e v e l .


4.4.55 Maximum f l a n e temperatures of 1475°F do no t seem conserva t ive i n these days of massive shipments of a v a r i e t y of high-energy materials .'I

Response :

A l l packages were assumed t o be sub:jected t o an acc iden t sequence more seve re than the des ign-bas is acc ident . I n t h e case of f i r e , t he dura- t i o n f o r acc iden t ca tegory 5, was a s s m e d t o be 2 hours , fou r times t h e t i m e dur 'at ion s p e c i f i e d i n t h e r egu la t ions . While i t is t r u e t h a t r e a l f i r e s gene ra l ly have a flame temperature of around 2000°F, real f i r e s do not n e c e s s a r i l y expose a l l s u r f a c e s t o t h a t temperature. The naxi- mum temperature occurs approximately 30 i n . above t h e burning sur face . Experience wi th real casks t e s t e d in real f i r e s have shown t h e d i f f i - c u l t y i n maximizing hea t i n p u t s t o t h e cask. I f t h e cask is l y i n g i n t h e poo l of burning l i q u i d , t h e bottom w i l l be kcpt cool wh i l e t h e top is exposed t o t h e flame: The temperature and e n i s s i v i t y s p e c i f i - c a t i o n s provide a reasonable method f o r e s t ima t ing t o t a l hea t input t o a cask which would occur i n most t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f i r e s . It i s noteworthy t h a t t he AEC and t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Atomic Energy Agency, whose member c o u n t r i e s a r e con t inua l ly c a r r y i n 8 o u t phys i ca l t e s t i n g ( inc luding f i r e t e s t i n g ) of packages, b e l i e v e t h a t f i r e requirements a r e adequate.

17. Comments (pages 5-6) :

'!Table 4.5.1 shows almost 600 Kg of PuO The h ighjacking i tnp l ica t ions of t h i s sl iruld be d i scussed , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e shipment i s planned by cormon carriers."

4.5-48 "What is the h i j ack ing a t t r a c t i v e n e s s t o a t e r r o r i s t of a

per t ruck shipr:ient. 2 4.5-3

t ruck shipment of almost 1. m i l l i o n c u r i e s of 85 K r ? "

4.5-58 "The c a l c u l a t i o n of r u p t u r e margins does n o t seem conserva t ive . Impur i t i e s , ou tgass ing , etc. can inc rease i n t e r n a l p re s su re generated a t high temperatures . expose t h e PuO t o more seve re condi t ions . Consequences should be d iscussed . I t seems l i k e a double s tandard t o le t the UO l e a k a l i t t l e b i t , bu t t o p o s t u l a t e o r assert 2 t h a t no leakage of PuO

Cer t a in ly sabotage could

2

w i l l ever occur." 2

V. 22-25

8

4.5-63 "Here aga in , wi th a lesser hazard than PuOz leakage is allowed t o be pos tu la ted ."

4.5-73 "Table 4.5.5.6 lists ca tegory 5 acc iden t p r o b a b i l i t i e s as low as 8 x per yea r y e t i nc ludes no p r o b a b i l i t y f o r Pu02 release. t o be a w i l l f u l d i s t o r t i o n of t r u e hazard e s t ima t ion . Even i f such l o w acc iden t p r o b a b i l i t i e s were r e a l i z e d , t h e prob- l e m of malevolent-act releases would l i k e l y dominate t h e hazard and should be es t imated and discussed."

A ze ro p r o b a b i l i t y f o r Pu02 release appears

Response :

Discuspions r e l a t i v e t o t h e consequence of sabotage of IXFBR materials in t r a n s p o r t are presented i n Sec t ion 7.4.5.5.2 o f t h e F i n a l Statement. S p e c i f i c a l l y , an i n t e r i m assessment is prbvided of t h e amount of radio- a c t i v i t y which might be r e l eased t o t h e environment as t h e r e s u l t of h y p o t h e t i c a l sabotage a t t a c k on shipments of each of t h e hazardous mterials and products involved, assuming t h e use of c t i r r en t ly approved packages. This assessment is in tended t o provide e a r l y guidavce toward t imely development of hardened packages o r o t h e r consequences-minimizing a c t i o n s whcih may be found necessary f o r t h e f u t u r e .

Regarding t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of malevolent-act (sabotage) releases from materials i n t r a n s p o r t , i t is no t clear t h a t t h i s "would dominate t h e hazard", as suggested by t h e comment on page 4.5-73. t h e p o s s i b i l l t y of a s u c c e s s f u l sabotage a t t a c k may be v i r t u a l l y e l imina ted by c l u s t e r i n g of f a c i l i t i e s . I n a l l cases, i t is intended to provide, through t h e "defense i a depth" approach, sa feguards measures s u f f i c i e n t iil n a t u r e and number t o a s s u r e t h a t any r e s i d u a l risks t o t h e pub l i c w i l l be judged accep tab ly low. of t he approach to development of f u t u r e safeguards .

I n c e r t a i n cases,

Sec t ion 7.4.8 of t h e F i n a l Statement provides a d e s c r i p t i o n


4.6-112 ?Storage of s o l i d i f i e d h igh l e v e l wastes f o r thousands of gears is n o t descr ibed."

Response :

The u l t i m a t e d i s p o s a l al ternatives t o t h e RSSF (covered i n Sec t ion 4.6) were d iscussed i n summary form I n Chapter 7 of t h e Dra f t Statement . The r e p o r t s re ferenced i n Chapter 7 provide comprehensive d e t a i l s o f t h e a n a l y s i s i n progrdss . __


4.6-16 "Credible unnatura l f o r c e s ( w a r - and sabotage) should a l s o be provided f o r and discussi5i;"- -

V . 22-26

9

Response :

The F ina l Statement has been modified t o d i scuss the t h r e a t and con3equences of sabotage and w a r . I n t h i s regard , you are r e f e r r e d t o Sec t ions 7.4.3, 7.4.4 and 7.4.5 f o r d i scuss ions of these i tem.


4.6-47 “Consequences af cask rup tu re o u t s i d e a containment bu i ld ing should be d iscussed . ”

Response :

Radioac t iv i ty releases due t o high l e v e l waste cask rup tu re are no t considered ( see Appendix I X . N , pages 1I.X-18 and 19 of t he F ina l Statement) . Even a t the gnd of a 2 hour f i r e , t he h o t t e s t was te would have a temperatuore of o t l y 132b F, whereas the waste is exposed t o t enpe ra tu res of over 1600 E’ i n i t s prepara t ion . Therefore , t he waste would r ena in s t a b l e , no deconposi t ion products would form t o increase i n t e r n a l p re s su res , c a n i s t e r ~ i l d s w u l d n o t c rack , and no release of a c t i v i t y would occur fol loir ing exposure of a waste cask t o a f i r e . F i r e exposure i s considered t o be the nost s t r i n g e n t t es t of a cask’s a b i l i t y t o maintain i t s i n t e g r i t y .

21. Comrnent (page 6) :

4.6-47/48 “k?ow t ~ o u l d s p i l l e d n a t e r i a l bc r c t r i v c d ? 1Iow would airplane crashes i n t o s t o r a g e areas be handled i n areas which arc a l l remotely con t ro l l ed?“

Kesponse :

S p i i l e d rinterid would b e picked up w i t i i a rer.?otely operated V ~ C U U T I

s y s t en and re-eiicapoulnted. xemote deco:itanination f a c i l i t i e s (spray nozz les , e t c . ) would b e used t o decontanina te the area.

The RSSF would no t L e i n a conne rc i a l a i r l i n e f l i f ; h t poth and an a i r p l a n e c rash i n t o t h e RSSF is considered a non-credible acc ident .

22. Connient (page 6):

4.6-50 “Xo s t a t e n e n t on type of compound,-container and s e a l t o be used f o r i od ine ; i t is noteworthy t h a t t h e 55 g a l . drums mentioned for t he o t h e r s are n o t used here .”

Response :

A s noted i n the Draf t Statement (page 4.5-64):

n

V . 22-27

10

"Iodine is assumed t o be converted t o p o t a s s i m iod ide (KI) f o r shipment t o a r epos i to ry . The material would be placed i n t o c a n i s t e r s whLch woul.3, i n t u rn , be placed i n t o i n s u l a t e d sh ipping packtzges descr ibed i n Fig. 4.5.4. I '

(Note - t he i n s u l a t e d sh ipping package is a 55 ga l . drum.)

23. Couumnt (page 6 ) :

4.6-53 'I1 No c r e d i t is taken f o r containment provided by t h e packages

shou1.d be prever.ted t h a t they become a i rborne . I t is suggested t h a t a l l a lpha enit ters be t r ansmuta t e l by neut ron bombardment i n a reactor ."

para 2 once they are bur ied . I f any a lpha emitters are ,bu r i ed , it

K e s p onse :

MACEA coxrec t ly states t h a t no c r e d i t is taken f o r package containment a f t e r w a s t e s are buried. Author iza t ion t o o p e r a t e a commercial l a i d b u r i a l f a c i l i t y is based on an a n d y s i s of t h e n a t u r e and l o c P t i o n of p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d f a c i l i t i e s and of t he s i t e topographica l , geograph- ical, meteoro logica l , arzl hydro log ica l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and usage of ground and s u r f a c e water i n the gene ra l area, which demonstrate cha t bu r i ed r a d i o a c t i v e waste w i l l no t migra te from the si te. o f t r a n s n u t a t i o n is ciiscucscd i n S e t ' i i m 7.3 of t h e Dra f t S t a t e n c r t . However, It is not intended t h a t lo:? l e v e l wastes would ever be transmuted.

The alternative

-- 24. Cocunerit (page 6 ) :

4 . 6 - 4 8 ' I Here again, where a very serious hazard is involved, it is assumed t h a t engineer ing w i l l make the event (meltdown) i n c r e d i b l e . This avoids hones t cons ide ra t ion of r e a l dangers. 'I

Response:

Informat ion has been added t o t h e F i n a l Statement (pages 4 .6 -33 t o 4 . 6 - 2 7 ) t o he lp demonscrate t h a t engineer ing w i l l make t h i s waste s t o r a g e acc iden t i n c r e d i b l e .

25. Comment (pzge 6 ) :

4 .7-1 "In the l i s t i n g of a r e a s from which plutonium might be r e l e a s e d , t h e p o t e n t i a l release from a s t o r a g e s i t e is no t mentioned. I'

V.22-28

11

Res pons e :

See t h e r e v i s e d v e r s i o n s of S e c t i o n 4 . 7 and Appendix 1I.G i n t h e F i n a l S t a t emen t , where t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n is now provided.


4.7-2 "Stack releases gf l g m C i ialplla p a r t i c l e s f o r 1000 MiTe, which might c o n t a i n 10 -10 C i , appea r p r a y e r f u l l y small."

Response:

The AEC b e l i e v e s t h e e s t i m a t e d releases are a c c u r a t e as t h e r e are many p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s o p e r a t i n g a g a i n s t s i g n i f i c a n t re leass . A d d i t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n c x c e r n i n g t h i s release ((now 0.96 mCi) i s g i v e n . i n Appendix I1.G of t h e F i n a l Statesilent. Also see S e c t i o n s 4 . 3 . 5 . 3 and 4 . 4 . 5 . 3 .

2 7 . Comment (page 7 ) :

4 . A-12 " N o c o n s i d e r a t i o n w a s g i v e n t o s i n k i n g of a barge."

R e s pons e :

Probably tlic least s i g n i f i c a n t a c c i d e n t t h a t cou ld b e f a l l a s p e n t f u e l ca sk c a r r i e d on a ba rge is t h a t i t s i n k . Barge s h i p p i n g is one of the s a f e s t ways t o t r a n s p o r t ca sks s i n c e speeds are slow a n i t hey can e f f e c - t i v e l y be k e p t away from l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of combus t ib l e m a t e r i a l s . S ink ing o f t h e b a r n e and cask would e f f e c t i v e l y renove i t from any f i r e and a t t h e sane t ine r i a in tn in low e x t e r n a l t empera tu res even i f f o r c e d c i r c u l a t i o n c o o l a n t sys t ems , 17hic!i n i g h t have been enployed, were des t royed . The act of s i n k i n g would i n p o s e i n s i g n i f i c a n t a d d i t i o n a l f o r c e s , tenipera- t u r e increases o r p r e s s u r e increr?ses ( r e l a t i v e t o what i t w i l l be capzh le of w i t h s t a n d i n g ) on t h e cask and, t l i e r e f o r e , vi11 p r o v i d e no p o s s i b l e rcechanism f o r l eakage . Large c h l o r i n e c y l i n d e r s whose containment could be e a s i l y des t royed by r e l a t i v e l y n i n o r a c c i d e n t s have been sunk, and s u c c e s s f u l l y r e t r i e v e d , from t h e bot:ton of t h e : f i s s i s s i p p i River . The act of s i n k i n g i s t h e r e f o r e n o t expected t o create l e a k s o r pose any a d d i t i o n a l r i s k t o t h e pub l i c .


4. E-6 "The v a l u e s f o r plutonium appea r meaningless wi thou t s p e c i f y i n g whether i t i s absorbed a; a ne ta l o r as a p a r t i c u l a r salt . Probably a s o l u b l e s a l t is i n p l i e d s i n c e v a l u e s a r a h i z h e r i n l i v e r and bone than lung doses. But why is t h e G I dose even h i g h e r t h a n t h e lung?"

V. 22-29

1 2

Response :

An expanded d i s c u s s i o n of t h e a s sumpt ions made i n d e r i v i n g d o s e c o n v e r s i o n f a c t o r s is g i v e n i n Appendix 1 I . E i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e n e n t , which n o t e s : "To o b t a i n dose-conversion f a c t o r s f o r l u n g s , t h e i n h a l e d mater ia l w a s assumed t o be i n s o l u b l e , For a l l o t l i e r r e f e r e n c e o r g a n s t h e i n h a l a t i o n dose-conversion f a c t o r s are based on t h e assumption t h a t t h e i n h a l e d r a d i o n u c l i d e s are s o l u b l e i n form." T h i s maximizes t h e r i s k t o e a c h of t h e r e f e r e n c e d o r g a n s , t h e lung be ing a t g r e a t e s t r i s k f o r i n h a l e d i n s o l - u b l e compounds, w i t h t h e o t h e r o r g a n s c o n s i d e r e d a t h i g h e r r i s k f o l l o w i n g t h e i n h a l a t i o n of s o l u b l e compounds. The s t a t e d q u e s t i o n i s d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d . The r e f e r e n c e d t a b l e (Table 1I.E-4) c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e G I t rac t r e c e i v e s a dose s e v e r a l o r d e r s of magnitude less t h a n d o e s t h e l u n g . For example, w i t h plutonium-239 t h e dose t o t h e lung i s 1.77 E2 o r 1.77 x l o 2 o r 177 r e m / u C i i n h a l e d ; t h e do3e t o t h e G I t rac t i s 3.56 E-2 o r 3.56 x o r 0.0356 r e m / v C i i n h a l e d .


4 . E-8 "In Tab le 4 5 , more t o t a l body r a d i a t i o n and t i s s u e e f f e c t s a re a s s i g n e d t o Pu-239 a f t e r i n g e s t i o n t h a n a f t e r i n h a l a t i o n . T h i s is c o n t r a r y t o a b s o r p t i o n d a t a which show a l o v r e t e n t i o n and a b s o r p t i o n from t h e g u t and a lmos t 1007; r e t e n t i o n from t h e l u n g . "

Response:

Again w e canno t a g r e e w i t h t h e comment. Comparison of t h e two t a b l e s shows, f o r example, t h a t a f t e r i n h a l a t i o n of plutonium-239 t h e l i v e r r e c e i v e s a dose o f 8.96 E2 o r 8.96 x lo2 (Table 1I.E-4) o r 869 r en /pCi , whereas f o l l o w i n g i n g e s t i o n of plutonium-239 t h e l i v e r r e c e i v e s a dose of 1 .06 E-1 o r 1 .06 x 10-1 o r 0.106 ren /pCi i n g e s t e d .


4.G-51 $'Again, over-emphasis on plutonium e f f e c t s on bone and l i v e r , and i n s u f f i c i e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e i n h a l a t i o n of meta l l ic plutonium o r plutonium o x i d e i n t o t h e lung where i t s b i o l o g i c h a l f - l i f e is g r e a t e r t h a n a human l i f e t i m e . "

--

Response:

The r e f e r e n c e d page was n o t i n t ended t o d i s c u s s h e a l t h e f f e c t s on bone, l i v e r o r l ung . I t d i s c u s s e d m e t a b o l i c pathways by means of which i n h a l e d o r i n g e s t e d plutonium reached t h e s e v e r a l o r g a n s o f d e n o s i t i o n . The i n h a l a t i o n of metal l ic plutonium is n o t c o n s i d e r e d s i n c e upon c o n t a c t w i t h a i r t h e p lu ton ium forms p lu ton ium d i o x i d e . S i n c e t h e l u n e is consic'- e r e d t h e c r i t i c a l o rgan a f t e r i n h a l a t i o n of plutonium d i o x i d e , i t comes under Compound Class Y of t h e ICW Task Group Lung Model; t h e recommended

V . 22- 30

13

v a l u e of t h i s model f o r t h e bicllo$cai ha l f - l i fe i s 500 days. ;Je a r e not aware of any d a t a s u p p o r t i n z a i > i o ~ o ; i c n l h a l f - l i f e of " g r e a t e r t h a n a human l i f e t i m e " f o r pli i toniurl d i o x i d e . Th i s sI .hject r m t t c r and thc node1 used t o d e s c r i b e t h e bellavior of f n s c l u b l e articulates i n t h e lun:; i s d i s c u s s e d i n Appendix II .C.4.

31. Csrnrnent (page 7 ) :

4. G 6 3

--- "NO c o n s i d e r a t i o n has been made of t e r t o g e n i c e f f e c t s ."

Response:

T e r t o g e n i c e f f e c t s Inizht be caused 3y two methods: t h e mutagenic e f f e c t of r a d i a t i o n upon r e p r o d u c t i v e cells, and t h e e f f e c t of r a d i a t i o n upon m u l t i p l y i n n and d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g c e l l ; of - t he embryo and f e t u s . is cons ide red i n t h e r e p o r t of t h e :1ational Academy of S c L ~ r ~ c e s - ~ ! n t i o n n l Research Counci l Advisory Co!mi.ttee on t h e B i o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s of Ionizin;: Radia t ion . The z e n c t i c risk e s t i x a t - s of t h e B E I R Committee i n c l u d e n u t a t i o n a l components of v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e i r o v e r a l l treat-iszt of g e n e t i c r i s k . They a l s o d i s c u s s t h e i r t r e a t m e n t of releases Erom nuclear power (pp. 40-50). !:ndiation e f f e c t s upon the enbryo or f e t u s c o u l d cccu r o n l y i f t h e t r a n s u r a n i c e l e n e n t s c r o s s e d t h e p l a c e n t r a l b a r r i e r a n d r:zre i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e deve lop ing t i s s u e s . Th i s is d i s c u s s e d in Apt)zi-d<x II.G.4 and i n tlie r e f e r e n c e s s t a t e d t h e r e i n .

The former

32. Conment (page 7) : -- 4. G 6 4 I' A sonewhat c u r s o r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n o n l y of t h e p o s s i b i ? i tv t,i?t

l inear e x t r a p o l a t i o n a c t u a l l y is t o o c o n s e r v a t i v e since :,t h i z h e r doses carciuo;;encsis, i s i n h f b i t e d by kill in^; ~ . o i ~5 t h e cells. Also t h e r e i s no mention of an i n p o r t z n t s c i t w t i f i c pape r on t h i s s u b j e c t vhicli would be r e q u i r e d t u b e t t e r ev i l u n t e t h i s proSl.cn. I am r e f e r r i n g t o Cauri, Popn ln t ion ! i n t c r o y n c i t y Hypothesis on Xad ia t ion Induced Cancer , Hea l th Phy.jics 25:

~97-104 , 1973.''

Response :

"lie Environmental S t a t emen t r e f e r s t o i ts dependence upon t h e :JAS-:IRC r e p o r t on t h e B i o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s of I o n i z i n g C a d i a t i o n (GCI?,) r e p o r t as t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e b a s i s f o r u s e of tlie s i n p l e l i n e a r dose r e sponse r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r t h e p r e d i c t i o n of h e a l t h consequences. That r e p o r t d i s c u s s e d t h e a l t e r n a t i v e approaches t o t h i s q u e s t i o n i n e x t e n s o anct concluded t h a t t h e l i n e a r h y p o t h e s i s is a c o n s e r v a t i v e ph i losophy , w h i l e r e c o g n i z i n g t h e a r g u n e n t s t h a t were i n c o n f l i c t , i n c l u d i n g t h e "cell k i l l i n g " hypo thes i s .

The r e f e r e n c e r e p o r t by Saurn i n Hea l th Phys ic s p r e s e n t s i n d e t a i l one approach t o dose-response m n l y s i s :!;at is a lso inc luCsd i n the BET?

http://proSl.cn

V.22-31

14

r e p o r t . original da ta . i n which t h e d a t a czn b e f i t t e d by a l n o s t co r ip l e t c ly e q u a t i o n s wichcut a s t a t l s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t cho ice . " h e t e r o ~ e n e i t y " , pe r se , does n o t i n s u r e n o n - l i n e a r i t y , as d a t a on g e n e t i c a l l y heterogeneous groups of e x p e r i n e n t a l an ima l s have n o t r e v e a i e d any unusua l r e sponses . t h a t oppose h i s own Lhesis . t h e ev idencc and t h e concern f o r p u b l i c h e a l t h p r o t e c t i o n s u p p o r t t h e E X X r e p o r t p o s i t i o n .

It is not: a new approach and t h e pape r does n o t show t h e complete I f it had, t h c reader could judge f o r h i m s e l f t h e Lr.zinr.er

c o n t r a s t i n g The i s s u e of

F i n a l l y , C a m h i n s c l f p r e s e n t s a nunber of z r p r e n t s Kius, a t t h i s t i n e , t5,e over;ihelminS r i e i z t i t of

33. Comment- (page 7):

4.G-69 " E s t i n a t e s are a l l minimal, based on unavoidable o r 'normal' releases. There are no a c c i d e n t assumptions and. t h e i r consequences . ' I

Response:

An expanded d i s c u s s i o n of a n t i c i p a t e d normal releases frorn a l l s e g n e n t s of t h e nuclci i r Euei c y c l e , and of niaximum c r e d i b l e a c c i d e n t s and t h e i r p r o b a b i l . i ~ i e s , is p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix 11.2.1. Acc iden t s are d i s c u s s e d i n 4 . 2 , 4 . 3 , 4 . 4 , 4.5 and 4.6 of t h e F i n a l Statement .

3 4 . Comments (pages 7-8):

5-7 "In F i g u r e 5.2-1 and i n many o t h e r f i g u r e s , t a b l e s and d i s c u s s i o n s , a uni torm p r e s e n t a t i o n o r p r o j e c t i o n s t o t h e y e a r 2020 shou ld be made."

5 -7 "Equally, i f n o t u o r e s t r i k i n g i n F i g u r e 5.2-3 i s t h e enormous v e r t i c l e r ange of GiP f o r a g iven per capita income, e .& . , a range of abou t 50 t o 130 m i l l i o n s DTU p e r c a p i t a for c o u n t r i e s i n t h e S1,500-$2,000 GiF p e r capi ta range. s ic l i t be d r a m : (I) C o u n t r i e s f a l l on d i f f e r e n t s l o p e l i n e s of ETU vs G::P depending on L i f e s t y l e s , v a l u e s , h a b i t s , etc. o r (2) t h e r e is a law of d imin i sh ing r e t u r n s t h a t cause &he curve of Z"V/G:JP t o cu rve up e x p o n e n t i a l l y , e .g . , from New Zealand t o t h e U.S. F i g u r e 5.2-3 which appea r s t o p l a y a key r o l e i n t h e f u t u r e energy u s e p r o j e c t i o n t h a t is t h e b a s i s of t h e p r e s e n t r e p o r t , can be used a l s o t o a r g m t h a t t h e U.S. n e e d n ' t coirimit i t s e l f t o t h e p r o j e c t e d i n c r e a s e i n BTU/C:P to a c h i e v e con t inued w e l l being."

Two c o n c l u s i o n s

Response :

I t is n o t p o s s i b l e t o e s t e n d a i l p r o j e c t i o n s t o t h e y e a r 2020 because in some cases t h e i n f o r m a t i o n does n o t e x i s t and i n o t h e r cases such an

V.22 32 n

15

e x t r a p o l a t i o n is n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e t o p i c d i s c u s s e d . comments a p p l y t o Fig. 5.2-1).

(Both

P o s s i b l e r e a s o n s for t h e l a r g e r ange o f energy consumption i n d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s w i t h approx ima te ly t h e same p e r c a p i t a income are d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 5.2.1 o f t h e F i n a l S t a t emen t .


5-9 "Reversal o f e l e c t r i c a l ra te s t r u c t u r e s shou ld be cons ide red h e r e t o a l l e v i a t e burden on poor."

Response :

I n S e c t i o n 5.2.2 of t h e F i n a l S t a t emen t , t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e p r i c e of electricity for various income groups is considered.


5-13 " C a p i t a l r equ i r emen t s f o r a d e q u a t e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e s h o u l d be e s t i m a t e d h e r e , as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o con t inued s u b s i d y by t h e Price-Anderson A c t . Such c o s t s shou ld be f u l l y i n t e r n a l - i z e d i n a s t u d y such as t h i s one."

ResDonse:

I n s u r a n c e c o s t s supplementary t o Price-Anderson cove rage are i n c l u d e d i n t h e Cost-Benefi t Ana lys i s i n S e c t i o n 11.2. The Congress r e c e n t l y passed a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e Price-Anderson Act f o r a f u r t h e r 10 y e a r s beyond its schedu led e x p i r a t i o n i n 1 9 7 7 , b u t t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n w a s ve toed by t h e P r e s i d e n t due t o a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n f i r i n i t y i n t h e b i l l n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i s s u e of government-backed i n s u r a n c e . It is a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t Congress w i l l r e c o n s i d e r t h e l e g i s l a t i o n based on t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s s u g g e s t i o n s . There is a g e n e r a l e x p e c t a t i o n , however, t h a t government i n d e m n i f i c i t i o n w i l l e t e n t u a l l y be phased o u t w i t h t h e i n d u s t r y assuming i ts own r i s k s as t h e u s e o f n u c l e a r power i n c r e a s e s . l e g i s l a t i v e h e a r i n g s on t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e Price-Anderson A c t (Nuclear I n d u s t r y 5 /75 , pp. 6 - 9 ) , p r o p o s a l s by two n u c l e a r l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e pools f o r phas ing o v t government indemnity were c o n s i d e r e d . However, i t is imposs ib l e a t t h i s time to i n t e r n a l i z l e i n s u r a n c e c o s t s which do not ex i s t .

During r e c e n t

37. Comments (page 8 ) :

5-31 "This impact s t a t e m e n t does n o t h o n e s t l y a d d r e s s t h e h a z a r d s of f i s s i o n power i f a ' s t a b l e s o c i a l o r d e r ' ceases t o e x i s t for a t i m e , e i t h e r i n t h e U.S. or i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s t o which e x p o r t o f o u r n u c l e a r technology is t a r g e t e d . "

V. 22-33

16

5-32 " I l a v i q r a i s e d t h e i s s u e cif 3.ess p o l i t i c a l freedom w i t h a Pu economy, some d i s c u s s i o n of i n p l i c a t i o n s shotild b e inc luded . ' I

Kesponse :

T h i s is a v a l i d concen;. I t is p o s s i b l e t o c o n s t r u c t any number o f s c e n a r i o s of d i s o r d e y s d i i c h m y occur i f 'la s t a b l e s o c i a l o r d e r " c e a s e s t o e x i s t i n t;ie U.S. o r sbroad. I t is i n iposs ib l e e i t h e r ' t o assess p r o b a b i l i t i e s a r c c x p l e t e l y p r o t e c t a g a i n s t thcni. l iovever, circurns2a:lces seem t o r.Litizqte a g a i n s t tlic c h o i c e of n u c l e a r power s t a t i o n s o r LiE'BRs, i n p a r t i c u l a r , as randon t n r g c t s i n t i n e s of g e n e r a l chaos. f a c i l i t i e s a r e safeguarded and are at i s o l a t e d l o c a t i o n s . Very d e t a i l e d ir ,foriimtion vould b e r e q u i r e d t o do classive danage at such si tes. judgment Iiiust b e clade as t o whether concerns such as t h e s e are s u f f i c i e n t t o d e p r i v e s o c i e t y of t h e b e n e f i t s of t h e development of n u c l e a r power.

With r e g a r d t o t h e i s s u e of p o l i t i c a l freedom, t h e imp l i ca t io r l s of t h e i n c r e a s i n g F e d e r a l i nvo lvenen t i n t h e i n t e r n a l o p e r a t i o n of n u c l e a r r n c r g y systems ,are cons ide red i n S e c t i o n 5 . 4 . 2 . 3 . 'The p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f t h e inp lemer i tn t ion of a n ef f e c t i v e s a f e z u a r d s p r o g r m on p e r s o n a l l i b e r t i e s duriny, b o t h normal o p e r a t i o n s and h y p o t h e t i c a l enercency s i t u a t i o n s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 5.4.2.1. I t is concluded t h a t l o s s of f r e e d o n and a Pu eco:iooiy are n o t synonymus . O the r t e c h n o l o g i c a l dcvc lopnen t s ( c o n p u t c r s , f o r exanp le ) pose a f a r g r e a t e r t h r e a t t o p e r s o n a l l i b e r t i e s . Var ious measures e x i s t i n a democra t i c s0ciet.r t o p reven t e r c s i o n s of f reedon.

Xuclear

A v a l u e

38. Conncnt (page 3 ) :

5-33 "WI11 our n u c l e a r energy econoriy be abandoned- i f ' ' i n t e r - n a t i m n l a s ree r i en t s ancl i n s t i t u t i o n s t o assure t h a t t h e corinm good, i s i n d e e d , p r o t e c t e d , " do n o t cor'e t.o p a s s ? Can t h e r e e v e r be such a g u a r a n t e e ? book should be r e f e r e n c e d and d i scussed . "

I j i l d r i c h and T a y l o r ' s

Response :

I n S e c t i o n 5.4.3 t h e i i n i t a t i o n s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l n u c l e a r energy agreements are d i s c u s s e d . Thc r e c e n t d e t o n a t i o n of a n u c l e a r d e v i c e by I n d i a makes u s aware tilat t h e probleris of n u c l e a r p r o l i f e r a t i o n are w i t h u s today. In S e c t i o n 5.4.3.1 a n a t t e n p t i s nsde t o pu t i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e t h e a d d i t i o n a l p rob lens t h a t would b e c r e a t e d by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of b r e e d e r r e a c t o r s . Rather t han abandon n u c l e a r er.erCy ( i t i 3 r a t h e r l a t e f o r t h i s ) , a more c o n s t r u c t i v e approach would be t o a t t e n p t t o s e c u r e adhe rence t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l q r e e r n c n t s which i n c l u d e i n s p e c t i o n p r o v i s i o n s and s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t v i o l a t o r s .

v. 22-34

1 7


6-1,2 " J u s t b e c a u s e ' re l ia5le and p r e c i s e q u a n t i t a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e expec ted f r equency o f o c c u r r e n c e of m j o r a c c i d e n t a l releases i n t h e I J F H X f u e l c y c l e is no: a v a i l a b l e a t t h i s time' does n o t j u c t i f y n o t d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r env i ronmen ta l impac t s . I t mkes a mockery o f NEPA t o i g n o r e consequences on t h e a s sumpt ion t h a t they can b e e n g i n e e r e d away, o r t h a t t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y is unknown. A t t h e v e r y least a 'Farmer l i m i t - l i n e ' d i s c u s s i o n of releases s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d f o r e v e r y phase of t h e f u e l cycle ."

Response :

The enk i ronmen ta l impact o f a c c i s e n t s w a s t r e a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g pages o f t h e D r a f t S t a t e m n t : 4 . 2 - 1 5 2 5 0 4.2-195, 4.3-130 t o 4.3-148, 4.4-101 EO 4.4-103, 4.5-74 t o 4.5-106, 4 . 6 4 7 t o 4.6-49, h.6-57 , 5 8 and 6 7 , and o t h e r s . T h i s s u b j e c t is d i s c u s s e d i n eqen more d e t a i l i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e - men t . 40. Comment (page 8):

7-2 1 " D e f i c i e n c i e s la s e a l i n g p resen t -day containment v e s s e l s are a l l u d e d t o . The impact o f such s e a l i n g problems shou ld b e d i s c u s s e d i n a c c i d e n t cases."

Response :

The r e f e r e n c e d paze d i d n o t rcfer t o d e f i c i e n c i e s i n s e a l i n g containment v e s s e l s . t h i s r e s p e L t , t h e t r ca tnn_n t of acc ;den t s in t h e S ta t emen t does i n c l u d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f c o n t t i n n e n t l cakage . R a d i o a c t i v e material i n s i d e t h e con t s inmcn t v e s s e l was assumed t o l e a k o u t a t t h e d e s i g n c o n t a i n n c n t l e a k rates s p e c i f i e d i n t h e D r a f t S t a t emen t (see Tab le 4 . 2 . 3 . 1 ) . These l e a k s rates can b e a r d are k e p t a c c e p t a b l y small.

T.t r e f e r r e d i n s t e a d to jiiiificsdties i n s e a l i n g t h o s e v e s s e l s . I n

41. Comment (pzige 9 ) :

7-36 "Why are t h e confinement f a c t o r s f o r 131-1 and 129-1 d i f f e r e n t ? Are t h e s e a d e q u a t e f o r t h e 30-day coo led f u e l case?"" ~

Response:

The confinement f a c t o r s foi 131-1 and 129-1 are d i f f e r e n t because s i m p l e r e t e n t i o n of 131-1 f o r a p e r i o d of t i m e r e s u l t s i n i t s decay (8 day h a l f - l i f e ) . Tile decay o f 129-1 ( 1 . 7 x l o 7 y e a r h a l f - l i f e ) is too slow

n

t Yi Id ; n o t i

V.22-35

18

l b l e b z n e f i t by i n - p l a n t holdup. (See Appendix 1I.F of t h e F i n a l S t a t e n e n t ) .

42. Coment (page 9 ) :

7-38 "The g e n e r a l approach t o impact d i s c u s s i o n seems t o b e t h a t where t h e haza rd is r e a l l y ; ;reat , e n g i n e e r i n g is p o s t u l a t e d t o make t h e hazard ' i x r d i b l e ' and, t h e r e f o r e , i t can be ignored. i n h y p o t h e t i c a l a c c i d e n t s b u t Pu02 i s n o t . wors t - case a c c i d e n t s shou ld be d i s c u s s e d , even though of hoped f o r low p r o b a b i l i t y . "

Thus U 0 2 and L;F2 are al.lowed t o e sczpe c o n t a i n n c n t Consequences o f

Response :

The impact of a c c i d e n t s i n v o l v j n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n was p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.5 of t h e D r a f t S t a t emen t . A n e w Section ( 4 . 5 . 7 ) discussin:: conseniicrices (and r i s k s ) of soxe wors t - case a c c i d e n t s h a s been added t o t h e F i n a l State- nen t .

4 3 . Cornilent ( p a p 9 ) :

7-41 "\.Riat f r a c t i o n s of casks f o r LEIFBR can l i k e l y be sh ipped by barge?"

g % z n E :

All LNFBR s p e n t f u e l s!iipping casks could b e sh ipped by ba rge . due t o t r a v e l t i x e a n i s i t e l o c a t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , o n l y a snall f r a c - t i o n would be sl i ipped by barge.

Ho~~ever ,

4 4 . Cor:,r.ent (page 9) :

7-42 "With reGard t o t h e RSSF, t h e s t a t e n e n t t h a t " t h e requirement for con t inued hunan a c t i o n i n no way weakens t h e s a f e t y of t he surface 5 t o rnge approach t o nnnageraent of h i g h - l e v e l v a s te" i s an a f f r o n t t o cornton sense . 'I

"Such advocacy of a n e x p e d i a n t , r e c e n t s o l u t i o n t o a long- n e g l e c t e d p rob len area d e s t r o y s c r e d i b i l i t y w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e whole r e p o r t . "

Response :

The AEX a g r e e s w i t h t h e iIACEX view t h a t , all o t h e r f a c t o r s b e i n g e q u a l , approaches which do n o t r e q u i r e p e r p e t u a l s u r v e i l l a n c e m y be safer sirice

V .22 - 36

19

the p o t e n t i a l f o r huran e r r o r ~ou1 .d be reduced. The s e n t e n c e has been r e v i s e d i n t h e F i n a l Statement as fo l lows - "The AEC f e e l s t h a t i f managcmnt t echn iques can be tlcveloped which arc e q u a l l y s a f e and which would e l i n i n a t e , o r a t l e a s t rLnird.zc, this requ i r emen t , t hey shou ld be used. ' I

45. Cormcnts (page 9):

7-55 "Sabotage is rientionetl i n t h i s c o n c e p t , where i t i s l e a s t c r e d i b l e . :Ihy is it n o t d i s c u s s e d a t each s t e p of t h e proposed f u e l c y c l e ?

"It i s s t a t e d t!iat:

i t i e s r e s u l t i n ; i n r F d i o l o S i c a 1 i n c i d e n t s r u s t a l s o be cons idc rcd . Y e t t h i s i s n o t done c o n s i s t e n t l y t l irouzhout t h e r e p o r t .

7-64 'The p o s s i b i l i t y of satota,?e of f a c i l -

7-72 "What abou t i n h e r e n t s a b o t a z e p r o t e c t i o n f o r f u e l c y c l e " co:nponents o t h e r t!ian tlie r e a c t o r ? "

Response:

The F i n a l S t a t e r i en t ;)rovides a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r n a t i o n on t h e s u b j e c t of s a b o t a z e . In p a r t i c u L n r , Sccticn 7 . 4 . 3 r e c o y n i z e s t h a t sabota;.,c is one of the cl-asscc; of C V C ~ ~ S vtiich f a l l vi . thin tlie o v e r a l l t h r c n t which n u s t be d e a l t d t l l , and S e c t i o n 7 . 4 . 5 . 2 disck.sscs t n e consequ3nces of s u c c e s s f u l sabota:;e of' n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s and t r a n s p o r t . I n t h e l a t t e r S e c t i o n , i t is po in ted o u t t h a t s i : : n i f i can t a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t xi11 be r e q u i r e d t o conf i rn i tile c u r r e n t promise t h a t t h e consequences of f a c i l i t y sabotaGe are similnz- t o t h o s e of f a c i l i t y x c i d e n t s , and a d d i t i o n a l safeguards i . ea su res ray bc ncedcd t o a s s u r e t h a t consequences of t r a n s p o r t s a b o t n z e are h e l d t o a c c e p t a b l y low l eve l s .

4 6 . Cor%ment ( p a p 9 ) :

9.1-2 "Figure 9.1-1. V i 1 1 f o s s i l f u e l peaking u n i t s r e a l l y d e c r e a s e so nuch, percentage-:rise, r e l a t i v e t o central s t a t i o n c a p a c i t y ?

Response :

The n u s e r i c a l d a t a i n t h e p r o j e c t i o n a r e a5 f o l l o w s :

n

n

Year

19 70 19 80 J.930 2000 20 10 2020

-

V.22-37

20

Capaci ty Cont r ibu t ion , ?e rcen t of To ta l I n t . Conb Pumped Gas Turb. - StoraZe --

5.5 8.0 7.7 6.8 5.5 4.3

1.1 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.3 2.6

Thus, i n 2020, t he peaking capac i ty from Pumped Storage , I n t e r n a l Combustion, and G a s Turbine f a c i l i t i e s would approximate i ts p resen t con t r i b u t i on.

- 47. Contnent (page 9 ) :

9.1-4 "I f fossil f u e l sys t en capac i ty is inc reas ing exponen t i a l ly a t . yea r 2020, as shc;Fm i n Figures 9.12 t o 9.13, is t h i s c o n s i s t e n t

w i th c o a l p r o j e c t i o n s i n FiSure 9.1-4 t o 9.1-G? A l l pro jec t ions should extend t o 2020.

Response :

Figures 9.1-2 and 9.1-3 dep ic t c a p a c i t y p r o j e c t i o n s , whi le f i g u r e 9.1-4 d e p i c t s g e n e r a t i o n p ro jec t ions . I t i s expecced t h a t f o s s i l f u e l p l a n t s will opera t e a t lower p l a n t f a c t o r s than nuc lear p l a n t s (because the "var iab le" c o s t s of f o s s i l f u e l p l a n t s are l a r p r than f o r nuc lea r p l a n t s ) . Thus , even though t h e r e is an inc rease i n coal-fueled capac i ty between 1990 and 2000, the genera t ion does not i nc rease s u b s t a n t i a l l y . It does i nc rease a f t e r 2000.

48. Coment (paze 9):

"Curies of waste should be l i s t e d a l s o . Plore important than volume. I'

Response:

Volume u n i t s were used because they do not change wi th t ine, un l ike the r a d i o a c t i v e conten t which does. Table 9.1-5 i n t h e F i n a l Statement l i s t s c u r i e s of waste.

In response t o your conment and o t h e r s ,


"The release nurnbers i n Table 9.1-4 are whatever t h e AEC and the manufacturer ' s dec ide t o engineer . \%Thy b i a s the LTJR i n t h i s way r e l a t i v e t o UIFBR?"

v .22-3a

2 1

Response-:

The LWR, IMFBR, and IITGR were trcatecd on a c o n s i s t e n t b a s i s , with the poss ib l e except ion of n&le gas b o t t i i n r : a t Lhr reac tor . I f noble gas b o t t l i n g a r e used a t L:dR's and tITL'c,Il's, t h e Krypton r e l e a s e would ba reduced by about 20X a t 1.NX's and 337, a t WTCF,'s. The Xenon r e l e a s e s could be reduced t o i X of t h e i r valucs i n t he Draf t Statemect. Table 9.1-4 now r e f l e c t s this.

50. Ccment (page 10):

9.1-32 "Table 9.1-7. cases? Again seems t o d e l i b e r a t e l y b i a s f o r t he LME'BR.

Why not conta in the Krypton i n the,LWR and HTGK

Response:

This table has been revised i n the F!.nal Statement. Also see response above.

51. 9nr1wnt (page 10):

9-1-34 "Can Table 9 . i , -8 numbers be j u s t i f i e d f o r 30 day cooled spent fUtZl?''

Response :

They are not j u s t i f i e d f o r 30-day cooled fuel. They are f o r 12043y cooled f w 1 , which is coi i s i s ten t wi th t h e assumptions i n t h e c o g t l b e n e f i t study.

--- - -----.--

52. Conmei!t (page IO):

9.1-69 "iIc~w c7n one claim t h e r e w i l l be less r ad ioac t ive r e l c a s a s from LMFXR except a3 a chos?n design ob jec t ive? t r d y ' a r r i v e d ' , cr lw so nany unanswered design and process q W 5 t i O n S a l luded t o e a r l i c r ? "

I f t he L'IFSR has

Response:

The r e l e a s e s , on t h e whole, tend to be lower f o r t h e LTIE?BR becausc certain process v x i a b l c s tend t o favor rad ionucl ide r e t e n t i o n i n L!fFBR systems. For example, the a f f i n i t y of t r i t i u m f o r sodium permits "capture" and handl ing of t h e t r i t i u m as an e a s i l y contained s o l i d . I n o the r s y s t e m , i t is prestimd t o d i f f u s e through systems designed t o coa ta in o the r rad ionucl ides .

-

V.22-39

22

The LMFBR h a s "a r r ived" i n t h e s e n s e t h a t m n y of t h e developmen: problems have been f aced and so lved m d t h e emphasis now is on d e s i g n z,nd o p e r a t i o n of a n e a r l y f u l l - s i z e system. T h e same cannot be s a i d f o r many of t h c a l t e r n a t i v e s . N a t u r a l l y , some prob1e.m remain i n L:iFBF. s y s t e a s (as they do i n c o a l and o t h e r s y s t m s j and i n t h a t s e n s e , i t is s t i l l developmental . Perhaps t h e key p o i n t is t h a t i n d u s t r y f e e l s i t knows what t h e problems a r e , and can now t u r n t o t h e i r s o l u t i o n .


9.2-5 "If d i s m a n t l i n g c o s t s are p r e s e n t l y 10-152 of c o n s t r u c t i o n C Q S t S , t hcn a c o n s e r v a t i v e assumption is t h a t t h e y w i l l escalate a t a l a r g e f r a c t i o n of t h e d i s c o u n t ra te p e r c e n t a g e and w i l l a lways be a n a p p r e c i a b l e f r a c t i o n i n c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s . "

Response:

The c o s t - b c n c f i t a n a l y s i s p r i m a r i l y compares t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n c o s t s between two a l l - n u c l e a r pcwer gc i i c ra t ing systems which supp ly a f i x e d p o r t i o n of tli? e lec t r ic energy denand. One c a s e has t h e L:FFBR avai3,:b;e as an o p t i o n , the o t h e r docs n o t . There is little d i f f e r e n c e between d e w m d s s i o n i n g c o s t s f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t r e a c t o r t ypes .

54. Comncnt (page 10) :

10-2 7 "Som cstirnate shou ld be made of t h e s e c u r i t y - s a f e g u a r d s p e r s o n n e l l i k e l y t o be needed in Pu-economy."

Response :

A d i s c u s s i o n of the s e c u r i t y - s a f e g u a r d s p e r s o n n e l r equ i r emen t s i s g iven i n S e c t i o n 7.4.9 of t h e F i n a l Statement . E s t i n a t e s of numbers of p e r s o n n e l needed are included.

55. Corncent (page 1.0):

10-34 "The argument about man-made a r t i f a c t s is p a r t i c u l a r l y specious. O f what r e l e v a n c e to t h e p e r p e t u a l % u a r d i a n s h i p of hiRh-leite'l wastes is i t t h a t man-nqde a r t i f a c t s were c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s p r e v e n t i n g physical d e t e r i o r a t i o n f o r O Y P ~ 1000 yea r s . I t is n o r e r e l e v a n t t o p o i n t o u t t h a t Icin p r c b o b l y d e s t r o y e d or d i s p e r s e d a l l b u t a t i n y s u r v i v i n g f r a c t i o n of s u c h a r t i f a c t s . ' '

V .22-40

2 3 Res p onsc :

This po in t has x r i t ; the a r g m s n t has bzen removed f r o q t h e F i n a l S ta te - nient.


10 - 35 '%hat happens when a p o r t i o n of t he hunan race doesn ' t d e s i r e t he safekeeping of t hese wastes? sabotage of t he inc rcd ib ly s p a t i a l l y concent ra ted RSSF and NGSF should be addressed."

The ques t ion of nuc lea r

Response:

It is assumed t h a t t he human race w i l l a c t - r a t i o n a l l y and reasonably wi th r e s p e c t t o the s a f e k e e p i n g of n x l c a x wastes. Nevertheless , t he ques t ion of nuc lear sabotage of the KSSF and IiGSF is discussed in Sect ions 7.4.1.2 and 7.4.1.4 of the F i n a l Statement.

n

57. Cornrnent (page l o ) :

10-36 "The minimum o b l i g a t i o n t o f u t u r e genera t ions of merely main ta in ing rccords of r a d i o a c t i v e waste seems l i k e a mininun n o r a l i t y indeed. 'I

R e s pons e :

The sen tence i n the Drait Statement was intended t o read: 'I... ob l iga t ions assed 2% t o (cr acqiL':ircd&) f u t u r e genera t ions would involve the keeping

z f records. . . " ~ ~ - & > ~ ~ l o n 5 . f t . 2 . 2 of the F i n a l Statement. a matter of mora l i ty . It i s simply the minixurn requirement t o i n s u r e a g a i n s t any uoss ib l e i n t r u s i o n i n t o n r a d i o a c t i v e waste d i s p o s a l s i t e . When a n u l t i m a t e d i s p o s a l riethod is dccidcd on and u t i l i z e d , i t is going t o p l ace t h e w ~ s t e i n an i n a c c e s s i b l e place. ogy t o put i t t h e r e and it w i l l take a hich technology t o i n t r u d e on i t . Cer t a in ly a ' s o c i e t y wi th the c a p a b i l i t y f o r i n t r u s i o n should have t h e c a p a b i l i t y to m i n t n i n records t o avoid in t rus ion . Conversely, i f a f u t u r e s o c i e t y lacks t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o ma?ntain records i t is h igh ly improbable t h a t they will have the technology t o permit i nadve r t en t i n t r u s i o n on a waste d i s p o s a l s i te.

T h i s is not

It w i l l t ake a high technoi-

58. Comnient (page 10):

11.1-3 'I A more d i r e c t ccns ide rn t ioa of the f i r s t CEQ a l t e r n a t i v e should be given i n d e t a i l . The idea t h a t no a c t i o n of t h e LXFBR n e c e s s i t a t z s supplyin:: t h e pro jec ted anount of e l e c t r i c i t y needs by c t h c r systerns is not i n any sense p a r t of t h e i r f i r s t a l t c r - na t ive . I t , i n f a c t , fo rec loses the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e d i scuss ion ;

n

V.22-41

24

"Whether energy s h o d d be produced and w h a t l ev$? of enezgy consumption is c o n s i s t e n t wi th economic and e n v i r o n x n t a l cons ide ra t ions .'I

Response :

The e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of e l e c t r i c i t y needs on L W B R b e n e f i t s w a s t r e e t e d Ly inc lud ing s e n s i t i v i t y cases wi th e l e c t r i c i t y consunption above and below t he base csse p ro jec t ion . The F i i d Statement e x t e d s t h e lover s i 4 e of t h i s range to 502 below the base p r o j e c t i o n of year 2020 e l e c t r i c i t y use.

Discussion of t he r o l e of energy i n economic growth is inc luded i n S e c t i m 5, which shows r e l a t i o n s between energy and Llie GXP.

59. Cormnent (pages 10-11):

11.1-4 "How can decommissioning c o s t s be s o conf iden t ly dismissed in t h e f a c e of similar u n c e r t a i n t i e s ? n

Response:

Decommissioning c o s t s are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 9.2. The p resen t worth of f u t u r e decoru iss ioning c o s t s would be only about 1% of t h e o r i g i n a l c a n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s fo r f v t u r e LIiFBRs.

60. Comment- (page 11) :

11.2-5 "Thc l o w energy case , -20% of p ro jec t ed 2020 usage is no t a t all conserva t ive . S lJbs tzn t ia l decrease i n usage, ( f a c t o r s of 2-3) sllch as t h a t pos tu l a t ed by the recent Ford Foundation .itudy, should b e included i n t h e cos t /be r i c f i t analysis ."

Response:

The F i n a l SLtatenent i nc ludes cases wi th e l e c t r i c i t y deiiand i n the year 2020 which a r e 50% lower than t h e base case.

61. Comme2t (page 11):

11.2-8 I' Thrcc-hundred and s i x t y - f i v e day coo l ing is t r e a t e d as an except ion i n c d s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , bu t is t h e assumed cool ing per iod i n d i scuss ing envi ronmentd impact. This seems l i k e a convenient double s tandard t o h i g h l i g h t f avorab le f a c t o r s .

"A case should be r an wi th o p t i m i s t i c uranium supply, low energy demnd ( f a c t o r of 2-3), 1991 i n t r o d u c t i o n of LPIPBR, h i g h U F B R c a p i t d c o s t s , 365 day coo l ing and no ca rb ida fuel."

11.2-13

V .22-42

Response :

n

The. s h o r t e r (120 days) c o o l i n g t i m e was used as t h e b a s s case s i n c e t h a t approximately r e p r e s e n t s t h e AEC g o a l i n f u e l r e c y c l e development programs. The e f f e c t of a l o n g e r c o o l i n g t i m e on LYFBR b e n e f i t s was t e s t e d i n some of t h e case v a r i a t i o n s . While t h e s h o r t e r c o o l i n g t i m e produces a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t s ample t o j u s t i f y t h e f u e l c y c l e RQD, i t is not e s s e n t i a l t o t h e economic s'iccess of t h e LNFBR.

Cases s i m i l a r t o t h e one d e s c r i b e d were run and inc luded i n t h e F i n a l Statement .


11.2-14

Response:

It should stream o f amount t o

"Can a net s a v i n g s of o n l y 11% h t h e discountecl c o s t of power be viewed a3 s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h a l l t h e d e s i g n and process u n c e r t a i n t i e s of t h e LMFBR?"

b

be noted t h a t t h i s 11% saving is based on a h e a v i l y ciiscountea f u t u r e b e n e f i t s . The undiscounted b e n e f i t s i n t h e b a s e c a s e about 1 . 7 t r i l l i o n d o l l a r s , o r about 25% r e d u c t i o n i n t h e

undiscounted c o s t of power. A ra te o f r e t u r n a n a l y s i s shows t h i s t o be e q u i v a l e n t t o a n e f f e c t i v e 14% y e a r l y ra te of r e t u r n on t h e R&D inves tment . These results i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s a v i n g s are s i g n i f i c a n t and adequate t o j u s t i f y t h e R&D costs.

63. Coment (page 1 1 ) :

11.2-7 "Does Table 11.2-5 assume 365 day c o o l i n g o f f u e l ? What is i c c l u d e d under insurance? Where is t h e P r i c e Anderson A c t d i s c u s s e d , and t h e hidden s u b s i d y c o s t t h a t i t r e p r e s e n t s ? "

Response:

Table 11.2-5 a p p l i e s t o t h e b a s e c a s e comparisons (case 3 v e r s u s 1 ) and t h e r e f o r e assumes 120 days c o o l i n g of t h e s p e n t f u e l . Case 30 v e r s u s case 1 shows t h e d iscounted b e n e f i t t o be reduced by about $4 b i l l i o n (% 6 % ) when 365-day c o o l i n g is assumed.

The i n s u r a n c e i n c l u d e s n u c l e a r l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e and p r o p e r t y i r s u r a n c e premium c o s t s . 64. Comment (page 1 1 ) :

11.3-2 "The impacts o f a l t e r n a t i v e energy systems should b e compared f o r t h e case ~f d r a s t i c a l l y lower enerEy use a l s o , e .g . , Ford Founda tiori z e r o growth" case. I'

n

V. 22-43

Response:

This s e c t i o n ( l l . 3 - 2 ) of the i-eport dea l s wi th t h e u n i t annual impacts of i n d i v i d u a l genera t ing p l a n t s and t h e r e f o r e is no t based on any energy growth p ro jec t ion . The zero energy growth case is discussed from t h e viewpoint of energy conserva t ion i n Sec t ion 6C.

65 , Comment (page 11):

11.3-3 I f t h e comparison of t o t a l impacts emphasizes only 'cornon or everyday v a r i e t y risks' t h e conclusion is foregone since t h e assumption is m d e t h a t t he LJfFBR f u e l c y c l e w s b e designed and opera ted t o nake impacts i e g l i g i b l e . "

Res p mse :

We have at tempted t o i d e n t i f y and e v a l u a t e a l l t h e r i s k s and i n i p a c t s a s s o c i a t e d wi th b u i l d i r g and ope ra t ing t h e UIFBR. The e f f e c t s shown i n t h i s s e c t i o n result f;om a comprehensive s tudy slid are be l ieved t o r e a l i s t i c a l l y r ep resen t t he e f f e c t s from t h e LPIFBR. The LEPER fuel c y c l e w i l l indeed he designed and opera ted i n such a way t h a t r i s k s and hazards are minimized. t h e AEC and the publ ic .

Any o t h e r course would be unacceptable t o


11.3-13 "Table 11.3-5 assumes 20 man-rems i n r ep rocess ing p l a n t , qs 20 man-rems f o r t he LVR. Why? Is t h e 30 day cool ing case assumed here?"

Response:

The va lues a c t u a l l y shown f o r dose rece ived i n f u e l reprocess ing are 20 man-rems f o r t h z TXE'BR and 30 man-rems f o r t h e LWR. A s noted i n Tables 11.3-3, 11.3-4, and 11.3-5 of t h e Dra f t Statement , a l l systems dssurne the same va lue f o r r ep rocess ing dose pe r u n i t of f u e l reprocessed , namely 1 man-rem pe r metric ton of f u e l . S ince t h e U W R R r e q u i r e s process ing of only m o - t h i r d s as much f u e l is t he LWR, t h e dose is only 20 man-rems versus 30 man-rems f o r t h e LWR. These dose rates assume about 365 days f i s s i o n product decay p r i o r tc reprocess ing .

11.3-17 "The 'upper limits' of pt ibl ic h e a l t h e f f e c t s f o r t h e nuc lea r fuel cyc le s assume no Rerious acc iden t s can occur. Is t h i s normal usage of t h e term?"

V.22-44

27

Response:

The pub l i c h e a l t h e f f e c t s result mostly f ron t h e im?acts of day-to-day opers t ion . Reaztor a.nd sewicc f a c l l i t i c s for nuclear p l a n t s are desiqced t o make the p r o b a b i l i t y of serio:is acc iden t s very sna l l and t o p r o t e c t the pub l i c from acc iden t consequences. Therefore , the average zon t r ibu t ion of accfdents t o pub l i c health e f f e c t s i s p red ic t ed t o be, exceedingly small i n comparlson to t he e f f e c t s from r o u t i n e opera t ions .


11.3-34 "If t h e !JlE'BR r ep laces r e t i r e d f o s s i l capac i ty a f t e r year 2000, why does t h e f o s s i l component :n Figures 9.1-2 and 9.1-3 keep r i s ing?"

Response :

As descr ibed 0'1 Fsges 11.3-33 and 11.3-34 of t h e Dra f t Statement, t h i s s e c t i o n cors idered t h r e e s impl i f i ed "scenarios" , which r ep resen t a modi f ica t ion f r o n the c o s t l b e n e f i t assumptions used i n Sec t ion 11.2. These s inp l j - f i ed scena r ios we-e s e l e c t e d t o r ep resen t t h e range of views suggested by var ious i n d i v i d u a l s , from a no-fission-energy case t o a very l a r g e c o m i t n e n t t o tha LEIFBR. F igcres 9.1-2 and 9.1-3 is t h e 402 of t o t a l e l e c t r i c a l capac i ty which was ass igned t o f o s s i l ancf other systems i n t h e c o s t / b e n e f i t s tud ie s .

The f o s s i l component shown i n


11.3-42 " I f t hese f a t a l i t y numbers were r e a l l y credi'ole, then why is Price-Anderson necessary fo:: nuc lear and not f o r coal?"

Response :

The bases f o r t h c f a t a l i t y s t a t i s t i c s are d iscussed i n Sec t ions 9 and 11 and iii t he re ferenced suppor t ing n a t e r i a l . by t h c exper ience to d a t e and i n d i c a t e t h a t s o c i e t y is paying a high price, indeed, f o r t he use of coal.

Zlaese s ta t is t ics are supported

70. Comnent (page 12):

11.4-1 'The key a l t e r n a t i v e is l e f t out , namely, reducing energy 'needs' by cons5rvatLon and o t h e r means. o t h e r p laces i n WASH-1535, t he presumed continued exponent ia l growth (give o r takn- a token 20%) i n e l e c t r i c i t y use dominates t h e whole discussion. I'

Here, a s i n many

9

9

V.22-45

2 5

Response:

See r e p l i e s t o comen tn on 11.1-3 and 11.2-5.

71. CorilIncnt (page 12):

11.4-2 "A q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l e s son can be infe;.red from t h e r e c e n t o i l 'crisis ': e.g. , look a t t he l i v e s saved by speed and mileage r educ t ions i n au to t r a v e l and the p o t e n t i a l be. icf i ts from a s h i f t t o bus, t raFn and nass t r a n s i t . Where, i n t h i s report, is a ser€ous a t tempt made t o determine t h e ' f u tu re ' real need for energy? ' The r e p o r t s e e m t o u n c r i t i c a l l y accept the h i s t o r i c a l increase!"

Res p ors e :

The r e fe renced s e z t i o n of text d i scusses i h e impact of inadequate planning wi th r e s u l t a n t d i s r u p t i o n s , no t t he impact of reduced eneryy usape. Speed l i m i t s could have been reduced be fo re &he ' o i l crisis ' , i f t he p u b l i c demanded.

72. Coment (page 12):

11.4-3 llhy lclrap solnr energy recovery wi th fus iou? One has been denlonstrated and the o t h e r has not. c e n t r a l s t a t i o n s o l a r e l e c t r i c p l a n t s i f s o l a r hea t ing and cool ing of bu i ld ings is appl ied . I f Kansas C i ty Posrer and Light p ro jec t ions are t y p i c a l , one of t h a b i g f u t u r e fo rces f o r increasing growth i n demand w i l l be f o r e l e c t r i c a l space hea t ing . ' I

One doesn ' t need as many

Response :

On page 11.4-3 of t he Dra f t Statement , t h e energy systems were ca tegor i zed i n two broad groups, those p re sen t ly being use6 (such as LCP. and f o s s i l systems) and those which may be a v a i l a b l e i n t h e fu tu re . C lea r ly , s o l a r energy f o r c e n t r a l s t a t i o n electric p l a n t s f a l l s i n the second broad ca tegory , a l though s o l a r conversion has been appl ied i n s p e c i a l circum- s t ances . On pages 11.4-13 and 11.4-1 of t h e Dra f t S t a t m e n t , t h e p o s s i b l e role of s o l a r hea t ing and coo l ing of bu i ld ings w a s discussed. By l i m i t i n g nuc lea r power t o 60% of the p ro jec t ed e l e c t r i c i t y needs, and us ing v a r i a t i o n s on t h e base case p ro jec t ions , t he p o s s i b l e r o l e of s o l a r shoirld be adequately covered.

j


11.4-13 "Again, teems t o assune c e n t r a l s t a t i o n needs are irnnnrne t o !.ky ar2 not zindpower and solar space hentii;g a d ceol inz .

conserva t ion mentioced a t t h i s po in t?"

V.22-46

29 Iiespunse:

These t o p i c s are a d e q u a t e l y d i s c u s s e d i r i S e c t i o n s GA.G.l and 6C, respccc ivd?y .

11.5-17 "The c o n c o u i t a n t b e n e f i t of deve lop ing and e x p o r t i n g e x p e r t i s e i n s o l a r , wind, and g c o t h e n c a l is ignored."

Respoiise:

Ir'hile t h e r e nay h e p o s s i b i l i t ' e s f o r e x p o r t i n g technology and /o r equiprient f o r tlicsc s y s t e ~ . ~ s , t!iat h a s no b e a r i n g on t h e s u b j e c t of whether t o i i i p o r t L : E X technology.

-

75. Corii:m: (page 12):

11.4-23 "'llie ' ev idence ' t h a t t h e b r e e d e r shou ld be viewed as r? l a s t r e s o r t is t h e conce rn a b o u t t h e unanswered q u e s t i o n s of sabotage l'u d i v e r s i o n and a c c u n u l a t i o n of h i g h l e v e l

Response :

These q u e s t i o n s have been c o n s i d e r e d , and tlicy are b e l i e v e d n o t t o p r o v i d e "evidence" f o r h o l d i n g t h e b r e e d e r as a l a s t r e s o r t .

76. Cor unent (pages 12-13) :

111-A-1 "Is i t r e a l l y contended t h a t p r e s e n t s a f e g u a r d s are adequa te f o r p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t d e d i c a i x d g roups of s u i c i d a l t e r r o r i s t s and o t h e r low probab i l . i t y t h r e a t s ?

Res pons e :

The adequacy of p r e s e n t s a f e g u a r d s is d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 7.4.7.6 of t h e F i n a l S t a t emen t . It is i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t system n i g h t n o t be e f f e c t i v e Gga ins t l a r g e , h e a v i l y a r m d f o r c e s . It is p o s s i b l e t o i n a g i n e t h a t s txh a f o r c e cou ld b e conposed of s u i c i d a l t e r r o r i s t s , b u t t h i s is judged t o b e h i g h l y improbable.

77. Cotlnent (pages 12-13):

1 1 1 4 - 2 " Y i e l d s and c i r c u n s t a r i c e s f o r u s e of i l l e g a l weapons can be p r e d i c t e d . The IlcPhee-Taylor series i n t h e iiew Yorker should be r e f e r e n c e d .

111-A-3

I1 I-A-5

V.22-47

30

"Cases of r a d i o l o g i c a l weapons use should be pos tu l a t ed . need no t w a i t t o knw by exper ience the method and circuiiistance of use.

One

"Are such dangers as Pu weapons manufacture and t h e ope ra t ion of a Pu b l ack market so c r e d i b l e t h a t d i scuss ing them wi th only u n c l a s s i f i e d , a v a i l a b l e information w i l l l e s s e n our secu r i ty?"

Response :

The manufacture and use of i l l e g a l nuc lear weapons are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 7.4.5.1 of t h e F ina l S ta tenent . It is agreed t h a t t he adversary may be. a b l e t o p r e d i c t t h e y i e l d and circumstances a t t e n d a n t upon detona- t i o n of a n i l l e g a l weapon; t hz AEC cannot p r e d i c t t hese f a c t o r s wi th c e r t a i n t y . However, t he s u b j e c t is t r e a t e d on a s p e c u l a t i v e b a s i s i n Sec t ion 7.4.5.1. The same is t r u e f o r t h e use of a r a d i o l o g i c a l weapon. Regarding t h e manufacture of a plutonium weapon, t h e AEC ag rees t h a t t h i s is a c r e d i b l e p o s s i b i l i t y , and i t s safeguards aystem has been and w i l l be desigiied using t h i s premise.

Sec t ion 5.4.2.1 of t he F ina l Statement d i scusses t h e problem of a p o t e n t i a l b l ack market i n plutonium.

78. Comments (pages 12-13):

XXI-A-3 "It can b e a l l eged t h a t t he RSSF, JGSF, and poss ib ly high- l e v e l l i q u i d waste s t o r a g e tanks a t f u e l reprocess ing p l a n t s do pose a p o s s i b l e nev and s i e n i f i c a n t t h r e a t t o our n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y . The e f f e c t s of a h igh-y ie ld nuc lea r weapon con- p l e t e l y c r a t e r i n g , and d i s p e r s i n z i n the atmosphere, t he RSSF a t year 2020 should be e s t i n a t e d and presented.

111-A-4 "If convent iona l weapons de tona t ion can damage nuc lea r f a c i l i t i e s o t h e r than r e a c t o r s , then the consequence should be est imated. Ches te r ' s s t u d i e s a t ORNL should be re ferenced i n t h i s context .

Response :

Sec t ion 7.4.4.1 of t h e F i n a l Statement expresses t h e AEC'S b e l i e f t h a t an enemy nuclear a t t a c k l i m i t e d t o U.S. nuc lear f u e l cyc le f a c i l i t i e s is no t c r e d i b l e , because i t would reave U.S . r e t a l i a t o r y fo rces and o t h e r war f i g h t i n g resources i n t a c t . -Consider ing an o v e r a l l s t r a t e g i c a t t a c k , i t is concluded t h a t t he consequences of a t t a c k on f u e l cyc le f a c i l i t i e s would be a r e l a t i v e l y small increment of t h e o v e r a l l consequences.

Ches te r ' s s t u d i e s on t h e v u l n e r a b i l i t y of nuc lea r r e a c t o r s t o nuc lear a t t a c k have been re ferenced and discussed. For t h e reason s t a t e d above,

V .22-48

31 f o r e i g n enemy use of convent iona l weapons a g a i n s t n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s is n o t cons idered c r e d i b l e , acd e s t i m a t i o n of consequences is n o t consid- e r e d t o b e warranted.

-

79. Comment (page 13-14) :

111-B, 2-6

"What s p e n t - f u e l coo1ir.g t ine is assumed i f b reeding by y e a r 2010 sustains a 62 y e a r l y electrical growth rate?"

Response :

F u e l c y c l e t imes f o r a l l c a l c u l a t i o n s are t a b u l a t e d i n Table 4.9 i n D r a f t Statement . P o s t - i r r a d i a t i o n s t o r a g e times f o r LWR, HTGR and LXFBR f u e l were assumed t o be 150, 90 and 120 days, r e s p e c t i v e l y . .

80. Coment (page 13) :

111-B, .' " I n c r e a s e of on ly $100 m i l l i o n f o r a 2000 ;.Ne p l a n t t h a t has 3-13 n o t y e t been designed does n o t seein conservat ive!"

Response:

The c a p i t a l c o s t d i f f e r e n t i a l between t h e e a r l y 1300 'ifh LNFRR and t h e 1300 1IT.Je L!Tf< :?as c a l c u l a t e d :o b e $85/iille and was c o n s e r v a t i v e l y se t a t $100/KWe i n t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s . T h e n u c l e a r s t e a n supply s y s t e n r e p r e s e n t s about 25% of t h e t o t a l ; t h e remainder is f a i r l y s t a n d a r d . A d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s are g iven i n S e c t i o n 11.2 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e n e n t .


111-3, why d o n ' t Table 3.3.5 'and Table 11.2-5 agree?" 3-21

Response:

Table 11.2-5 was i n c o r r e c t ; necessary c o r r e c t i o n s have been made i n t h e F i n a l Statement.


1 1 1 - B , "If p r o j e c t e d v a l u e s of s t u d y parameters r e p r e s e n t such a

have been cons idered f o r f u e l c y c l e impacts." 3-35 consensus, then st least t h e 120-day c o o l i n g case should

Response :

Appendix II.P, iqhich p e r t a i n s t o the i n p a c t of r e p r o c e s s i n z a t 120- and 30- day preprocess ing decay t i n e s , has been added t o t h e F i n a l S t a t e n e n t .

9

v.22-49

32

It is un l ike ly t h a t spent LHFSR f u e l cooled 180 days or less w i l l be shipped i n casks of p re sen t des ign ( see Sec t ion 7 . 3 . 4 of F i n a l Sts tement) and thus the impact of t r anspor t ing 180 day cooled f u e l is n o t addressed.

Other f u e l cyc le impacts ( i . e . dur inS f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n o r waste management) are r e l a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o cool ing t i n e .

~~ ~


111-B, 3-41

"What is t he an.iusl growth rate change t o produce only a net: v a r i a t i o n of 2 202 i n pro jec ted year-2020 demand?"

Res pons e :

The annual growth rate v a r i e s by about 5 IO%.

84. Comen'c (page 13 ) :

1 1 1 - B , "It would be h e l p f u l t o know how much capita!. c o s t s of a 1000

b e n e f i t advantage over LWR's f o r var ious assuxed parameters . 3-43 1,Ne L>IFBR would have to b e changed t o w i p e o u t t h e c o s t /

Res7onse :

S e c t i o a 11.2.4 cf :he F i n a l SLatenent desc r ibes t h e e f f e c t s of c a p i t a l cost assumptions on b e n e f i t s . compet i t ive.

Even wi th no " learning" the LIIE'BR is


111-B, "There seem t o be more cmcern about d i r e c t c o s t s of Pu

estima:es of hazards t o the environment as a func t ion of cpol ing t i m e . ' I

3- 49 i n v e n t o r i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o spen t f u d cool ing t i m e s than i n

Response:

Short- l ived i so topes c o n t r i b u t e heavi ly t o sh ipping hazards s o cooi ing t i m e is important . Plutoniunl r a d i o a c t i v i t y var ies l i t t l e wi th cool ing t i m e , bu t as a va luable material i t has high inventory charges.

86. Comment (page i3):

111-B, 2-60

"The f i g u r e s i n t h e r z fe rence case f o r f o s s i l mix do no t match those given i n Table 4.14."

V.22-50

3 3 Response :

The v a l u e s on p. 3-60 are in,correct i n t!ie Draft S ta temznt ; they have been c o r r e c t e d i n t h e F i n a l Statement .

87. Conqent (page 13):

1 1 1 - B , "If s ing le- loop c o o l i n g is contcn;plated then a c c i d e n t hazards 4-11 and r o u t i n e release should b e assessed i n earlier d i s c u s s i o n s .

" In Table 4.5 what c o o l i n g p e r i o d f o r s p e n t f u e l i s assumed?"

Response :

Contemplation of s i n g l e - l o o p c o o l i n g essumes e l i m i q a t i o n of need f o r t h e i n t s r m e d i a t e loop. A t t h i s time, t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e loop is necessary and w a s accounted f o r i n t h e economic and environmental a n a l y s e s .

UQBR spent f u e l c o o l i n g time w a s assumed t o b e 120 days. The c a p i t a l c o s t s l i s t e d i n Table 4.5 are r e l a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o c o o l i n g t i m e assumptions.

88. Com.ent (page 14) :

111-B, "HOV w i l l environmental impacts vary i f we go t o ' v e r y l a r g e 4-12 u n i t s ' ? "

Response :

They w i l l probably vary l i n e a r l y w i t h power l e v e l f o r LWBR power p l a n t s and w i t h throughput f o r f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n and f u e l r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t s .


li

r e p r o c e s s i n g es t ima t es ?I'

1 1 1 - B , . JJhat c o o l i n g t ime w a s assumed f o r s h i p p i n g c o s t and 4-18

Res pons e :

F u e l c y c l e times f o r a l l c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e l i s t e d i n Table 4.9 of t h e D r a f t Statement . LXFBR p o s t - i r r a d i a t i o n c o o l i n g t ine w a s assumed t o b e 120 days.


111-B, 4-20

"Why are f u e l c y c l e times f o r UWBR s p e n t f u e l s h i p p i n g and r e p r o c e s s i n g assumed to be f a s t e r t h a n LWR case?"

V.22-51

34

Res pons e :

The p o s t - i r r a d i a t i o n c o o l i n g times are chosen t o m i n i n i z e s h i p p i n s costs . The c o o l i n g tizc f o r L:T?;B!? f u e l was steaded f r o n 30 t o 120 days t o e l i m i n a t e inc ren ten ta l s h i p p i n g and r e p r o c e s s i n g ? l a n t e x p e n d i t u r e s r e l a t e d t o s h o r t - l i v e d isot .cpes I The r e p r o c e s s i n g t ine c o n s i s t s of pre- and pos t - r e p r o c e s s i n g i n v e n t o r y tiii.es i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e ac tua l . r e p r o c e s s - i n g t k e . EFBi7 f u e l has h i g h i n v e n t o r y c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o n t a i n e d plutonium, t h u s t h e p o s t - r e p r c c e s s i n z l n v e n t o r v t ine is reduced from 10 days to 5 days.

91. Conrnent (page 14):

111-B, 4-30

"\hat Lnsuracce c o s t s are r e f e r r e d t o ? w i t h o u t Price-Anderson o r w i t h 11zw p l a n s under c o n s i d e r a t l o n ? "

Ifow wou1.d. they d i f f e r

Response:

The i n s u r a n c e c o s t s d i s c u s s e d on p. 4-30 of t h e Dr-tfl: S t a t emen t cove red p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e . Pleaso- refer t o t h e r e s p o n s e t o y o c r cornment nuinbered 36 i n t h i s l e t t z r f o r d i s c u s s i o n of i n s u r a n c e c o s t s w i t h o u t Pri.ce-Aiiderson i n d e m i f i c a t i o n .

92. Conaaent. (page 1 4 ) :

111-B, "The ene rgy f o r e c a s t a s sumpt ion of Tab le 4.13 s e r i o u s l y

u s e shou ld b e c o n s i d e r e d as w e l l . " 4-31 b i a s e s a l t e r n a t i v e . The case of n e a r - z e r o p e r c a p i t a e n e r z y

Response :

An ene rgy &nand cu rve r e f l e c t i n g a 502 r e d u c t i o n i n t h e y e a r ZOO0 denand is c o n s i d e r e d in t h e F i n a l S t a t e n e c t as a s e n s i t i v i t y s t u d y .

93. Comeit (page 1 4 ) :

111-B, " I s n ' t t h e r e a r e c c n t t r e n d tocinrd h i g h e r ene rgy use p e r 4-32 G?P inc remen t ? I ' I

Response :

Yes, and i f t h e t r e n d c o n t i n u e s the e n e r g y demand may be g r e a t e r t han e s t i m a t e d i n Tab le 4 .13 .

94. C o m c n t (page 1 4 ) :

111-B, "Doesn't r e c e n t d a t a show t h a t t o t a l c o s t of e l e c t r i c i t y i s 4-33 r i s i n g f a s t e r t h a n tlie g e n e r a l p r i c e level?"

V.22-52

35

Response :

Recent e l e c t r i c i t y ?rice inc reases have been due l a r g e l y t o f o s s i l f u e l p r i c e inc reases , in f luenced by the quadrupl ing of fo re ign o i l p r i c e s wi th in t h e p a s t year. product ion which are r e l a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o f u e l cos t s .

This t rend w i l l f avor those systems of e l e c t r i c i t y


A-5 "Is a l l t h i s materials - engineer ing advance r e d l y more c r e d i b l e than s o l a r energy s t o r a g e and c o l l e c t i o n advances?

Response :

While i t would be s p e c u l a t i v e t o say i n whlch technology t h e p ro jec t ed advances are more l i k e l y to be achieved, it has been shown i n t h e Environ- mental Statement t h a t t he LXFBR is a t a more advanced s t a g e of techno- l o g i c a l development than s e v e r a l of t bc o t h e r energy sources considercd, such as ' s o l a r energy. Thus, t he a n t i c i p a t e d f u r t h e r advances i n IMFDR materials engineer ing r ep resen t t he consensus of very d e t a i l e d program planning t h a t has been undertaken i n the past and cont inues t o be r ev i sed as t he technolozy changes. While advances i n s o l a r energy s t o r a g e and c o l l e c t i o n technology m y a l s o be expected, i t appears t h a t those p ro jec t ed f o r LXFBR n a t e r i a l s engineer ing r ep resen t reasonable e x t r a p o l a t i o n of c u r r e n t technology and planning, 2nd c m be considered a t least as c r e d i b l e , i f n o t more so, as the more s p e c u l a t i v e p ro jec t ed advances i n s o l a r energy technology.


B-6 "Access to a " v i r t u a l l y limitless supply of low-cost electric- i t y , " even i f a t t a i n a b l e , should n o t be assumed t o be an unmit igated b l e s s ing . Adverse e f f e c t s of cheap energy and energy-intensive a p p l i c a t i o n s deserve cons ide ra t ion i n t h e broad focus t h a t t he C l F B R inpac t s ta tement should achieve." '

Res pons e :

Although w e would ag ree t h a t a limitless supply of low c o s t energy may no t be an "unmitigated b less ing" , h i s t o r y has shown t h a t t he a v a i l a b i l i t y of energy is c l o s e l y l i nked to a na t ion ' s economic growth. It would appear t h a t energy a v a i l a b i l i t y , assuming adequate p r o t e c t i o n of t he environment, is more o f a b le s s ing than not. Xever the lcss , t h e need t o use less energy is f u l l y d iscussed i n Sec t ion GC, and s e v e r a l views both f avor ing energy conserva t ion and c i t i n g i t s l imi t a t io t l s are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 6C.7.

V 22-53

36


A.5-4,6 "The t reatment of t he h i s t o r y and s t a t u s of s o l a r energy devices is u n f a i r l y shallow. Where are re fe rences t o r ecen t developments such as t h e ?USA-Lewis pa ten ted s o l a r heat ing-cool ing home system, t o name j u s t one?''

Response :

The t rea tment of s o l a r energy, a l though be l ieved t o have been adequate i n t h e Draf t Statement , has been expanded i n t h e F i n a l Statement t o r e f l e c t t h e views of t h e s e v e r a l commentera and to address i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l t h e development p lans f o r s o l a r energy as p ro jec t ed by s e v e r a l Qovernnent and i n d u s t r y planning bodies. Solar hea t ing and cool ing systems are d iscussed i n Sec t ions 6 A . 5 . 3 . 4 and 6A.5.5. -


A.5-15 ; "How can it be s t a t e d t h a t s o l a r coo l ing of bu i ld ings would no t a f f e c t u t i l i t y power system f a c i l i t i e s i n those l a r g e areas where peak load is corcinnted by summer h e a t waves?"

Response :

The s t a t e n a n t on page A.5-15 of t h e Draft r e f e r r e d t o t h e generp l cond i t ion t h a t bu i ld ings equipped wi th s o l a r e l e c t r i c systems would stij.1 r e q u i r e an e x t e r n a l source of power f o r use on cloudy days. I n the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a - t i o n r e f e r r e d t o i n the comment, i t is clear t h a t some reduct ion i n peak l e v e l requirement could be dchieved, provided t h a t a l a r g e number of homes end commercial and i n d u s t r i a l e n t e r p r i s e s on t h e u t i l i t y ' s pover system were equipped f o r s o l a r cool ing.


A.5-21 "What could s o l a r energy c o n t r i b u t e wi th a conmitnent of po l i cy a d f i n a n c i a l backing equal t o t h a t be ing given the IXFER?"

Response :

It is probably t r u e t h a t w i th f a r g r e a t e r f i n a n c i a l backing s o l a r energy could c o n t r i b u t e more and sooner t o meeting the Nat ion ' s energy requi re - ments than c u r r e n t l y an t r c ipa t ed . However, t h e sane t h i n g cat be s a i d about a lmost any t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e energy concept , inc luding the L?lFBR. The real ques t ion is no t " w i l l money help", bu t "how can t h e l i m i t e d funding a v a i l a b l e be u t i l i z e d i n such a manner as t o produce the g r e a t e s t l i k e l i h o o d of success i n developing new energy sources?" A r e l a t e d i s s u e is t h a t t h e amount of money which can prudent ly b e spen t on a developing

V . 22-54

37

technolony depends h e z v i l y on v h e t h e r t h e technolo,:;r is a t a n e a r l y sta;e of developcient (such as e s s e r t i a l l y s c i e n t i f i c e x p l o r a t i o n of b a s i c c.ner,;y conve r s ion p r i n c i p l e s ) , as i n t h e case of s o l a r ene rgy , o r whether i t has r e a d i e d t h e stace of be ing ready f o r d e n o n s t a t i o n power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n , as i n t h e case of t h e ElFBR. C l e a r l y t h e l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n w i l l require l a r g e r amounts of funds. I t mit,ht a l s o b e nen t ioned t h a t i f t h e m r e advanced program is n o t pursued and i f t h e a l . t c r n a t i v e energy s o u r c e s were n o t r e a l j z e d , t h e n t h e c o s t t o s o c i e t y would be t o o l a r s e t o measure i n d o l l a r s nlone. 'Zhcse i s s u e s are d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n t h e P e r s p e c t i v e s s e c t i o n of S e c t i o n 6 i n t h e F i n a l Statement .

100. Coiainent (page 15) :

A.5-30 "Is t h e 15.52 c a p i t a l cha rge c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e numbers used i n S e c t i o n 4 of Appendix IXf-B?"

Response:

The fixd c a p i t a l c h a r g e rste used by t h e ilSF-NASA S o l a r Energy Pane l i s abou t lGZ hiG!ier t han tho cha rge ra te computed from economic pa rame te r s used i n t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s i n Appendix 111-B of t h e D r a f t Stat i . - r e n t . Appeudix ILI-B used a cash f l o w method which e x p l i c i t l y cnplcjs each of t h e c o s t components which are sonet imes combined i n t o a f i x e d cha rge sate. .I f i x e d cha rge rate on d e p r e c i a b l e c a p i t a l Lased on tLe econor;ic d a t a i n Appendix 1II-B would be 14.3X, a s w a s siiorm in f d b l e 4.2. The econonic parameters used t o compute t h i s d a t a a r e based on a v e r a g e electric u t i l i t y financirip, d a t a fo r 1972, t h e l a s t Full. y e a r f o r which d a t a were a v a i l a b l e vhen t h e s t u d y was i n i t i a t e d . You may wish t o r e f e r t o t h e r e f e r e n c e d ;:SF-NASA P a n e l r e p o r t Far f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e b a s i s on which t h e i r f i x e d c a p i t a l c h a r g e ra te was ob t n ine c! . 101. Conrnent (page 15):

A.5-34 "ilow n i n o r w i l l s o l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s be by y e a r 2000? f e a s i b l e upper pei-cent limits f o r r e p l a c i n g e lec t r ic h e a t i n g and a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g . ' I

Give

Response :

As now r e p o r t e d i n t h e F i n a l S t a t emen t ( S e c t i o n 68.5.8) , t h e impact of s o l a r ene rgy on t o t a l e l e c t r i c i t y p roduc t ion i s expec ted t o be a b o u t 24, a t l e a s t u n t i l t h e y e a r 2000. The e s t e n t t o which s o l a r energy n a p b e used t o r e p l a c e electric h e a t i n g and a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g will depend on t h e s u c c e s s of r e s e a r c n and development a c t i v i t i e s and on t h e r e s u l t i n g economics of s o l a r h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g systems. S e c t i o n 6.1.5.5 of t h e F i n a l Statement shows t h a t p r o j e c t i o n s of t h e p o r t i o n of b u i l d i n g t h e r r a 1 ene rgy s u p p l i e d by s o l a r power range from 10% t o 30% by t h e y e a r 2000.

V. 22 -55

38

102. Conint-nt (page J-5):

A. 6-1 "iiere, as el.sewtiere, c o n t r i b u t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l a l t e r n a t i v e s are made t o look small when compared w i t h p r o j e c t e d e x p o n e n t i a l growth i n e l e c t r i c i t y . I f p e r capi ta energy and e l e c t r i c i t y u s e were held c o n s t a n t , how iclportant cou ld wind-power be?"

Response:

The p r o j e c t e d c o n t r i b u t i o n froni wind power is b e l i e v e d t o be s m a l l r ega rd - less of t h e b a s e of e l ec t r i c energy r e q u i r e n e n t s used. A s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6A.6 .1 .3 , t h e 1;SF-I~lASb S o l a r Energy P a n e l has p r o j e c t e d t h e ciarket p e n e t r a t i o n , even f o l l o w i n g a s u c c e s s f u l developnent prograr5, t o be on ly abou t 1;; of t o t a l e l ec t r i ca l p roduc t ion by t h e year 2000. Even i f per capi.to energy LT..SC were h e l d c o n s t a n t , which does n o t a p p e a r . t o Le l i k e l y , wind power wodld n o t b c a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n c r i b u t e r t o our e l ec t r i c power r e q u i r e r x x t s . There are o t h e r nore o p t i r i i s t i c p r o j e c t i o n s made f o r wind- power. The Sub-Panel I X group p r o j e c t s t h a t abou t 19;: of ou r e lec t r ica l needs cou ld be net i n t h e y e a r 2000 by windpower. to t h e riaxinun a v n i l a b i e wind energy e s t i r i o t e d by t h e NSF-!IASh pane l , and t h e AEC does n o t b e l i e v e t h i s t o be a r e a l i s t i c p o s s i b i l i t y .

T h i s f i g u r e co r re sponds

103. Cor.ir,ient (page 1.5):

c. 1-1 "The real c o n s e r v a t i o n q u e s t i o n is by-passed -- nane ly , can w e l e a r n t o l i ve less e n e r g y - i n t e n s i v e l y , t h u s s t o p p i n g t h e con t inued Growth of pe r c a p i t a e m r g y consumption?"

Response_:

m A I A C w i i l i i i g n e s s of ;:copie t o live less e n e r g y - i n t e n s i v e l y , even t o t h e p o i n t of a c c e p t i n g chanzes i n l i f e - s t y l e s , is c a r e f u l l y examined i n S e c t i o n s GC.G-S of the F i n a l S t a t e r l en t . It is clear t h a t sone ene rgy c o n s e r v a t i o n n:easures can be i n s t i t u t e d and n e t s a v i n g s w i l l b e nndc i n a n area t h a t is s o dependent upon c o u n t l e s s indivic!ual d e c i s i o n s for its success , It is a g o a l t o be reached f o r - b u t i t is n o t a prudent basis for p l ann ing t o neet f u t u r e energy needs.

104. Conr.ient (page 15):

C .7-6 "A t a b l e should be shown sumnar i z i cg t h e energy s a v i n g s f o r each c o n s e r v a t i o n n e a s u r e and t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of each o l t e r - n a t i v e , such as wind power. i j i t h s e v e r a l assumed energy growth f o r e c a s t s , t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s can be p u t i n t r u e r p e r s p e c t i v e and rea l o p t i o n s discussed."

V.22-56

39 Response :

A t a b l e has now been included i n Sec t ion 6 C . J showing the energy savings t h a t might resu l t from success fu l implenentat ion of conserva t ion measures proposed i n the s e v e r a l s t u d i e s d iscussed in t h a t s ec t ion . Pro jec ted energy con t r ibu t ions from the s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e enersy technologies d iscussed are examined i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l s e c t i o n s i n Sec t ion G descr ib ing each technology. included i n Sec t ion 11.

The s u b j e c t of var ious energy growth f o r e c a s t s i s

n

v . 2 3 - 1

R 1, Box 267 , Toney, Ala 35773 24 A p r i l 1974

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t G e n e r a l Nanager f o r B iomed ica l and Env i ronmen ta l R e s e a r c h and S a f e t y Programs U.S. Atomic Energy Commissioc, W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. 20545

Dear S i r :

The March 1974 D r a f t Env i ronmen ta l S t a t e m e n t , WASH-1535, L i q u i d Metal F a s t Breede r R e a c t o r Program, c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d a s a b lue - p r i n t f o r t h e p e r p e t u a l p o l l u t i o n o f t h e p l a n e t .

The S t a t e m e n t makes it c l e a r t h a t t h e s u b j e c t p ro r ram w i l l , t h r o u g h f u e l c y c l e and t r a n s p o r t r e l e a s e s o f plutonium-239 and o t h e r t r a n s u r a n i c e l e m e n t s , r e p e t i t i v e l y con tamina te g l o b a l a i r , s o i l , w a t e r , and man h i m s e l f f o r up t o h a l f a m i l l i o n y e a r s . Known methods f o r c o n t a i n m e n t o f t h e l e t h a l w a s t e s c o v e r no more t h a n a hundred y e a r s . I t is s e l f e v i d e n t t h a t a prime c o n s i d e r a - t i o n o f t h i s and a l t e r n a t i v e programs s h o u l d be t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d g e n e t i c h e r i t a g e o f f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s .

t h e no% known f a c t t h a t one p a r t i c l e o f plutonium-239 can c a u s e f a t a l l u n g c a n c e r , s i n c e i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f i r r a d i a t i n g o n l y a sma l l volume o f l u n g t i s s u e makes t h e dosage a m i l l i o n t o t e n m i l l i o n t imes b r g e r t h a n i f d i s t r i b u t e d u n i f o r m l y t h r o u g h o u t t h e l u n g .

d i f f e r e n t i a t e between ben ign r a d i a t i o n and t h e l e t h a l r a d i a t i o n d e s t r u c t i v e t o a l l o r e a n i c l i f e .

It i s n o t e d t h a t t h e e s t i m a t e of c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f r o o t s , s u r f a c e f o l i a g e , an ima l f o o d c h a i n s , and a q u a t i c sys t ems by t r a n s - u r a n i c e l e m e n t s may have l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o r e a l i t y . Admit- t e d l y , " S u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d and a c c u r a t e knowledge r e g a r d i n g t h e many f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e t h e movement o f t h e s e e l e m e n t s t h r o u g h t h e env i ronmen t ove r t h e p e r i o d s of hundreds t o t e n s o f t h o u s a n d s o f y e a r s d u r i n g wh ich t h e y may e n t e r man t h r o u g h t h e i n g e s t i o n pathway is n o t a v a i l a b l e . ' ?

The c a n c e r r i s k f a c t o r s i n t h e S t a t e m e n t f a i l t o make c l e a r

R a d i a t i o n c h a r t s shown i n t h e S t a t e m e n t s h o u l d c a r e f u l l y

C e r t a i n l y , it is d i s c o n c e r t i n g t o n o t a t h a t , a s a r e s u l t o f r a d i o n u c l i d e r e l e a s e s f rom normal o p e r a t i o n o f t h e LMFBR f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t , "The . e s t i m a t e d t o t a l - b o d y d o s e t o a p e r s o n i n - volved i n c r o p p r o d u c t i o n u t i l i z i n g i r r i g a t i o n w i l l i n c r e a s e from 0,059 t o 0.098 m i l i r e m / y e a r a s a r e s u l t o f exposure t o th-e contami- n a t e d ground s u r f a c e . " P l e a s e r e l a t e t h i s t o t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t " . . .p lant m a t e r i a l ( and o t h e r f o o d ) a c h i e v e s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s e q u a l t o 10% o f t h e s o i l a n c e n t r a t i o n s on a f r e s h o r wet w e i g h t b a s i s . "

The time -al lowed f o r r e v i e w o f t h i s c r u c i a l document i s w o e f u l l y i n a d e q u a t e . However, t h e S t a t e m e n t i t s e l f w i l l condemn t h e LMFBR program t o men o f i n s i g h t and v i s i o n d e d i c a t e d t o t h e s e r v i c e o f humanity.

Ms. Neva Dawkins Rl., Box 267 Toney, Alabama 35773

V.23-2 .

UNITED STATES


D€c 3 1 9374

Dear Ms. Dawkins:

Thank you f o r your l e t te r of Apr i l 24, 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic Energy Commission's Dra f t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor (UlFBR) Program. The Statement h a s been rev ised where appropr i a t e i n response t o t h e many comments rece ived , and a copy of t h e F i n a l Statement is enclosed f o r your information.

Your concerns regard ing p a r t i c l e lung dose e f f e c t s a s soc ia t ed wi th s i n g l e p a r t i c l e s of plutonium-239 (and o t h e r t r ansu ran ic s ) are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 4 . 7 and Appendix II.G.6 of t h e F i n a l Statement , and i n t h e r e fe rences provided t h e r e i n . The conclusion of t h e s e ana lyses is t h a t empir ica l evidence t o d a t e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e nonuniform dose d i s t r i b u t i o n of plutonium p a r t i c l e s i n t h e lung is n o t more hazardous and may be less hazardous than i f t h e plutonium were uniformly d i s t r i b u t e d . This, t oge the r w i th t h e f a c t t h a t n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l r a d i a t i o n s tandards s e t t i n g bodies , whi le acknowledging t h e problem, have not y e t recommended any method o t h e r than t h a t employing t h e mean organ dose, provides t h e bases f o r t he conclus ion given i n t h e F i n a l Statement. "Radiat ion char t s ' ' i n t h e Statement do no t " d i f f e r e n t i a t e between benign r a d i a t i o n and t h e l e t h a l r a d i a t i o n d e s t r u c t i v e t o a l l organic l i f e " because no amount of r a d i a t i o n , no matter how small, is assumed t o be benign, and because a l l l e v e l s shown i n t h e "char t s" were w e l l below l e v e l s known t o be l e t h a l .

The sentence i n t h e Dra f t Statement

"The es t imated total-body dose t o a person involved i n c rop product ion u t i l i z i n g i r r i g a t i o n w i l l i n c r e a s e from 0.059 t o 0.098 mi l l i rem/year as a r e s u l t of exposure t o t h e contamina ted ground sur face ."

r e f e r e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t a g r i c u l t u r a l workers would r e c e i v e 0.039 mill i rem/year* ( i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t o t a l of 0.059 millirem/year** r e s u l t i n g from a l l exposure pathways) due t o d i r e c t exposure t o t h e i r r i g a t e d land su r face . These dose l e v e l s are much smaller than t h a t due t o n a t u r a l background r a d i a t i o n (about 130 mi l l i rem/year ) , and are t h e r e f o r e not of major s ign i f i cance .

*Page 4.3092 of t h e Draf t Statement +*Page 4.3-91-

n

:.Is. Keva Dawkins

V.23-3

2

The statemeat - ". . . p l a n t material (and o t h e r food) a c h i e v e s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s e q u a l t o 10% of t h e s o i l c o n c e q . t r a t i o n s on a f r e s h or w e t we igh t b a s i s . "*

r e f e r r e d t o t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e a s sumpt ions made r e g a r d i n g t h e u p t a k e of p lu ton ium and o t h e r t r a n s u r a n i c s v i a t h e r o o t up take pa thvay (one of t h e i n g e s t i o n pathways) by p r e s e n t and f u t i l r e g e n e r a t i o n s i n t h e Un i t ed S t a t e s and Canada. T h i s does n o t r e f e r t o d o s e s t o i n d i v i d u a l s , which would be e x t r e m e l y smal l i n t h i s case.

We hope t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n is a d e q u a t e l y r e s p o n s i v e t o your conce rns . Thank you f o r your comments and f o r your in te res t i n t h e LYFBR Program.

S i n c e r e l y ,

w . L Ja.es L. i l ve rman

A sis t a n t Gene ra l Xanager u. for Biomedical and Environmental Resea rch and S a f e t y Programs

Enc losu re : F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,

LWBR Program (WASH-1535)

*Page 4.G-40

V.24-1

J o n Legakes 2 0 F i f t h S t r e e t

V a l l e y S t r eam, N e w York 11581

J L / e w A p r i l 2 4 , 1974, .

r e L .M .F . B . R . D r a f t S t a t e m e n t

Mr. W . H . Penn ing ton Assessmen t s and C o o r d i n a t i o n O f f i c e r D i v i s i o n of Biomedica l and Env i ronmen ta l Resea rch A t o m i c Energy Commission Washington , D. C . 20545

Dear S i r :

A f t e r r e a d i n g your L.M.F.B.R. Program D r a f t Env i ronmen ta l S t a t e m e n t , t h e c h o i c e f o r n u c l e a r power as a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o f o s s i l f u e l s i s v e r y t e m p t i n g e c o n o m i c a l l y . S i n c e enough r e s e a r c h and f i n a n c e s have been p u t i n t o i t s development , w e c o u l d immedia t e ly b e g i n b u i l d i n g n u c l e a r power p l a n t s and v e r y l i k e l y a v o i d possible economic d i f f i c u l t y c a u s e d b y f o s s i l f u e l s h o r t a g e s . Up t o t h i s p o i n t , I would agree t h a t w e s h o u l d "go n u c l e a r , " e x c e p t f o r t h e f a c t t h a t we a re n o t r e a d y t o d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h such l o n g - l i v e d , e x t r e m e l y dange rous wastes , among o t h e r t h i n g s .

The d r a f t s t a t e m e n t i s much t o o o p t i m i s t i c i n assuming t h a t A .E . C . s a f e t y measures are c o m p l e t e l y e f f e c t i v e . The a b s u r d s u g g e s t i o n s of p u t t i n g t h e s e w a s t e s i n space, ice- s h e e t s , o r ocean beds are a l l t o o r e m i n i s c e n t of t h r o w i n g o n e ' s garbage o u t t h e window or sweeping 3 n e ' s d i r t under t h e r u 3 . I t j u s t d o e s n ' t work and a lways c a t c h e s u p w i t h you soone r or l a t e r . H o w o f t e n do w e h e a r h o w e f f e c t i v e and s a f e a p r o j e c t " c o u l d be" " s h o u l d be , 'I or "can be" " i f " c e r t a i n p r e c a u t i o n s a re t a k e n ? And how o f t e n are we v e r y f a r f rom t h e mark o f s a f e t y when i t comes r i g h t down t o t h e a c t u a l o r r ea l s i t u a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y when money i s i n v o l v e d ? I a m n o t q u e s t i o n i n g your . i n t e l l i g e n c e o r i n t e g r i t y as a n Atomic Energy Commission: s i m p l y w i t n e s s c o n t i n u o u s o i L s p i l l s , sewage problems, e x h a u s t e m i s s i o n s , i n d u s t r i a l wastes t h a t s t i l l b a d l y p o l l u t e o u r env i ronmen t : w i t n e s s t h e power o f t h e a u t o i n d u s t r y t o d e l a y e x h a u s t c o n t r o l d e a d l i n e s from 1975 t o 1976 and s t i l l t h e y p u s h f o r 1977.

c o l o r e d , e s p e c i a l l y when a f t e r e a c h c h a p t e r segment t h e e x p e c t e d l e v e l o f r a d i a t i o n s e e p i n g i n t o t h e env i ronmen t i s a lways be low t h e minimum s t a n d a r d s . Your e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n d e a l i n g w i t h a c c i d e n t s and p o s s i b l e problems i s v e r y good on p a p e r , b u t

I d o q u e s t i o n what shade o€ r o s e your g l a s s e s are

V.24-2

M r . W . H . Penn ing ton Assessments and C o o r d i n a t i o n O f f i c e r D i v i s i o n o f Biomedica l and Env i ronmen ta l Resea rch A t o m i c Energy Commission

p u t t i n g t h e program i n o p e r a t i o n i n v o l v e s so many o t h e r processes and p e o p l e t o work them; i . e . , commerc ia l ly b u i l t and o p e r a t e d r e a c t o r s and a c c i d e n t s r e s u l t i n g from n e g l i g e n c e or u n i n t e n t i o n a l b u t f a u l t y judgment: s e c u r i t y problems on an i n t e r n a t i o n a l s ca l e : s e c u r i t y problems on a n a t i o n a l s ca l e , such as t e r r o r i s t s , d e s t r u c t i v e p o l i t i c a l g r o u p s o r i n d i v i d u a l s : t r anspor t a c c i d e n t s , p o s s i b l e t h e f t and h i j a c k i n g . The d r a f t program i s , t h e r e E o r e , much t o o o p t i m i s t i c and we shou ld w a i t before w e make any i r r e v e r s a b l e commitments f o r n u c l e a r e n e r g y . W e a re i n no p o s i t i o n t o l e a v e a l e g a c y o f l o n g - l i v e d , e x t r e m e l y dange rous w a s t e s t o o u r s e l v e s , o u r c h i l d l e n , and f u t u r e genera- t i o n s f o r t h o u s a n d s o f y e a r s t o come, e s p e c i a l l y t h a t w e might d e v e l o p an e n e r g y s o u r c e f i v e o r t e n y e a r s soone r t h a n much safer a l t e r n a t i v e s can be deve loped .

The a l t e r n a t i v e s t o be g i v e n p r i o r i t y over a l l o t h e r s are s o l a r , wind, f u s i o n and € u e l c e l l s . W i t h i n f i v e y e a r s a l l new h o u s e s and even commercial b u i l d i n g s c o u l d u s e solar e n e r g y f o r h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g w i t h f o s s i l f u e l as a back-up sys t em when needed . E l e c t r i c i t y would be s u p p l i e d from c u r r e n t h y d r o e l e c t r i c and f o s s i l f u e l p l a n t s . W i t h i n t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a r s e l e c t r i c i t y c o u l d a l s o be produced w i t h s o l a r e n e r g y . C o n v e n t i o n a l houses c o u l d be g i v e n t a x b r e a k s f o r c o n v e r s i o n t o so l a r h e a t and e l ec t r i c . Where p o s s i b l e , wind

m u l d be u s e d t o p roduce e l e c t r i c i t y , t o o .

F u e l cel ls and f u s i o n are o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r i n d u s t r i a l , commercial and larger scale r e s i d e n t i a l u s e . ~ l l t h e f o s s i l f u e l s s a v e d would t h e n be u s e d i n areas where solar e n e r g y or a n o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e needed more development , such a s cars , t r u c k s , and l a r g e - s c a l e r e s i d e n t i a l n e e d s . Enormous e n e r g y s a v i n g s can be made w i t h be t te r i n s u l a t i n g o€ homes and b u i l d i n g s and o t h e r c o n s e r v a t i o n prac t ices . All government b u i l d i n g s , s c h o o l s , s u p e r n a r k e t s , shopp ing c e n t e r s , and t h e l i k e c o u l d g r e a t l y r e d u c e w a s t e l i g h t i n g and h e a t i n g , as they have been d u r i n g t h e r e c e n t "cr is is ." Schoo l programs f o r young p e o p l e and o l d E m t h a t matter must s tress t h e need € o r l i f e s t y l e s less w a s t e f u l and many u n n e c e s s a r y g a d g e t s d i s c o u r a g e d : i. e . , e l e c t r i c t o o t h b r u s h e s , e l e c t r i c s c i s s o r s , e l e c t r i c h a i r d r y e r s , e t c . W e a b u s e so much o f o u r e n e r g y , i t ' s a crime.

So much c o u l d be don2 w i t h i n t h e p r e s e n t f o s s i l f u e l sys t em t h a t p o s s i b l e economic problems would be b a l a n c e d o u t i n t h e € i v e , t e n , f i f t e e n and twenty-year p e r i o d s s o l a r e n e r g y r e s e a r c h w i 11 need t o become f e a s i b l e f o r l a r g e - s c a l e e l ec t r i c

V-24-3

M r . W . H . Pennington Assessments and Coord ina t ion O f f i c e r D iv i s ion of Biomedical and Environmental Research A t o m i c Energy Commission

p r o d u c t i o n . I t i s a l r e a d y f e a s i b i e f o r home and b u i l d i n g '

h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g . S ince s o l a r energy cou ld n o t be used e x c l u s i v e l y , j u s t as no system c o u l d , f u e l c e l l s , f u s i o n and even wind power, methane, and geothermal cou ld be developed t o make up f o r nea r f u t u r e s o l a r energy L i m i t a t i o n s . F o s s i l f u e l i s always a v a i l a b l e as a back-up system. With r e s i d e n t i a l and commerc ia l - indus t r i a1 power needs making up approximate ly 6 5 per c e n t t o 70 pe r c e n t of ou r t o k a l energy u s e d , much cou ld be done w i t h s o l a r power f o r b o t h new s t r u c t u r e s and even c o n v e r t - i n g o l d s t r u c t u r e s , s i n c e w i t h i n f i v e t o t e n y e a r s o f o p e r a t i o n , t h e new s o l a r o r wind-energy systems pay € o r themselves i n fueJ and e l e c t r i c s a v i n g s .

sys tems t h a t p rov ide 7 5 t o 80 p e r c e n t of home energy needs i n n o r t h e r n c l imates , even f o r long p e r i o d s of c loudy days . What remains t o be done i s mass produce t h e s e systems t o be c o m p e t i t i v e l y p r i c e d and s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e . The o n l y t h i n g h o l d i n g back t h e s o l a r p o s s i b i l i t y i s F I N A N C E . Farmers w i t h an ima l s c o u l d e a s i l y produce enough methane from manure t o pay f o r t h e i n i t i a l inves tment (approximate ly $15 ,000) i n a methane g e n e r a t o r i n t h ree or f o u r y e a r s of o p e r a t i o n . There i s a good d e a l of i n f o r m a t i o n on suck systems a l r e a d y . With a l l t h e ene rgy used by modern a g r i c u l t u r e , t h a t would c o n s t i t u t e c o n s i d e r a b l e f o s s i l f u e l s a v i n g s .

A t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , t h e r e a r e s o l a r home-heating

The main problem w i t h t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e e l e c t r i c i t y p roduce r s i s long-term s t o r a g e . C u r r e n t l y t h e N a t i o n a l Sc ience Foundat ion i s f i n a n c i n g research a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin. Much of t h e money p u t i n t o n u c l e a r r e s e a r c h and development needs t o be channeled i n t o s m a l l and large scale solar energy p r o d u c t i o n , s t o r a g e sys t ems , methane g e n e r a t o r s and t h e l i k e . I r e c a l l a news i t e m t h a t s a i d t h e o r i g i n a l b i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s a l l o c a t e d by t h e goverfiment for a l t e r n a t i v e energy systems was c u t t o 50 m i l l i o n . NO WONDER THE DRAFT STATEMENT CLAIMS NOT ENOUGH RESEARCH HAS BEEN LXlNE. What do you, as, an Atomic Energy Commission, e x p e c t from i n d i v i d u a l s and s m a l l g roups who a r e s t r u g g l i n g and s t i l l , i n s p i t e of s h o r t funds , succeed i n producing f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s when necessa ry funds a r e t aken o u t of l a r g e r scale , government funded a l t e r n a t i v e energy projects by t h e government i t s e l f . I t seems t h e n u c l e a r system i s t h e gove rnmen t ' s too- favored p e t , and a l l o t h e r systems must s u f f e r f o r i t .

T h i s i s n o t t o imply t h a t n u c l e a r r e a c t o r s must be sc rapped comple t e ly . A t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , t h e r e a r e j u s t too many' se r ims problems connected wi th making a commitment

v.24-4 n

Mr. W . H . Pennington Assessments and C o o r d i n a t i o n O f f i c e r D i v i s i o n o f Biomedica l and Env i ronmen ta l Resea rch Atomic Energy Commission

t o n u c l e a r e n e r g y as t h e prime s o u r c e of o u r e n e r g y . W e must p u t f o r t h o u r e f f o r t s i n development of s o l a r and f u s i o n e n e r g y , c l e a n e r and m o r e e f f i c i e n t f o s s i l f u e l t e c h n o l o g i e s and even methane , wind and geo the rma l e n e r g y . Much h a s a l r e a d y been done i n t h e s e n o n - f i s s i o n f i e l d s . Now it i s u p t o t h e A . E . C . and o t h e r government a g e n c i e s t o t a k e t h e v e r y s e r i o u s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y OE making a d e c i s i o n i n f a v o r o f o b v i o u s l y s a f e r and c l e a n e r t e c h n o l o g i e s i n t h e h i g h e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e p e o p l e o f , n o t o n l y o u r c o u n t r y , b u t t h e e n t i r e wor ld and a l l t h e f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s t o come.

Respec t f u 1 l y s u b m i t t e d ,

'&- 'F:yG-..-. $ .-. 4

Jon Legakes

v.24-5

UNITED STATES ATOM IC ENERGY COMM ISSlON


M r . Jon Legakes 20 F i f t h Street Val ley Stream, New York 11581

D e a r Mr. Legakes:

Thank you f o r your let ter of Apr i l 2 4 , 1974 commenting on t he Atomic Energy Conmission's Draf t Environmental Statement on the Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor ( W B R ) Program. Tie Statement has been rev ised where appropr ia te i n response t o t h e many comments received, and a copy of the F ina l Statement is enclosed f o r your information. P lease see t h e o ther enclosure t o t h i s l e t t e r which provides f u r t h e r informa- t i o n on t he po in t s you raised.

Thank you f o r your thoughtful comments and f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR Program.

Sincerely,

f o r Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Program

Enclosures: 1. 2. F i n a l Environmental Statement,

AEC Sta f f Response to Spec i f i c Comments


V .24-6

Enclosure 1

AEC STAFF RESPOIJSE TO SPECIFIC CO?EIENTS BY MR. J O N LEGAKES

1. Comment: "...we are no t y e t ready t o d e a l effect ive1.y wi th such long-l ived, extremely dangerous wastes... legacy of long-l ived, extremely dangerous wastes t o ourse lves , our ch i ld ren , and f u t u r e genera t ions f o r thousands of yea r s t o come..."

..We are i n no p o s i t i o n t o l eave a

Response:

The AEC b e l i e v e s t h a t t he handl ing and s t o r a g e of r ad ioac t ive wastes w i l l be amenable. t o engineer ing s o l u t i o n i n t h e s h o r t term. discussed i n Sec t ion 4.6 of the enclosed F i n a l Statement, which ind ica t e s :

This matter i s

"The near-term waste management program f o r high-level waste d iscussed i n t h i s s ta tement assumes re t r ievable s u r f a c e s to rage f o r safekeeping u n t i l a s a f e and accep tab le u l t i m a t e s to rage method has been s e l e c t e d and t e s t e d . . . . Current r egu la t ions i n d i c a t e t h a t wastes o t h e r than high-level wastes can be disposed of i n commercial b u r i a l grounds, case of c ladding h u l l s , noble gas c y l i n d e r s , and long-lived alpha-emit t ing plutonium and o the r t r ansu ran ic wastes, f u t u r e r e g u l a t i o n s w i l l probably r e q u i r e s t o r a g e i n r e p o s i t o r i e s . Development programs are going forward t o i d e n t i f y t h e most appropr i a t e methods of d i sposa l f o r t hese materials."

In the

Future a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t h e d i sposa l of r a d i o a c t i v e wastes are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 7 , where such methods as geo log ica l s to rage , e x t r a - t e r r e s t r i a l d i sposa l , and t ransmutat ion are discussed. The AEC be l i eves t h a t t he nuc lear i ndus t ry is a b l e t o d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y wi th wastes being produced by c u r r e n t l y opera t ing nuc lear f a c i l i t i e s , and is conf ident t h a t t h e indus t ry w i l l be a b l e t o handle those larger q u a n t i t i e s of wastes expected t o be generated i n t h e fu tu re .

2. Comment: V o u r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n dea l ing wi th acc iden t s and p o s s i b l e problems is very good on paper, bu t p u t t i n g t h e program i n ope ra t ion involves so many o the r processes and people t o work them; i . e . , commercially b u i l t and operated r e a c t o r s and acc iden t s r e s u l t i n g from negl igence o r un in t en t iona l bu t f a u l t y judgment; s e c u r i t y problems on an i n t e r n a t i o n a l scale; s e c u r i t y problems on a n a t i o n a l scale, such as t e r r o r i s t s , d e s t r u c t i v e p o l i t i c a l groups o r i nd iv idua i s ; t r anspor t acc iden t s , p o s s i b l e t h e f t and h i j ack ing . The d r a f t program is, the re fo re , much t o o p t i m i s t i c and w e should w a i t be fo re w e make any i r r e v e r s i b l e commitments f o r nuc lear energy. I'

'

V.24-7

2

Response:

The i s s u e s mentioned a r e indeed worthy of c l o s e s c r u t i n y , and are being c a r e f u l l y assessed i n t h e development of t h e LMFBR. They are discussed a t l eng th in t h e enclosed F ina l Statement. P lease see Sect ion 4.2.7 f o r a d i scuss ion of r e a c t o r s a f e t y and acc iden t s , Sect ion 7.4.3 f o r informa- t i o n r e l a t e d t o s e c u r i t y problems on a na t iona l scale, and Sect ion 7.4.4.2 f o r information r e l a t e d t o sub-national a c t s in o the r count r ies .

With regard t o t h e comment t h a t w e should w a i t before making any i r r e v e r s i b l e commitments t o nuc lear energy, t h e AEC does not be l i eve t h a t any such commitment is being made. s e c t i o n in Sect ion 6 of t h e enclosed F i n a l Statement, t h e LMFBR Program is a re sea rch and development program wi th t h e goa l of developing a v i a b l e energy product ion opt ion. Whether o r no t t h a t op t ion is exerc ised w i l l depend upon t h e r e l a t i v e merits of t h i s energy opt ion a s compared t o o the r op t ions ava i l ab le . It is axiomatic t h a t no energy opt ion , LPlFBR included, should be exercised i f i t is unsafe o r environmentally unsound r ega rd le s s of any o t h e r advantages t h e opt ion might exh ib i t . A s i n any r e sea rch and development program, if t h e LElFBR does not meet t h e c r i t e r i a imposed upon it o r rea l ize t h e p o t e n t i a l expected, i t can and w i l l be terminated or r eo r i en ted . i r r e v e r s i b l e commitment t o nuc lear energy.

As discussed i n t h e Perspec t ives

W B R r e sea rch and development thus i n no way r e p r e s e n t s an

3. Comment:

"The a l t e r n a t i v e s t o be given p r i o r i t y over a l l o t h e r s are s o l a r , wind, fus ion and f u e l cells . even commercial bu i ld ings could use solar energy for hea t ing , and cool ing wi th f o s s i l f u e l as a back-up system when needed. t r i c i t y would be suppl ied from cur ren t hydroe lec t r i c and f o s s i l f u e l p l an t s . be produced wi th s o l a r energy. tax breaks f o r conversion t o s o l a r hea t and electric. Where poss ib l e , wind could be used t o produce e l e c t r i c i t y , too."

"Fuel cells and fus ion are o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r i n d u s t r i a l , coamercial and l a r g e r scale r e s i d e n t i a l use. f u e l s saved would then be used i n a r e a s where s o l a r energy o r another a l t e r n a t i v e needed more development, such as cars, t rucks , and la rge-sca le r e s i d e n t i a l needs ."

Within f i v e yea r s a l l new houses and

Elec-

Within t e n t o f i f t e e n years e l e c t r i c i t y could a l s o Conventional houses could be given

A l l t h e f o s s i l

Response:

me a l t e r n a t i v e s you mention c e r t a i n l y appea r t o have some a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e s from an environmental s tandpoin t . However, they a l l s u f f e r from l i m i t a t i o n s i n one o r more of t h e a r e a s of c o s t , s t a t e of knowledge, a v a i l a b i l i t y and p r a c t i c a l i t y . For example, fus ion power has no t a s ye t

V. 24-8

3

es t ab l i shed s c i e n t i f i c f e a s i b i l i t y and is n o t expected t o con t r ibu te s u b s t a n t i a l l y t o the Nat ion ' s energy resources u n t i l sometime i n t h e next century (See Sec t ion 6A.1.6). of new energy, bu t r a t h e r a more convenient o r more e f f i c i e n t conversion device f o r t ransformation of o t h e r energy sources i n t o new and perhaps more u s e f u l app l i ca t ions . For example, i t could be used as a means of energy s to rage f o r v a r i a b l e and i n t e r r u p t i b l e energy sources such as t h e solar and wind power op t ions you c i t e , or as a means of transforming the energy from a f u e l such as c o a l i n t o a more e a s i l y t r anspor t ab le and mobile form. (See Sec t ion 6B.6).

~

Fuel c e l l a are no t an independent source

The d i l u t e , v a r i a b l e and i n t e r r u p t i b l e n a t u r e of s o l a r energy makes t h e c o s t of i n s t a l l i n g s o l a r energy systems much h igher than convent ional forms of electr ic power product ion. Thus they r e q u i r e s u b s t a n t i a l r e sea rch and development t o b r i n g these c o s t s down i n t o a competi t ive range. hea t ing of a l l new homes and commercial bu i ld ings is q u i t e o p t i m i s t i c cons ider ing the high c o s t s and the need f o r convent ional standby furnaces and given t h e many s o c i a l , l e g a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l problems a s soc ia t ed wi th e s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s form of hea t ing €or t h e many ind iv idua l states. (See t h e Summary of Sec t ion 6 , and Sec t ion 6A.5).

The schedule you sugges t f o r t h e use of s o l a r power i n home

S imi l a r ly , t h e product ion of e l e c t r i c i t y by s o l a r energy may prove t o be t e c h n i c a l l y achievable and i n f a c t is being done on a small scale today where c o s t is no t a major f a c t o r , p r imar i ly i n space app l i ca t ions . However, cons ider ing t h e state of technology and t h e pro jec ted economics of solar power, i t is most u n l i k e l y t h a t more than a few percent of our electrical requirements , if t h a t , w i l l . be met by s o l a r energy be fo re t h e end of t h i s century. d i scuss ion of t h i s po in t .

Please r e f e r t o Sec t ion 6A.5 f o r a more complete

4. Comment:

"Enormous energy sav ings can be made wi th b e t t e r i n s u l a t i n g of homes and bu i ld ings and o t h e r conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s , government bui ld ings , schools , supermarkets, shopping c e n t e r s , and the l i k e could g r e a t l y reduce waste l i g h t i n g and hea t ing , as they have been du r ing t h e r ecen t "crisis." School programs f o r young people and o l d f o r t h a t matter must stress t h e need f o r l i f e s t y l e s less was te fu l and many unnecessary gadgets discouraged; i.e., e lec t r ic toothbrushes, e lectr ic s c i s s o r s , electric hair d rye r s , etc. a crime."

A l l

We abuse so mu& of our energy, i t ' s

Response:

Your comments on t h e p o t e n t i a l for energy conserva t ion are w e l l taken. We agree that a l l worthwhile conserva t ion measures should be implemented, and

V . 24-9

4

discuss this subject in detail in Section 6C. relationship between the reduced energy demand that may be achieved by conservation and the remaining need for alternative technologies, as discussed in Section 6C.7. Conservation measures requiring changes in lifestyles are also discussed in this section.

Please note especially the

5. Comment:

"Much of the money put into nuclear research and development needs to be channeled into small and large scale solar energy production, storage systems, methane generators and the like. I recall a news item that said the original billions of dollars allocated by the government for alternative energy systems was cut to 50 million. NO WONDER THE DRAFT STATEMENT CLAMS NOT ENOUGH RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE. What do you, as an Atomic Energy Commission, expect from individuals and small groups who are struggling and still, in spite of short funds, succeed in producing feasible alternatives when necessary funds are taken out of larger scale, government funded alternative energy projects by the government itself. nuclear system is the government's too-favored pet, and all other systems must suffer for it."

It seems the

Response :

Your comments on the relative funding between nuclear energy, solar energy, and other alternative technologies reflect understandable concern. .The question of which technologies to pursue vigorously and which should be relegated to lower levels of effort requires some engineering judgement and ie often grounds for debate. S u f f i c e i t to say that the decisions that have been reached over the years have taken into account a l l appropriate factors such as status of the technologies, relative chances of achieving technical and economic fruition, research and development required and the costs thereof, postulated environmental impacts, resource availability, cost-benefit analyses, etc. We believe that the emphasis that has been placed on nuclear fission is appropriate and will lead to substantial benefits for the Nation in years to come. same conclusions as they have considered their future energy needs. a further understanding of the bases on which energy RLD decisions are made, you may wish to refer to "The Nation's Energy Future," (WASH-1281), A Report to the President of the United States by the Chairman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, December, 1973. The fiscal year 1975 budget for all government supported energy R6D draws heavily on the recommendations of this report, which outlined a 5 pear, $10 billion, energy RSD program. This program forms the basis for current gcvernment planning and, as nated, initial funding is already being provided along these lines. We do not h o w the basis for your remark that t h e research effort on alternative energy systems has been cut to $50 million; a multi-billion

Other Nations have come to the For

V.24-10

5

d o l l a r program is a l r eady underway, u t e r n a t i v e Techndogy np t ions i n Sec t ion 6 of t b e F ins1 Statement f o r add i t iona l d i scuss ion of the r e l a t i v e funding f o r d i f f e r e n t r e sea rch and development programs.

You are r e f e r r e d to Pe r spec t ive on

6. Comment:

" A t t h e p re sen t t i m e , t h e r e are just t o o many s e r i o u s problems connected wi th making a commitment t o nuc lear energy as t h e prime source of our energy. ment of s o l a r and fus ion energy, c l e a n e r and more e f f i c i e n t f o s s i l f u e l t echnologies and even methane, wind and geothermal energy. Much has a l ready been done i n these non-f iss ion f i e l d s . Kow i t is up t o t h e A.E.C and o t h e r government agencies t o t ake t h e very s e r i o u s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of making a d e c i s i o n i n favor of obviously s a f e r and c l eane r technologies i n t h e h ighes t i n t e r e s t of t h e people of n o t only our country, bu t t h e e n t i r e world and a l l t h e f u t u r e genera t ions t o come."

W e must pu t f o r t h our e f f o r t s i n develop-

Response :

The AEC agrees wi th your genera l conclusion t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e energy technologies should be developed. We recognize t h a t t h i s Nat ion ' s energy requirements are of such magnitude t h a t they c a n , b e m e t on ly through a broadly based program u t i l i z i n g a l l f e a s i b l e energy sources . A t t he same t h e , it is our b e l i e f t h a t nuc lear energy r e p r e s e n t s t h e most v i a b l e and a t t r a c t i v e energy source i n terms of economics, c u r r e n t and near-term a v a i l a b i l i t y , magnitude of energy r e sources , t e c h n i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y , environmental impact, and o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t must be considered i n eva lua t ing t h e pros and cons of p o t e n t i a l power supp l i e s . problems i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of nuc lear energy, j u s t as t h e r e are problems in t h e development and a p p l i c a t i o n of o t h e r energy sources , bu t w e b e l i e v e that these problems are so lvable . The AEC is making every e f f o r t t o address and r e s o l v e these problems, and b e l i e v e s i t w i l l be success fu l t o the b e n e f i t of t h e Na t ion ' s energy requirements and economic growth. are hopeful t h a t yocr reading of t h e enclosed Environmental Statement w i l l lead t o an understanding of t he bases f o r t h e s e conclusions.

There are

We

I ' / ' /

! ! 1 , I

V. 25-2

1 . 2 5 - 3

V.25-4

V.25-5

v. 25-6

n

V . 25-7

V.25-8 n

V.25-9

V.25-10 n

V.25-11

V . 25-12

V.25-13

V.25-15

9l-SZ'A

V. 25-1 7

V.25-18

V.25-19

V . 25-20

LZ-SZ'A

2Z-SZ'A

V.25-23

V . 25-24

I l l Q

n

V . 25-25

I !

V. 25-26

,

V.25-27

V . 25-28

v. 25-29

Q V.25-30

V . 25-31

V. 25-32 n

V.25-33

UNITED STATES

ATOM IC ENERGY COMM ISSlON WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

D r . Chauncey Kepford 108 N. Pershing Avenue York, Pennsylvania 17403

Dear D r . Kepford:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of Apr i l 2 6 , 1974 commenting on the Atomic Energy Commission's Draf t Environmental Statement on the Liquid Metal Fas t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program. The Statement has been r ev i sed where appropr ia te i n response t o the many comments rece ived , and a copy of t h e F ina l Statement is enclosed f o r your information. The o t h e r enc losure t o t h i s l e t t e r provides responses t o the s p e c i f i c po in t s you r a i sed .

Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMF'BR Program i s apprec ia ted .

S ince re ly ,

for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safe ty Programs

Enclosures : 1. AEC S t a f f Response t o S p e c i f i c

2. Fina l Environmental Statement , Comments


V.25-34

Enclosure 1

AEC STAFF RESPOXSE TO SPECIFIC CObMElJTS BY DR. CHAUNCEY KEPFORD

1. Comment (p. 1 ) :

"Pages 4, 1-3 t o 6 a l l c o n t a i n r e f e r e n c e s t o a man-rem dose. Such a number, w i thou t a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e ave rage dose and t h e popu la t ion r e c e i v i n g t h e dose , is meaningless . Furthermore, s i n c e t h e releases of r a d i o a c t i v i t y come from e s s e n t i a l l y p o i n t s o u r c e s , even c a l c u l a t i n p a n "average" dose is r i s k y because of t h e non-uniformity of t h e dose. T h i s is i l l u s t r a t i v e i n Tab le 4.2.5.5, where t h e magnitude of t h e dose d e c r e a s e s by a f a c t o r of 10 between 1 and 4 miles from t h e release p o i n t , a n o t h e r f a c t o r of 10 between 4 and 20 m i l e s , and a f a c t o r of 4 between 20 and 50 m i l e s , f o r a t o t a l drop of a f a c t o r of 400. No ave rage can mean ingfu l ly convey t h i s range of v a r i a t i o n i n d a t a , u n l e s s t h e extremes i n t h e d a t a are s p e c i f i e d . The s i t u a t i o n i s not c l a r i f i e d by i n v e n t i n g a u n i t as t h e "man-rem" t o f u r t h e r h i d e any u s e f u l i n fo rma t ion . Of c o u r s e , i t is q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e man-rem

. u n i t is used wi th t h e i n t e n t of confus ing d a t a and t h e r eade r . "

Response :

A c t u a l l y , t h e man-rem dose h a s much more s i g n i f i c a n c e than you a t t r i b u t e t o it. and t h e i n d i v i d u a l doses as a f u n c t i o n of d i s t a n c e from t h e sou rce . The methodology involved is o u t l i n e d i n Appendix 4.1 of t h e Draft Statement . It g e t s around t h e d i f f i c u l t y you p o i n t o u t i n d e a l i n g w i t h a r ange of d a t a by d e r i v i n g a number r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e r a d i a t i o n dose accumu- l a t e d by t h e exposed p o p u l a t i o n ( u s u a l l y t aken t o be t h o s e l i v i n g w i t h i n a 50 m i l e r a d i u s of t h e s o u r c e ) . used t o estimate po ten t i a l . h e a l t h e f f e c t s among t h e exposed p o p u l a t i o n and, t he reby , p robab ly c o n s t i t u t e s t h e most u s e f u l i n f o r n a t i o n d i s p l a y e d .

It is d e r i v e d by t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e exposed popu la t ion

The p o p u l a t i o n man-rem dose is, i n f a c t ,

2. Comment (pp. 1, 2):

''...we must be a b l e t o show we have enough r e s o u r c e s i n t h e U.S. f o r ou r f o r e s e e a b l e needs. T h i s h a s n o t been done w i t h uranium."

Response :

With t h e t i m e l y development of t h e LMFBR t h e c u r r e n t e s t ima ted r e s o u r c e s of low-cost uranium w i l l be adequa te f o r s e v e r a l c e n t u r i e s . Es t ima tes of uranium r e s o u r c e s and p r o j e c t e d uranium u t i l i z a t i o n f o r s e v e r a l power system s c e n a r i o s are g iven i n S e c t i o n s 6A.1.1.2 and 11.2.

9

0

V.25-35

2

3. Comment (p. 2):

"[The AEC reactor l icensing] process cannot be r e l i e d upon t o approve and authorize saf e, r e l i a b l e nuclear paver plants. I'

Reo p ons e :

As s t a t e d and explained i n Section 4.2.1 of the Final Statement: regulat ions require tha t peaceful uses of atomic energy not r e s u l t in undue r i s k t o the heal th and sa fe ty of t he public." procedure requires compliance with a comprehensive set of ru l e s of procedure sa fe ty criteria, cod- and standards p r i o r t o construction, during operating and a t decoormissioning. F u l l public pa r t i c ipa t ion is afforded a t public hearings. Obviously, no system can absolutely guarantee the public heal th and safety, but the AEC regulatory process represents a most thorough and conscientious s t r i v i n g toward that goal.

4. Comment (pp. 2-31;

"Table 4.2.3.1 i a very evasive 88 t o hard data on LMFBR plants , f o r reasons explained. t h i s Table t o a l l other data , including projections, i n the Draft State- ment?" 'doubling t i m e ' is conveniently l e f t out."

"AEC

The AEC regulatory

Is the reader t o supply the same uncertaint ies i n

"Not even the breeding r a t i o is accurately given, and the

Response:

A complete discussion of a l l reactor c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and f u e l cyc le coats i n the cost-benefit analysis is included i n Section 11.2.3 of both the Draft and Final Statements. performance has been expanded in t h e Final Statement i n Appendix A of Section 11.

The discussion of projected W B R breeding

5. Comment

(P. 3) *

L . I Section 4.2.5.2.1 on thermal wastea ignores the s t rong l ikel ihood of =nuclear parks" coming i n t o existence, with 10 t o 40 nuclear. power p l an t s c lus t e red i n a r e l a t i v e l y small area and the e f f e c t of t h e i r combined thermal releases on the l o c a l b i o t a and local climate. The report i t s e l f ignores the impact of the ant ic ipated LMFBR (and LWR) thermal releases on the climate of the Nation by the year 2020."

(P. 4)

"Section 4.2.5.4 does not e laborate on the climate e f f e c t of t he released heat due to the program plan."

V .25-36

3

Response:

The Draft Statement referenced the po ten t i a l ly se r ious problem of memo- scale weather modification from energy parks as follaws:

1. W. C. Ackenuann, Ref. 79 of Section 4.2. 2. Hanna d Swisher, Ref. 81 of Section 4.2. 3. Carson, Ref. 67 of Section 4.2. 4. J. E. Carson, "Meteorological Consequences of "henna1 Discharges

from Nuclear Power P lan t s - Research Needs," Cooling Tower Environment - 1974, AEC Critical Review Ser ies (1974).

Such "Heat Island" e f f e c t s could be generated.bp a l a rge group of steam- electric p lan t s using any hea t source. Before such energy parks are created, t h e AEC would analyze t h e po ten t i a l f o r large-scale weather modifications from such l a r g e heat sources.

6. Comment (pp. 3 , 4 ) :

"Section 4.2.5.3, while not having the bene f i t of accura te da t a on the actual p l an t design, purports t o accura te ly p red ic t t h e f i s s i o n product release rate from t h e reac tor , and hence, i t s , d o s e t o man. I f indeed, t h e AEC can accura te ly p red ic t what comes out of a p l a n t when they are not too s u r e what goes i n ana what its design d e t a i l s are, then the a b i l i t i e s of t h i s organization 'are t r u l y phenomenal. 'I

Response:

The AEC es t imates f o r release rates are based on the p l an t radwaste system described on pages 4.2-46 t o 4.2-65 of the Draft Statement. The estimates, no t pred ic t ions , were made on the bes t a v a i l a b l e information to provide a bas i s f o r evaluating environmental e f f e c t s . They are not very d i f f e r e n t from comparably equipped LWRs (see Table 9.1-6 i n the F ina l Statement).

7. Comment (p. 4 ) :

"Section 4.2.6.3 on the r ad ia t ion monitoring program must be revised in t h e context of t he pas t performance of t h e AEC." "Reliance on i s o l a t e d r ad ia t ion de tec to r s and on ca lcu la t ions ca re fu l ly avoids t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t o the r than the des i red answers w i l l be obtained.

Response:

W B R monitoring programs w i l l be based on cur ren t LWR programs described i n Section 4.2.6.3 and on fu tu re programs, as they develop. programs w i l l be cons is ten t with the regulatory concept of maintaining publ ic exposure a t l e v e l s as low as practicable. may be so low t h a t l i m i t s of de tec t ion w i l l preclude t h e i r observation i n the environment. on source term measurements and environmental models.

Monitoring

Radioactivity releases

Therefore estimates of population exposure may depend

n

n

V , 25-37

4

8. comment (p. 5):

"The words of t he last quoted paragraph [p. 4.2-158 of t h e DES] sound sooth ing , as they are supposed t o , bu t as t h e LliR program approaches matur i ty (or is s a i d t o approach i t ) t he AEC s t i l l has not furn ished experimental d a t a t o show t h a t t he 10 CFR 100 cri teria can be m e t . There s t i l l is no d e f i n i t i v e , proof t h a t t h e ECCS w i l l perform t h e i r designed tasks . For a 1 i n a m i l l i o n chance f o r a p l a n t t o have an acc iden t exceeding the gu ide l ines , t he odds are t h a t i t is 1 i n 1000 f o r 1000 p l a n t s opera t ing , and 1 i n 25 over t h e i r 40 year l i f e t i m e . A 1 i n 25 chance f o r a s e r i o u s acc ident is i no rd ina te ly c l o s e t o a c e r t a i n t y t h a t a s e r i o u s acc iden t w i l l occur. ques t ions are when, where, and how bad? s a f e t y systems as good as t h e ECCS?"

The only remaining Will t he LMFBR's have back-up

Response :

Oa page 4.2-158 it is c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t "acc idents no t included i n t h e des ign b a s i s envelope should have a n average recur rence i n t e r v a l of at least a thousand yea r s f o r a l l nuc lear p l a n t s combined'' (emphasis added) and " the regula tory s t a f f uses t h e s a f e t y ob jec r ive t h a t t h e rfsk to the publ ic from a l l r e a c t o r acc iden t s should be very small compared to o t h e r risks of l i f e such as d i s e a s e o r n a t u r a l catastrophes." Once i n a thousand years is n o t i n t h e AEC's view " ino rd ina te ly c l o s e t o a c e r t a i n t y t h a t a s e r i o u s acc iden t w i l l happen."

AB i n d i c a t e d i n 4.2.7.3 and 4.2.7.5, r e l i a b l e and dependable p r o t e c t i v e systems w i l l be employed.

9 . Comment (p. 6, 7):

Comments w e r e o f f e red on Sec t ion 4 . 2 . 7 . 3 , i n d i c a t i n g i n s u f f i c i e n t t rea tment of s a f e t y i ssues . meltdown o r disassembly n o t thoroughly discussed?"; 'I.. . l i t t le a t t e n t i o n i e paid t o the p o s s i b i l i t y of f low blockage and subsequent overhea t ing , a8 happened a t Fermi. I'

Examples "Why is a d i scuss ion of c o r e

Response :

Sec t ion 4.2.7.3 was intended only to po in t o u t a number of genera l f e a t u r e s of t he LMFBR as a n a i d i n d i scuss ion of t he s i g n i f i c a n c e of p o t e n t i a l acc iden t s t r e a t e d i n later sec t ions . However, i n r ecogn i t ion of t h e comments rece ived , t h i s s e c t i o n has been ex tens ive ly r ev i sed and expanded. S p e c i f i c s a f e t y i s s u e s are def ined and discussed.

"While the concent ra t ion of f i s s i o n products is higher i n t h e LMFBR, as in t h e concent ra t ion of shor t - l ived i so topes , i t is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y

t h t

V 25-38

5

1 amount of f i s s i o n products t h a - coun 3 . I f they are re leased t o the environment, it is t he b i o l o g i c a l l y a c t i v e ones which count , many are shor t - l ived , and many a r e long-lived.

Response :

The t o t a l amount of c r i t i c a l ( "b io logica l ly ac t ive" o r important i n terms of dose) rad ionucl ides is indeed important . However, i t should be noted t h a t a l l f i s s i o n products are b i o l o g i c a l l y a c t i v e t o some ex ten t . The important po in t t o be considered is t h a t t h e W B R has a p o t e n t i a l f o r lower t o t a l r a d i a t i o n dose from i ts e n t i r e f u e l cyc le than o t h e r r e a c t o r concepts , as descr ibed i n Sec t ion 9 of t he F i n a l Statement.

11. Comment (pp. 6,7):

"In r e fe rence t o 'major power excurs ions ' as they are c a l l e d , are the ' i n i t i a l temperature c o e f f i c i e n t s ' s u f f i c i e n t l y nega t ive t o prevent a co re meltdown? Would the Doppler broadening of neutron capture c ros s s e c t i o n s due t o a temperature rise be s u f f i c i e n t t o prevent a 'power excurs ion , ' ' core disassembly, ' o r ' core rearrangement '? Why is a d i s - cussion of core meltdown o r disassembly no t thoroughly discussed?

Response :

These t o p i c s are d iscussed i n Sec t ion 4.2.7.7 of t h e Draf t and F ina l Statements.

12. Comment (p. 7):

"Section 4.2.7.7 con ta ins a very s u p e r f i c i a l d i scuss ion of s e r i o u s acc iden t s where a deep and thorough one is needed. No mention of t i m e scales, o r sequences of poss ib l e events is made. No mention is made of t h e poss ib l e even t s lead ing t o a breaching of t he containment and the consequences thereof . I'

Response:

This s e c t i o n has been ex tens ive ly rev ised . For reasons c i t e d i n Sec t ion 4.2.7, i t is judged t h a t even t s lead ing t o a breaching of t he containment are extremely remote i n p o s s i b i l i t y and the risks of such events considered so low as t o warrant t h e i r omission i n the F ina l Statement.

13. Comment (p. 7 ) :

"As t he tempo of t e r r o r i s t a c t i o n s cont inues t o rise throughout t he U.S., and the world, i t is not comforting t o r e a l i z e t h a t t he AEC is cont inuing t o ignore the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a t e r r o r i s t , o r band of t e r r o r i s t s may tu rn t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e exceedingly vulnerable segments i n the nuc lear f u e l cyc le . I'

Kesponse:

The AEC safeguards program recognizes the p o t e n t i a l f o r a t tempted t e r r o r i s t a c t i v i t i e s as descr ibed i n Sec t ion 7.4.3 of t he F ina l Statement.

. . _ _ . - . .

V.25-39

6

14, Comment (p. 7):

"Why w i l l recovered uranium not be recycled t o LllFBR reac tors?"

Response:

Uran im recovered from reprocessing of spen t f u e l s can of course be used f o r f u e l i n g of LMFBRs. Any r e s i d u a l r a d i a t i o n l e v e l i n t h e uranium w i l l b e so s l i g h t t h a t f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n processes o r c o s t s w i l l no t be a f f ec t ed . However, today t h e r e are about 250,000 tons of deple ted uranium i n s t o r a g e as a byproduct of uranium enrichment opera t ions . This s t o c k p i l e is projec ted t o inc rease seve ra l fo ld dur ing t h e rest of t h i s cen tury , even w i t h r ap id in t roduc t ion of t h e LMFBR. There appears t o be a s l i g h t economic advantage t o using enrichment p l a n t t a i l s s t o c k p i l e ; i t i s s t o r e d a s t h e f l u o r i d e , which is more s i n p l y converted i n t o fuel-grade dioxide. Thus, i t appears l i k e l y t h a t t he d i f f u s i o n p l an t t a i l s s t o c k p i l e will be l a r g e l y deple ted be fo re uranium from a reprocess ing p l a n t is used on a l a r g e scale f o r LMFBR f u e l . Eventual ly , of course , a l l uranium recovered a t reprocess ing p l a n t s w i l l be recycled.

15. Comment (p. 8):

"Figure 4.5.1 is similar t o F igure A.16 of WASH-1099. t h e l o s s e s of t h e WASH r e p o r t have convenient ly been changed t o "d isposa l . I'

But some of

Response:

"Loss" and "disposal" flows both r ep resen t l o s s e s from t h e f u e l cyc le , i n t h e sense t h a t t he material is no t recycled.

16. Comment (p. 8 ) :

'?'he assumption is made t h a t t he genera l popula t ion , or r e s i d e n t popula t ion , is 100 f t . or more from rad-waste containers ." 15 f t . would be a more reasonable cut-off ."

"Perhaps

Response :

This assumption of 100 f e e t is no t thought t o be unreasonable. on page 11. 1-12 of Appendix I to Volume XI of the F i n a l Statement , doses t o onlookers (people loca t ed c l o s e r than 100 f t . t o t h e con ta ine r s ) were a l s o included.

As noted

17. Comment (p. 9 ) :

"With s t a b l e s o c i e t i e s h i s t o r i c a l l y l a s t i n g f o r a few hundred yea r s , at t he most, a couple of thousand, and geo log ica l upheavals and climatic changes tak ing place in t h e 5000 year t o 1,000,000 year t i m e

V.25-40

7

a c a l e , i t seems completely r id i cu lous and insane t o commit s o c i e t y t o a course of a c t i o n which must be maintained f o r t h i s kind of t i m e scale."

Response :

The near-term waste management program adopted by t h e AEC f o r high- l e v e l waste c a l l s f o r safekeeping f o r as long as necessary pending t h e development of more permanent d i s p o s a l methods. A development prop,ram on d i sposa l i n c e r t a i n types of geo log ica l formations is going forward, which would reduce s u r v e i l l a n c e and maintenance requirements t o e s s e n t i a l l y n e g l i g i b l e proport ions.

18. Comment (p. 10):

"Perhaps the pro jec ted p r o f i t s , due t o in t roduc t ion of t h e breeder , should be compared wi th the hypo the t i ca l b e n e f i t s , t o be accrued by t h e pub l i c . Response :

U t i l i t y p r o f i t s are regula ted by government agencies . power genera t ing c o s t s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been passed on t o customers I n the form of a l t e r e d electric energy rates.

19. ComRnt (p. 10):

"Sect ion 5.3.1.1 con ta ins pro jec ted economic requirements of t h e u t i l i t y indus t ry . No mention is made of t h e e f f e c t of these needs on t h e rest of t h e borrowing community, nor is mention made of t h e requirerrents of t he indus t ry after t h e yea r 2000."

Changes i n

Response:

Values f o r 2020 were s h a m i n Table 5.3-1 of t h e Draf t Statement. The LMFBR does not d rama t i ca l ly in f luence t o t a l u t i l i t y i ndus t ry f i n a n c i a l requirements f o r p l a n t purchases. The LVBR does allow decreased c a p i t a l expendi tures f o r mining, m i l l i n g and enrichment f a c i l i t i e s .

20. Comcnt (p. 10) :

"Whether o r no t t he u t i l i t i e s and t h e i r managers can grasp the complexi t ies of LIJRs r e m i n s t o be seen , y e t i t is s a i d t h e indus t ry is approaching [maturi ty] . The ope ra t ion by these same people of LMFBRs is d isquie t ing . ' '

Responnc:

Safe r e a c t o r ope ra t ion is assured by AEC regula tory procedures; i t is n o t il natter of conjec ture . ope ra t ing 1113 tory.

Util i t ies have e s t ab l i shed a s a t i s f a c t o r y

V.25-41

8


"Applying s tandards with t h e s o l e i n t e n t of making r e a c t o r s s a f e would p r i c e them out of the market."

Response :

LWR s a f e t y s tandards have not e l iminated LKRs a s v i ab le , compet i t ive steam genera t ing p l an t s . expected t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y impact LMFBR v i a b i l i t y .

Applicat ion of LMFBR s a f e t y s tandards are not

22. Comment (p, 12) :

"No subs t an t ive showing has been made a s t o what are t h e Nat ion 's energy requirements. ga in f i n a n c i a l l y by the achievement of t h e p ro jec t ions , and these have been echoed by the government agency involved, hu t these a r e only p ro jec t ions . Perhaps they should be made independently of t h e energy indus t ry and the energy agency."

Many p ro jec t ions have been made by those who s tand t o

Response :

Energy p r o j e c t i o n s used i n the F i n a l Statement .are def ined i n Sect ion 11.2.3 and conpared t o o t h e r energy pro jec t ions . The range of energy p r e d i c t i o n s i n the F ina l Statement has been expanded t o inc lude a 502 decrease from t h e base pro jec t ion . ?lost of t h e sources referenced i n Sec t ion 11 would not ga in f i n a n c i a l l y by t h e achievement of a pro jec t ion .

22. Comment (p. 12) :

"If t h e r ad ioac t ive waste problem is ' r e a d i l y t r a c t a b l e , ' why does it remain unsolved?"

Response :

The near term waste management program t h a t has been adopted by t h e AEC f o r high-level waste calls f o r r e t r i e v a b l e ) su r f ace s to rage f o r safekeeping a s long a s des i red . w a s t e s t o r a g e problem. *However, .having a n e a r - t e h so lu t ion does not exclude 'searching f o r p o t e n t i a l l y b e t t e r s o l u t i o n s f o r u l t ima te d i sposa l . A development program on d i s p o s a l i n geologica l formations is going forward, which would l e s sen su rve i l l ance and maintenance requirements.

This is a s o l u t i o n to t h e near-term


"Who i n su res the d ischarge system w i l l be w e l l designed?" determines what l e v e l of damage t o t h e ' aqua t ic ' environment a r e eco log ica l ly acceptable?"

"And who

V .25 -42

9

Response:

Each p l an t constructed must comply with NEPA, Federal, state, and loca l regula t ions and be subjec t to review by AEC regulatory procedures.

25. Comment:

(PO 13)

,"It seems inc red ib l e t h a t underground ( s i t i n g ] can be passed off because the technology does not e x i s t t o go from an 80 foot cavern to a 140 foot cavern. This is l i t t l e less than a f a c t o r of 2 i n linear dimension."

( P O 13, 14)

IlThe argument used t h a t seals, etc., needed f o r underground s i t i n g have not been demonstrated over a long term is r a t h e r in te res t ing ." should a l s o be noted t h a t the adequacy of long term above-ground s i t i n g leaves much t o be desired, and t h a t many seals leak."

"It

Response:

Section 7.2.6.5 i n the F ina l Statement (formerly 7.2.6.2 i n t h e Draft Statement) examines the pros and cons of underground s i t i n g as a means of mi t iga t ing adverse environmental impacts. The concept is not *'passed-offl'. t o fo r see whether t he n e t e f f e c t a t underground s i t i n g would be of g rea t e r or lesser environmental impact, as compared with sur face s i t ing ."


'I... the glowing words of p ra i se for the r i g i d AEC r u l e s , regula t ions , and inspec t ions must be viewed i n the l i g h t of t h e GAO repor t 'Improve- ments Needed i n the Program f o r t he Pro tec t ion of Special Nuclear Material', B-164105, Nov. 7, 1973. Numerous very se r ious def ic ienc ies i n the AEC rules and inspec t ions were found."

Response :

Section 7.2.6.5 concludes t h a t ' I . . .it is d i f f i c u l t

The GAO r epor t mentioned i n t h i s comment wae discussed i n the Draft Statement (page III-A-4), and is discussed i n more d e t a i l i n the F ina l Statement (Appendix 1V.A).


' I . . . r epor t s t h a t a few hundred kilograms of U-235 have already shown up missing a t j u s t one reprocessing p l an t ( i n Apollo, Pa.) are disconcert- ing. Some discussion of pa r t accoun tab i l i t i e s and penal t ies f o r f a i l u r e s would be appropriate."

V.25-43

10

Response :

This is apparent ly a r e fe rence t o an i n c i d e n t widely repor ted i n 1965 involv ing a d i f f e r e n c e between t h e bookkeeping account and t h e phys ica l inventory of about 100 kgs. The t echn ica l term f o r t h e book-physical inventory d i f f e r e n c e is "material-unaccounted-for" o r MUF.

Because the q u a n t i t y of nuc lear materials cannot be measured e x a c t l y , a d i f f e r e n c e between t h e book and phys ica l i nven to r i e s is expected t o occur , and accord ingly , a non-zero MUP is a normal occurrence. In a d d i t i o n t o measurement e r r o r s , MUP can a l s o r e s u l t from t h e phys ica l inventory no t r e f l e c t i n g q u a n t i t i e s of material adhering t o process equipment, o r from o t h e r unmeasured l o s s e s of t h e f t .

The MUF a t t h e Apollo, Pennsylvania p l a n t was generated dur ing t h e per iod f r o n p l a n t s t a r t -up in 1957 t o 1965. an AEC i n s p e c t i o n of t h e f a c i l i t y dur ing a per iod of l o w inventory. AEC concluded t h a t t h e MUP r e s u l t e d from underestimated q u a n t i t i e s i n d i s c a r d s and b u r i a l s and hold-up i n process equipment, p ip ing , f i l t e r s , etc.

It was i d e n t i f i e d as a r e s u l t of The

When observ ing a p a r t i c u l a r MUF value , t he b a s i c ques t ion arises, "1s t h i s a reasonable va lue , or is a p o t e n t i a l problem s i t u a t i o n r e f l e c t e d which j u s t i f i e s i nves t iga t ion?" The answer t o t h i s ques t ion could be based on an i n t u i t i v e p ro fes s iona l judgment without any formal evaluation. This can be accomplished, i n some ins t ances , by using c o n t r o l c h a r t s maintained on t h e b a s i s of an assumption t h a t p a s t exper ience i s a n accep tab le b a s i s f o r comparison, i.e., t h e pas t i s considered to be "In control ' ' . The most r igorous approach t o answering t h e ques t ion is by eva lua t ing t h e MUF i n t h e contex t of t he s t a t i s t i ca l propagat ion of t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s soc ia t ed wi th t h e measurements of t h e q u a n t i t i e s which a f f e c t t he material balance. The underlying r a t i o n a l e o f t h i s approach is t h a t i f MUF exceeds what can reasonably be expected t o r e s u l t from measurement u n c e r t a i n t i e s , an i n v e s t i g a t i o n as to t h e causes it3 warranted. The t o t a l unce r t a in ty which i s used as t h e basis of comparison is r e f e r r e d t o as t h e " l i m i t s of e r r o r of MUF" (LEMUF).

AEC amendments t o t h e Code of Federa l Regulat ions now provide cri teria f o r p e r i o d i c phys ica l inventory tak ing and statist ical MUF eva lua t ion t h a t w i l l prevent t he account ing p r a c t i c e s t h a t permit l a r g e MUF t o go undetected o r unevaluated f o r extended per iods.

The answer could a l s o be based on comparison wi th p a s t experience.

28. Coment (p. 16):

"Since t h e d iv id ing l i n e between t h e c r e d i b l e and i n c r e d i b l e acc iden t s is a r b i t r a r y , i t might be i l l umina t ing t o know t h e d i f f e r e n c e between a ' c r ed ib l e ' t h r e a t and a n ' i n c r e d i b l e ' th rea t . "

V .25-44

11

Response:

AB used i n the Environmental Statement, a ' c r ed ib l e t h r e a t ' i e -ant t o be one whose l i ke l ihood of occurrence is evident o r s u b s t a n t i a l , and an ' i nc red ib l e t h r e a t ' is one whose l i ke l ihood of occurrence is neg l ig ib l e . I n both cases, profess iona l judgment is used i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e assessment of c r e d i b i l i t y , t ak ing i n t o account t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by an adversary i n br inging a p a r t i c u l a r t h r e a t t o f u l l r e a l i z a t i o n , and o t h e r f ac to r s . Sect ion 7.4.5.2.1 of t h e F ina l Statement i l l u s t r a t e s t h e reasonins process involved i n t h e d iscuss ion of nuc lear bomb sabotage of a nuc lear f a c i l i t y . As s t a t e d i n t h a t s e c t i o n , t h e AEC recognizes an o b l i g a t i o n t o cont inue t o examine the f a c t o r s which e n t e r i n t o these judgments of c r e d i b i l i t y , and t h a t present judgments may change i n t h e fu tu re .


"No explana t ion is given why a l l of a sudden no new p l a n t s are b u i l t a f t e r t h e year 2020."

Response:

The year 2020 is t he s tudy cut-off da te .

Severa l comments poin t ou t t he use of more than one capac i ty f a c t o r used f n t h e Draf t Statement, Chapters 4, 9 and 10.

Response :

Capacity f a c t o r s f o r LWBR p l a n t s w i l l probably fol low a curve similar t o t h e "Base Loaded Plan t" curve i n Figure 11.2-36 of t h e F i n a l S ta te - ment. The c o s t l b e n e f i t ana lys i s uses t h e curve shown as descr ibed i n Sec t ion 11.2.3. p lan t . s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l ter the ca l cu la t ions s p e c i f i c a l l y referenced i n the cmmen t s .

The capac i ty f a c t o r is no t cons tan t over t h e l i f e of a The use of capac i ty f a c t o r s in t he range of 70% - 80% does no t

XI, Comment (p. 18):

"Table 10.3 success fu l ly muddles d a t a t o h i d e t h e po r t ion of t h e U. S. product ion t h a t is committed t o breeder (and LWR) cons t ruc t ion . It a l s o h ides the dependence of t h e U. S. on fo re ign materials production."

Response:

Table 10.3 i n the Draf t Statement shows t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of LMFBR material requirements t o t h e annual world and U. S, consumption of elemental mater- i a l s .

V.25-45

1 2

31. Comment (pp. 17-21) :

"[The negat ive b e n e f i t f o r t h e LMFBR s t rong ly sugges ts t h a t t h e breeder , as l a i d ou t i n the Draf t Statement w i l l be a f i n a n c i a l f a i lu re . " conclusion is based on estimates of increased c o s t s due t o ope ra t ion of LMFBRs a t 70% capac i ty f a c t o r r a t h e r than 80%.

This

Response :

There is no reason t o expect LWR o r LMFBR p l a n t f a c t o r s t o be lower than l a r g e f o s s i l p l an t s , a v a i l a b i l i t y of Lw[?s is comparable t o t h a t o f l a r g e coa l - f i red p l a n t s , a l though not as good as t h e expected 80% p l a n t f ac to r . a b i l i t y of LWRs is expected t o improve wi th experience and wi th f u r t h e r implementation of s t r i n g e n t q u a l i t y assurance programs. S imi l a r ly , w e are conf ident t h a t c a r e f u l design and thorough q u a l i t y c o n t r o l w i l l l e ad t o LMFBR p l a n t s which w i l l ope ra t e a t high p l a n t f a c t o r s .

Current experience i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e

The a v a i l -

The "extra cos t" a s soc ia t ed wi th l o w p l an t f a c t o r is properly computed by t h e "replacement energy'' cos t . e l e c t r i c i t y is cont r ibu ted by c o s t s of t ransmission and d i s t r i b u t i o n , meter reading, etc. is s e n s i t i v e t o p l an t fac tor . f a l l i n the range 5-10 mills/kwhr (0.5 - 1 cent/kwhr). t h a cost-benef i t ana lys i s are i n cons tan t , mid-1974 d o l l a r s . computed using the capac i ty f a c t o r f o r curves descr ibed i n Sec t ion 11.2.3).

Therefore , i f a power p l an t experienced a p l a n t f a c t o r of 70% i n s t ead of 80%, replacement energy purchased a t 1 centlkwhr would reduce revenues by $8.7 mi l l i on a t most, not $26 mill ion. W B R cannot l o g i c a l l y be expected t o ope ra t e a t a lower p l a n t f a c t o r than t h e LWR or foss i l - fue led p lan t . Thus, t he bene f i t . t h e d i f f e r e n c e between parer c o s t with and without t h e LMFBR, would no t be drast ical ly reduced by t h e p l a n t f a c t o r reduct ion assumed above.

32. Comment (pp. 21-23) :

About ha l f of t he sales p r i c e of

Fur ther , only p a r t of t h e genera t ion p l a n t cos t Today, replacement energy c o s t s t y p i c a l l y

( A l l c o s t s i n Costs are

Furthermore, t h e

"Pages 11.2-20 and 21. For reasons ou t l ined above, most of these conclusions are imaginary and w i l l undoubtedly never be rea l ized .

The unquant i f iab le b e n e f i t s on p. 11.2-21 are equal ly fanciful . ' '

Below are comments numbered t o co inc ide wi th t h i s page.

1. Our resources are scanty , bu t r ac ing to drag them ou t of t h e ground w i l l no t j u s t i f y e f f i c i e n t use,

2.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9 .

V.25-46 n

13

Is it necessary t h a t a premium market be es tab l i shed f o r plutonium from LWRs? be purchased a t a premium pr ice?

Is it necessary t o the economics of LWRe t h a t plutonium

That the "v i r tua l ly limitless supply of economical e l e c t r i c i t y " w i l l r e a l l y be economical has y e t to be established. reasons fo r s e r ious doubts.

There are good

Same as above (4).

I n r e a l i t y , c o d combustion w i l l grow even with t h e W B R , a8 shown in Figures 9.1-2, 9.1-3. This statement, without considerable q u a l i f i c a t i o n and explanation, m u s t be considered f a l se .

Could not a l l these facilities be put to more humane uses thaa J u s t grinding ou t moneymaking machines to overcharge the poor and undercharge the indus t r i e s f o r t h e i r energy?

It has ye t to be shown t h a t any commodity of fe red a t an economical p r i c e encourages t h r i f t and conservation. obsarved.

Qui te the opposite is

The massive increase i n energy usage w i l l d r a in t h e underdeveloped count r ies , among o the r s , of t h e i r resources, which w i l l aggravate world tensions. The l a r g e scale U.S. usage means those resources w i l l not be ava i l ab le to poorer count r ies because the U.S. can pay premium pr ices with minor d is rupt ions , while poor count r ies cannot pay premium pr i ces f o r raw materials without major economic complica- t ions. ge t t i ng poorer. I n d u s t r i a l development is needed t o a f a r less ex ten t i n many count r ies than food development. t h e Draft m u s t be considered l a rge ly false.''

It is t he old s t o r y of t he r i c h ge t t i ng r i c h e r and t h e poor

This statement ia

Response:

The quan t i f i ab le conclusions follow from t h e r e s u l t s described in Section 11.2.4 based oa the assumptions i n Section 11.2.3.

The unquantifiable bene f i t s are not as suscept ib le to numerical evaluation as the c o s t s and bene f i t s ou t l ined i n Section 11.2.3 of t he Draft Statement. Horaever, t he po ten t i a l bene f i t s are i d e n t i f i a b l e with e a r l y in t roduct ion of the breeder. with the advantageous s a f e t y and environmental f ea tu re s of the breeder i n t o Section 11.2.

The Fina l Statement summarizes the unquantifiable bene f i t s

Responses t o each of your comments on the "unquantifiable" bene f i t s follows, under the numbering scheme used i n your comments.

1.

2.

4.

6 .

7.

8.

9.

33.

V.25-47

14

The e f f i c i e n t use of uranium resources re ferenced by t h e conclusion r e f e r s t o the uranium'use curve of the p ro jec t ed nuc lear i ndus t ry wi th the LNFDR ava i l ab le . As shown i n the F ina l Statement , cumula- t i v e uranium use wi th the breeder is always less than wi thout t he breeder .

I t is probably no t necessary i n terms of the economic v i a b i l i t y of t he LWR i n d u s t r y f o r the LIJR produced plutonium t o have a premium market.

"A v i r t u a l l y limitless supply of economical e l e c t r i c i t y " is a p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t r e s u l t i n g from deployment of t he LNFBR. p o t e n t i a l f o r . t h i s b e n e f i t can be r e a d i l y d iscerned from t h e r e s u l t s of t he cos t -benef i t a n a l y s i s .

A l l i n t e r n a l sources of energy are now and w i l l be requi red i n the near f u t u r e t o be u t i l i z e d t o t h e maximum e x t e n t p o s s i b l e wi th in reasonable economic and environmental l i m i t s t o reduce the impact on t h e ba lance of payments due t o fo re ign o i l purchases. However, i f nuc lea r power wi th breeders is much more economic than f o s s i l fue l ed power p l a n t s a t a time when the nuc lear i ndus t ry is capable of provid ing the t o t a l e lectr ic power needs of t he Nation, it is reasonable t o expect t h a t f o s s i l power p l a n t s w i l l be gradual ly phased out .

The f a c i l i t i e s re ferenced are geared t o produce LMFBR technology which has a p o t e n t i a l t o g r e a t l y reduce t o t a l e lec t r ic power c o s t s through 2020. "undercharge the indus t r i e s " . Low power c o s t s can s e l e c t i v e l y b e n e f i t low-income groups who no t only spend a l a r g e r s h a r e of t h e i r income on energy but s t and t h e most t o ga in from economi- c a l l y a v a i l a b l e e l e c t r i c i t y as a b a s i c labor-saving resource .

However, i t can r e s u l t i n lower LWR f u e l cyc le c o s t s ,

The

This would not occur u n t i l after the t u r n of t he century.

UlFBR technology does n o t "overcharge the poor" o r

If nuclear powered electric energy o f f e r s a lower cos t a l t e r n a t i v e t o f o s s i l f u e l produced energy, t he f o s s i l f u e l s can be conserved.

Poin t 9 i n the Draf t Statement noted t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l coopera t ion based on technology exchange and economic i n t e r a c t i o n . I n d u s t r i a l development i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s does no t imply development of i ndus t ry which is unresponsive t o t h e i r need$. The indus t ry appropr i a t e f o r a developing count ry may be product ion of ag r i cu l - t u r a l equipment and f e r t i l i z e r .

Comment (p. 23) : / I

"Section 11.3 ignores the p r o b a b i l i t y of a s e r i o u s acc ident . " I' . . . the chance of a major acc ident is ... about 1/40 . . . I t

Response :

On page 4.2-158 of t he Draft s ta tement i t is c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t "accidents no t included i n the design base envelope should have an average recur rence

V.25-48

x 15

i n t e r v a l of a t least a thousand years f o r a l l nuclear p lan ts combined" and "the regulatory s t a f f uses the sa fe ty objec t ive t h a t t he r i s k t o the publ ic from a l l reac tor acc idents should be very small compared to o t h e r r i s k s of l i f e such as d isease o r na tu ra l catastrophes."


"Section 11.4.1 t o t a l l y ignores the questions fundamental to the whole energy problem. Who are these decision makers primarily responsible to? r e l a t ionsh ip ( i f any) between energy consumption and standard of l i v i n g as opposed t o standard of consumption or GNP?"

R e s pons e :

E l a s t i c i t y of energy demand based on goals and policy is discussed i n Section C of Chapter 8 i n t he Draft Statement. D r a f t Statement discussed t he projected economics of the LMFBR. Evaluation of t he LMFBR economics includes a comparison of power c o s t savings with government R6D cos ts . predicated on a r e spons ib i l i t y by t h e u t i l i t y industry to supply energy a t a rate cons i s t en t with h i s t o r i c trends. prudent planning cannot be based on a r b i t r a r i l y se l ec t ed energy demand goals. Q u i t e t he contrary, energy conservation as a technica l alternative and as an important v a r i a n t i n LMFBR incent ive is discussed in t h e F ina l Statement. e f f e c t s of t h e LMFBR as a v iab le opt ion f o r electric energy generation. There is no i n t e n t to e i t h e r exclude or understate t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r reduced energy demand.


"A number of sweeping condemuations of solar energy are made without the bene f i t of references. tors or of sea-thermal power plants." made f o r t he necess i ty of l a rge , cen t ra l - s ta t io ln power f a c i l i t i e s . "

Response :

A de ta i l ed discussion of the p o t e n t i a l of solar energy as an a l t e r n a t i v e technology option is contained i n Section A.5 of Chapter 8 i n the Draft Statement. Likewise, wind power, ocean thermal gradients, t i d a l energy and syn the t i c f u e l s are discussed i n Section A.6. Evaluation of a l t e r - native technology options i n Chapter 8 of t h e Draft Statement included considerations of po ten t i a l cont r ibu t ions t o small, decentralized energy needs (8.8. space heating and water heating).

Who determines what the "future energy needs'' a re? What is t h e

Chapter 11 of the

The respec t ive cos t s are

Responsible and

Energy conservation as an a l t e r n a t i v e has not been ignored.

The F ina l Statement evaluates t h e environmental

No mention is made of wind powered genera- "In addi t ion , no case has been

I

V.25-49

16

"The [uranium] s i t u a t i o n m y be cr i t ical even before t h e breeder 1s scheduled f o r introduction." i n i t i a l charge of plutonium on LWRs. of plutonium from t h i s source have been made."

"[The LMFBR] a l s o is dependent f o r Few comments on the a v a i l a b i l i t y

Response :

The Draf t Statement discussed pro jec ted uranium usage and plutonium product ion and usage f o r the condi t ions analyzed i n the cost-benefi t a n a l y s i s i n Sec t ions 3.3.5 and 3.3.7 of Appendix 111-B. As pointed o u t i n t h e Draf t Statement, cumulative mined uranium requirements are always reduced when the LMFBR is ava i lab le . Requirements of plutonium for i n i t i a l core loads of e a r l y W B R s can be m e t wi th plutonium produced by uranium-fueled LWRs. uranium and plutonium u t i l i z a t i o n i n Sec t ion 11.2.4.

37. Connwnt (p. 26):

"The impression is given [ in the f i r s t f u l l paragraph on p. 11.4-231 t h a t t he country has l i t t l e choice o the r than deploy thousands of y e t unproven breeders . I'

Response :

The quoted paragraph state8 an incen t ive f o r cont inuing t o consider t he LMFBR as a v i a b l e electric energy genera t ion option. cites the r e l a t i v e matur i ty of t he LMFBR i n comparison t o the cont ro l led thermonuclear r eac to r and concludes : ment of the breeder program while await ing an a l t e r n a t i v e technology e n t a i l s a cons iderable r i sk : breeder r e a c t o r s nor an a l t e r n a t i v e source."

The F ina l Statement descr ibes

The t e x t

"Thua, fo rec losu re o r postpone-

t h e Nation could end up wi th n e i t h e r


"That the AEC does not cons ider an a t t a c k [as ap act of w a r ] centered on nuclear f a c i l i t i e s t o be c r e d i b l e is appalling."

Response :

Sect ion 7.4.4.1 i n t he F ina l Statement d iscusses t h e v u l n e r a b i l i t y of nuc lear f a c i l i t i e s t o acts of war.

39. Comment (pp. 27. 28):

Effec t s of diminished and zero energy growth on LMFBR b e n e f i t s should be considered.

V.25-50

1 7

Response :

The Draf t Statement considered the e f f e c t s of increased and decreased electric energy demand (+, 20% i n 20201 on t h e LMFBR bene f i t s . a d d i t i o n the F innl Statement cons iders a case in which electric energy demand is decreased by 50%, i n 2020, i n d i c a t i v e of success fu l energy conserva t ion measures. "Exploring Energy Choices ,'I is e x p l i c i t l y referenced i n Sec t ion 11.2.3.

I n

The Ford Foundation prel iminary r e p o r t ,


"TO say t h a t nuc lear and f o s s i l f u e l s compete in t he market is na ive and r id i cu lous . It ignores t h e r e a l i t y of t h e $20 b i l l i o n o r so which the pub l i c has inves ted i n f i s s i o n research , i t ignores t h e tremendous subsidy o f fe red t h e nuc lear i ndus t ry by the P r i ceAnder son A c t , and i t ignores t h e growing monopoly of c o a l , petroleum, n a t u r a l gas , geothermal, and uranium ore areas by the l a r g e s t o i l companies. I'

Response :

Nuclear and f o s s i l f u e l s compete i n t h e electric power genera t ion market today. f u t u r e c o s t t rends ( in cons t an t mid-1974 d o l l a r s ) of both f o s s i l and nuc lear f u e l s and p lan ts . Ris ing f o s s i l f u e l costs and l i m i t e d n a t u r a l gas s u p p l i e s are inc reas ing t h e compet i t ive advantage of nuc lea r f u e l s . The costs u t i l i z e d f o r f o s s i l and uranium f u e l s are based upon estimates to recover t h e f u e l s i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e i n d u s t r i a l f i r m engaged in t h e recovery.

The competi t ion w a s extended t o the year 2020 by p ro jec t ing

41. Coment (p. 29):

"This t a b l e [Table 111-B-4.41 n e a t l y summarizes t h e inexcusably low c a l i b e r of i n p u t da t a i n t h e entire Dra f t Statement. Not on ly does t h i s t a b l e ignore t h e r e a l i t y of r e a c t o r c o s t e s c a l a t i o n s , which can and normally do double over t h e cons t ruc t ion per iod , bu t it assumes i n i t i a l c o s t s which are lower by a cons iderable margin than today 's es t imated costs."

Response :

A l t e r n a t i v e genera t ing p l a n t types are compared i n t h e cos t -benef i t a n a l y s i s on t h e b a s i s of cons t an t , mid-1974 d o l l a r s . I n a d d i t i o n , all p l a n t s e l e c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s over t h e l i f e t i m e of t he s tudy are compared on t h e b a s i s of present worth value. c o s t s i n c u r r e n t d o l l a r s would inc rease f o r a l l p l a n t s as a func t ion of t i m e .

As you i n d i c a t e , cons t ruc t ion

The mid-1974 c a p i t a l c o s t s i n t h e Draf t Statement are c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e raw d a t a which you re ference . 1981 would be about $560/k# comparable t o your f i g u r e of $550/)cw f o r t he Limerick Station.

The c u r r e n t d o l l a r c o s t of an LWR i n

The c o s t is composed of $420/kw i n mid-1974 d o l l a r s

V 25-51

18

wi th a n a d d i t i o n $140/kw due t o e s c a l a t i o n dur ing cons t ruc t ion . l a r l y , 1981 c a p i t a l c o s t s f o r an HTGR would be about $560/kw. about 15% lover than t h e $645/kw c o s t you quote f o r t he Ful ton S ta t ion .

However, t he economies of scale between a 1160 MWe p l a n t (Fulton) and t h e 1300 MWe p l a n t s @ r a f t Statement assumed capac i ty ) would decrease the Ful ton c o s t t o about $590/kwe. $560/kwe implied by Table 111-B.4-4.

Reduction of cons tan t d o l l a r c a p i t a l c o s t s due t o t h e " learn ing curve" of a r e l a t i v e l y new indus t ry are explained f u l l y i n Sec t ion 11.2.4.2 where your comments are referenced.

Simi- This is

This is on ly 5X higher than t h e


" I n t e r e s t i n g l y , [Sec t ion A of Chapter 81 con ta ins no mention of heavy- water moderated r e a c t o r s , as the CANDU r e a c t o r s of Canada."

Response :

As s t a t e d i n The Perspec t ives s e c t i o n of Sec t ion 6 i n t h e F i n a l Statement , "...energy systems which may have a p p l i c a t i o n i n o t h e r coun t r i e s wi th d i f f e r e n t economic s t r u c t u r e s , and which have been considered b u t bypassed i n t h e United S t a t e s i n favor of o t h e r energy product ion systems, are no t discussed.. ." Please see t h e Perspec t ives s e c t i o n f o r f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n of t h i s po in t .


"The poss ib l e b e n e f i t s of t h e fus ion process dwarf those imagined b e n e f i t s of any form of t h e f i s s i o n process , burner or breeder . money requested f o r t h e breeder on fusion?"

Response :

There is no guarantee t h a t fusion vi11 ever be a v i a b l e electric energy gene ra t ion source , thus t h e r e is obviously no guarantee t h a t fu s ion w i l l be a v a i l a b l e i n time t o prec lude t h e LMFBR. f o r e c l o s u r e of t h e W B R op t ion based on the promise o'f e a r l y fus ion development is n o t commensurate wi th r e spons ib l e , prudent planning to meet the Nat ion 's energy needs,

Why no t spend t h e

A s ' s t a t e d previous ly ,


"For in s t ance , t h e s e c t i o n [C.6 of Chapter 81 ignores t h e in f luence of u t i l i t y company rate s t r u c t u r e s and promotional p r a c t i c e s on consumption pa t t e rns . This thereby assumes t h a t consuming p a t t e r n s o r i g i n a t e from a spontaneous demand wi th t h e publ ic .

Response :

This is an u t t e r falsehood."

Sec t ion 11.2 of t he F ina l Statement d i scusses the in f luence of rates on electric energy demand.

liquid metal fast breeder reactor program (proposed final environmental statement)(volume v -...

Documents

t i o n

aec response t o w i

aec response t o hami

aec response t o gaylord

t u r e

n t e r n

t o n treadway

aec response t o velmar